Epson RD1 Vs. Leica Digilux 3

[lennert]

For the last 2 years, I became very interested in Photography, I've been

shooting with FED 2 and 5b, Zorki C and other "Leica fakes". But now I feel I

want to have a good digital camera in addition to my old Leica D-lux.

As the M8, my first choice, is out of the question, due to it's price tag, I

started saving for a Digilux 3 (read: Panasonic DMC-L1).

Yesterday, I found out that the Epson RD1, comes around the same price second

hand, than the above mentioned Panasonic DMC-L1 new.

I know I'm trying to compare a DSLR with a RF camera, but I hope the DMC-L1

will give me a range finder feeling.

I know they both have good and bad points.

 

What would you do?

Are there people with both camera's?

All remarks welcome.

[.th]

i've never shot with the l1 so take my comment accordingly (but with a number of rf and slr cameras so i do know what i'm talking about - in general,-)

.. but the "rf feeling" is something that comes only with an rf, and not even by lowering the roof of an slr can give you that. these are fundamentally different designs, you either view your subject through the lens, or through the dedicated viewfinder.

 

i'm not sure if this is what panasonic/leica was flirting with when they designed it (or is it olympus who should get the credit for the design??), but an slr will always be an slr...

 

imo, obviously ,-)

[vivek iyer]

Digi whatever is an overpriced cam just because of the Leica label.

[Rob F.]

I understand the Digilux 3 is rather heavy and bulky. I think the R-D1 would be more to my liking. I've never held either, though, so, not to mislead, this thought is a combination of reading and of my imagination.

 

I do own the Digilux 2, which I bought used for $800.00. If you can live with 5MP, I can recommend it. I love the way it handles and shoots--like a "real" camera.

 

I also have the D-Lux 3 now. I find the IQ very decent for such a small camera! It, too, handles well. It's one of the few little P&S digis that let you pick your own shutter speed and aperture if you want. And it has raw mode, and also has a wide-screen mode that gives you a 10MP image! "Leica 3:2 format is around 8MP and standard 4:3 format is around 7MP.

 

A good thing about the Digilux 3 is that it has live view, which the Epson has not got. But after considering the price and bulkiness, I decided on a refurbished demo D200 instead, so I could use my Nikon lenses. But, again, it is very heavy--more so, I believe, than the Digilux 3. It was just the cheapest way for me to get into a full-blown DSLR.

 

So there are some observations from another film photographer who has been exploring digital.

[frederick_muller]

The joy of using the RD-1s is that one gets to use a lot of great Leica screw mount and M-mount compatible glass on a digital body. I think you will probably find the experience of moving from the cameras you have been using to an RD-1s relatively seamless and a lot of fun.

[david_glad_nelson]

http://www.photo.net/equipment/epson/rd1/

[godfrey]

The control organization is similar, but the L1 will be utterly different to the RD1 in feel as

it is an SLR not a rangefinder camera, with an SLR viewfinder, etc.

 

I owned Nikon SLRs and Leica RFs over a period of 30 years and like both quite a lot, but

I'd have to say I'm more comfortable with SLR cameras, which don't have the focusing and

viewing limitations of a mechanically-coupled optical rangefinder system. I like the L1

design quite a lot, but I liken working with it to be closer to what I used to have with my

Nikon FM/FE series cameras than to the Leica M cameras due to the viewfinder and control

organization. The RD1 would be a lot closer to the Leica M rangefinder experience.

 

Godfrey

[peter]

I have the L1 and its really quite a good camera - with a sensational lens. However, if I had been able to find an Epson RD1 at the same or similar price at the time I bought my L1 I am pretty sure I would have gone down the Epson route, in my case mainly because I already have a few Leica lenses (LTM and M) which I would like to use on a digital. The L1 feels rather like a rangefinder in use, in no small part to its traditional arrangement of shutter speed dial and aperture ring. It also has some nice features like the ability to shoot black and white in camera and the lens has vibration reduction. So its features or competence are not an issue. In fact I don't think I really would criticise the camera at all, but for someone who already owns Leica glass there would be no choice to be made should both options be open.

[g-man1]

Rd1 is a much better leica fake than a L1! Rd1 is the only option if you want a rangefinder; you can only get a rangefinder feel from a rangefinder.

[pa1]

Hi Lennert, I had an RD1 for 1 year and currently own the Digilux 3. The RD1 takes exceptional pictures using M lenses. A well focused picture from the RD1 will outperform the equivalent Digilux 3 picture everytime. RF focusing is intuitive for existing RF users, so you will feel at ease straight away - on that note however, the RD1 does suffer from RF misalignment, which can be corrected easily using a small screwdriver, but is fiddly and annoying, this may be an issue resolved with the RD1s. The analogue dials and shutter winder are a bit gimmicky/novelty but do their job fine. Battery life was average. My only concern was the overall feel and confidence the RD1 inspired, it felt fragile and so I did not enjoy taking it out often.

 

The Digilux 3 is a fine camera. Leica digital cameras that I have used (all except M8 and DMR) suffer from too much noise in low light situations. The Digilux 3 is the same, but also suffers from stuggling to focus in low light, so sometimes you'll be pressing the shutter til it breaks through the body, but the camera won't fire. The alt option is manual focusing, but when you're used to RFs this isn't very easy. The size and weight of the camera is good, it has a solid feel and handles well, but a more contoured righthand handgrip would have been a smart move. The lens is good with very good colour saturation - having compared my Digilux 3 shots against a D200 with comparable quality lens, the colours were more pleasing on the Digi 3, but in terms of sharpness both were on par, unless you like checking at pixel level. I have not found 7.5MP an issue either. Battery life is adequate, but noticeably less than most SLRs from Nikon/Canon.

 

The choice between these two cameras for me would be (1) very high picture quality with compromised build quality Vs (2) good picture quality with a flexible lens (it has a decent zoom). WRT price and VFM, you can get good deals on both in the second hand market. Neither option is perfect and depending on what you really want, an M8 may be the only option.

[kivis]

I have owned both (still own the R-D1). Both of them make me long for a MP.