Epson R-D1 in 2015? (nearly 2016)

[simon_gabriel]

<p>Hello!<br>

So, a few weeks back I posted in 'digital mirrorless cameras' about my possible purchase of a Fuji Xpro-1. My questions were along the lines of "I'm a Leica M6/Film rangefinder guy. Will I REALLY get that same feel with any digital camera?". <br>

A lot of you put some very valid points to me. I felt like I was already swinging towards the "no", and by the end I fully convinced myself to not bother with one.<br>

Since then I felt fine about just investing more time and money into film gear, after all the M6 has only been a few months and one lens with me and I love it to bits. But then I spotted an R-D1 body for sale on eBay...<br>

I always knew of the R-D1 but never looked into it much (having never invested too much time into digital camera research), but BOY! Was this what I was looking for in a digital (should I ever get one).<br>

So, I got pretty invested in researching the camera and really love what it stands for. But what I was missing was any information from people who use this camera in 2015. There are the obvious reasons why: People who like digital are commonly interested in quality advantages, and with the 6.1 pixel sensor being largely outdated, it's no wonder it has been left behind. But there's a lot, like myself who are interested in the functionality that is natural when shooting film.<br>

So 6.1 megapixels aside, the samples from the camera still make me excited. I'd still like to see some examples closer to my style of shooting (more contemporary street scenes - no people etc...), but you can't always get everything. But I can see how using this camera can be really fun for me.<br>

So, does anyone have any experience with the Epson R-D1? Looking for opinions from anyone who's a film shooter and have used one of these. As well as anyone who still uses one.</p>

<p>EDIT: Oh, also, I won the body on eBay for a good price. I'll be getting the camera regardless and using it with a Zeiss ZM 50mm Planar - I'm aware of the sensor crop etc... And am considering a Voigt 35mm - but if anyone has any lens recommendations to use on this I'll be happy to hear them!</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I haven't got the camera, and my experience with rangefinders is terribly limited, but as one that shoots digital and film both, just a generic remark. I think your drawing a distinction on what digital improvments carry that is a bit too limited. It's not just about the pixels - they do come in handy when you print very large, but if not, indeed 6MP can be enough. There are two other advantages to newer sensors that do matter more - and one especially in comparison to film.<br>

There are the improvements made to higher ISOs. Now, those may not be necessary for all, but personally, I like having the choice between pushed Tri-X (800/1600) or just plain, clean ISO1600 performance which looks like I used something like Delta 100 instead. But if you mainly shoot between ISO 100 and 400, it's a moot point.<br>

More important - the improvements in Dynamic Range. When overexposing digital, at a point things go plain hard featureless pure white, and that's it. Film handles highlights with much more grace. But this is an area that is improved a lot in newer generation cameras. I've had a Nikon D50 (sensor very similar to the R-D1, if not identical even). While its results can still look perfectly fine, in landscape scenes/city scenes with plenty sky, blown highlights are pretty common, in order to get decent detail in the shadow areas. It looks particularly ugy when that happens. <br />With film, far less issues like that, with my current DSLR (Nikon D700, by now also a 6-year old design) even less of a problem. There is just more wiggle room before those highlights clip completely.<br>

So, yes, interested in quality advantages, but there is more to that than just resolution. I can fully understant the attraction of a simple, functional camera (and it's why I generally prefer my film cameras), but in how much that can cover for the more harsh-digital look older cameras had (due to insufficient dynamic range).... for me, it wouldn't. YMMV.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Your experience reflects the huge interest in mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras (MILCs). Some some have an optical or hybrid viewfinder, but most have moved on to an eye level electronic finder. What they have in common is a small footprint and a sensor close to the front of the camera so that lenses like those used on rangefinder cameras can be used. Unlike rangefinders, MILCs aren't limited to a few, fixed focal lengths.</p>

<p>Blown highlights are not a necessary evil. Digital exposure should be handled like that of reversal film - expose for the highlights and let the shadows fall where they may. The difference is digital shadow detail can be easily recovered in processing, whereas in reversal film they are buried forever.</p>

[stric]

<p>Fujifilm X-Pro 1 is not a rangefinder camera. When I got mine I hoped to come close to RF experience. Alas, except for its looks, there is none. Now, RD-1 is the first digital RF camera, and if you can get a really, really, really good deal (for a couple of hundred of bucks or so) then get it. Especially if you want to continue experiencing RF photography. Another great benefit would be ease of use of RF lenses (Leica, Cosina, Zeiss, etc.) on this camera. Trust me, using Leica glass on X-Pro 1 is not so easy. In fact it's quite frustrating and it's rather difficult to focus without focus peaking. Aside from old tech, the biggest disadvantage for RD-1 would be the crop factor. Because of the small sensor size you're loosing some of the magic of the classic RF lenses that you want to use. But you'd face the same problem with Leica M8 or with X-Pro1. New digital Leicas are not getting any cheaper and Cosina, Zeis or anyone else for that matter still sees no interest in digital RF market, which is a pity. I continue to enjoy my MP and M6 Leicas. I had a chance to try Leica M-E and as terribly disappointed. I still use X-Pro 1 and it's actually a great little camera, but it's not a RF camera and therefore not a replacement for Leica. I really wish Zeis or Cosina could come up with a digital Ikon RF camera. That would be simply awesome.</p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>I didn't buy an R-D1 since I first had no cash and later Leicas to dream of.<br>

The Konica Hexanon 35mm f2 seems to be a quite decent performer. - I got mine "New old stock" but would have bought a really used one too. Having a 50mm & R-D1 to start with, I would probably ponder a 28mm (I know nothing about them) in case I could see that frame line conveniently. - I can't on 0.72x film Leicas. - According to reviews I would avoid an ultra compact slow "RF design" version of that focal length for digital IQ but I hope there are lens comparsions on R-D1 floating around the web to guide you somehow. Whatever doesn't play well on M8 might not be good for you either.<br>

The biggest price to pay for shooting an early camera today is RAW converting instead of getting sufficiently nice JPGs out automatically (based on my experience with Pentax *istD <-their very first and some later models).</p>

 

[Uhooru]

<p>Aren't the Fuji X 100 series a hybrid rangefinder? Or at least they have an optical finder along with the EVF. How do they fit into this discussion?</p>

[stric]

<p>Barry, all Fujifilm X100 series have both EVF and OVF. However, just like with X-Pro 1, focusing with OVF is a bit of shot in the dark. It's impossible to say with precision where the focus point really is. So X100 and X100S suffer from that problem. Now, X100T has a hybrid option that allow you to frame the image in OVF and if you wish you can focus manually and a small part of OVF would be covered by a tiny EVF that also you to see the focus point. This is not a rangefinder focusing we see on true RF cameras, but it's a smart solution and people seem to like it. There have been suggestions that Leica and Fujifilm should share technology so that we can see Fuji's hybrid finders incorporated in new Leica RF cameras. that way you don't need an exterally attached finder on the top of the camera that costs a fortune.<br>

However, it you are really not sure if Fuji OVF is a any good, you can always use EVF and get precise focusing. If I use OVF I make sure that I do it in f/8 - f/16 range so that everything is in focus. EVF I use when I need very precise focusing.<br>

Fujifilm X100 series is a great mirorless camera that borrow much of its looks from Leica. The size is great, it's light and I like the fact that it has OVF+EVF combination. However, you can't change lenses on it and it's not a rangefinder. If you can live without the last two characteristics, then this is another good option.<br>

I still think that Fujifilm X series are great cameras but they are not RFs and if you are looking for a real RF experience, then these will not sffice. </p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>Did that R-D1 arrive by now and are you getting along with it?</p>