yanidel
Well-known
You must remember that we are not all professionals were IQ must be perfect nowadays to sell. My A4 prints (that I keep for myself mainly) would not benefit from a M8 sensor. Actually did the test with the same lens on both M8 and RD1 and sincerely, the lens is far more important than the camera to what I could see.
Personally, this is no question about devotion, but I just don't like DSLR. So the choice was between M8 and RD1. Yet I must admit the the RD1 got me pretty addicted to RFs, which is good news for the future I suppose.
Personally, this is no question about devotion, but I just don't like DSLR. So the choice was between M8 and RD1. Yet I must admit the the RD1 got me pretty addicted to RFs, which is good news for the future I suppose.
mynikonf2
OEM
I'm not trying to run down the Rd1 or those who made the choice to purchased one. What I am referring to is the fact that most new technology is over priced to start with. That includes any brand, make or model. When the next "new" marvel hits the streets some people, not all, start dumping the last new thing & drive down prices. This happens to everything we buy. Yet, some items of exceptional quality become collectable and rebound back in price. It's just an observation that I was referring to, that perhaps those individuals who want the latest are starting to dump the Rd1. If this is true, prices will continue to fall. No, insult intended to those who love the camera.
cam
the need for speed
so what are shooting on, leicasniper? what is your be all, end all camera? what lenses are the best of the best? what is the king of the hill (well, at least for this week)?
and, thank you. i am immensely enjoying my camera. i'm over the moon. and even if you don't think the R-D1 will be worth beans in the future, know this. i've enjoyed every minute. and i've got some mighty fine collectable lenses if i ever get in a pickle that should more than pay for the joy i may have wasted using this camera.
tomasis
Well-known
I feel the same as you. Rd1 would be nice backup camera if I buy another drf. But I didnt buy M8 due described reasons above in your post.
Leicasniper is cycling around outside. 6mpx iso 1600 is sufficient to print A4. Who prints A2 every day?
I rather believe that Rd1 will hold the price quite better than DSLR, because it is only other drf except M8 and offer unique features which M8 doesnt have and some people might quite like those too.
kshapero
South Florida Man
Happiness is a warm gun, bang, bang, shoot, shoot. - Compliments, the Beatles.
tomasis
Well-known
You are most "modern thinking" guy I have ever seen here in RFF despite your age
If you work as the advisor to Leica, it will take less than one week before the company bankrupts. Why? Because most customers are conservative.Did you know the "fact" that RF "died" when Nikon F came? Is it right? So I think it is unrealistic for you to expect something "modern DSLR thinking" here. All that is pretty much "dead" here
Don't you agree?You get certainly better feeling in the ever merging forum which calls Canon DSLR
They need your youthful energy to get new ideas for new innovations as to pack more pixels in the sensor to example, change brass to ultra light, deposable plastic.
Last edited:
Tuolumne
Mentor
People who buy on "spec quality" will dump any camera, R-D1 included, when the specs improve. People who buy on image quality own and love the R-D1 (like me!). The images were great 2 years ago when I bought mine. They're still great. And they'll be great in 10 years if the camera is still working then. Invidious comparisons notwithstanding.
/T
/T
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Well, I don't see how they can tell if it is old technology by looking at the print. Seems to me you would have to go to around 11 x 16 if not 13 x 19 to see the difference between 6MP and 10MP. Am I wrong?
I admit to wanting an R-D1. I came close to buying one, but got a D200 instead. "It's more practical," I told myself. "You can use all your Nikkors." But that hasn't stopped me from wanting an R-D1. There is something about being able to shoot digital with my Leica lenses that is still in my system. And something about being able to shoot with film-like habits (like I can with my Digilux 2). I haven't gotten that out of my system either. The D-200 is very versatile but all those menus . . . And all those chances to make a mistake. Color space, color mode, white balance, contrast, saturation, focus mode, blah blah blah. With the Digilux 2 I can check anything right from the back panel switches without wading through submenus. I haven't shot with the R=D1. Never even held one. But it's got to be more intuitive than a D200.
I wish Epson would clean up the little problems; maybe come out with an enhanced model (a few more MP?? More reliable rangefinder? Fix the hot pixel problem?); and maybe a better service policy, and a cheaper one; and better customer support . . .
Oh yeah. That's why I didn't buy one. After reading all the complaints, I got cold feet. Really, they ought to realize the value and importance of what they have created, and follow through until it is a success, rather than abandoning it.
kshapero
South Florida Man
Since I started this thread two more R-D1's have gone on sale. Get'em while they are hot. Normally I would feel threatened by this trend, but I am not.
Looks good to me.
Looks good to me.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
I have three observations, completely unrelated of course, to share:
1) I had an RD-1 but decided I like film better so I sold it.
//full stop//
2) obviously, a new dRF is in the pipeline. it has been said before, no other digital camera has held its value so well as the RD-1, and manufacturers have noticed.
//full stop//
3) If you want the next dRF, it would make sense to wait a year after release before buying.
Enjoy your RD-1, people! It is fun to use if you like RFs.
It makes sense to me that the prices will fall a bit, especially since a lot of cameras have had multiple owners. Actuation numbers are only approximate, since they can be turned off on. Buyers should look for sellers who give as complete a description (including history) as possible.
1) I had an RD-1 but decided I like film better so I sold it.
//full stop//
2) obviously, a new dRF is in the pipeline. it has been said before, no other digital camera has held its value so well as the RD-1, and manufacturers have noticed.
//full stop//
3) If you want the next dRF, it would make sense to wait a year after release before buying.
Enjoy your RD-1, people! It is fun to use if you like RFs.
It makes sense to me that the prices will fall a bit, especially since a lot of cameras have had multiple owners. Actuation numbers are only approximate, since they can be turned off on. Buyers should look for sellers who give as complete a description (including history) as possible.
Last edited:
JTK
Established
Wish I had one. I'd trade a couple of F1s and various lenses and a Century Graphic and an amusing Indian knockoff on Deardorff and some lenses and and....
But I wouldn't spend money for one. Just got an 85/2/M for Pentax K20D... an Epson-priced camera with no noise problems at 14.6 MP, dust and moisture sealed, and maximum-rugged.
However, I wouldn't bet on Epsons getting cheaper. I think we're looking at the bottom...but the repairs will get more and more expensive.
But I wouldn't spend money for one. Just got an 85/2/M for Pentax K20D... an Epson-priced camera with no noise problems at 14.6 MP, dust and moisture sealed, and maximum-rugged.
However, I wouldn't bet on Epsons getting cheaper. I think we're looking at the bottom...but the repairs will get more and more expensive.
Last edited:
jmkelly
rangefinder user
I didn't buy the R-D1 as an investment. If It really breaks - as in the electronics - I won't repair it. But so long as the repair issues are RF/VF or shutter, I don't see how the cost of ownership is any different from any other rangefinder.
Short of a major family finance disaster I have no plans to sell the R-D1, any more than I would sell my OM-1, or even my E-300. I could not get dollars for them equal to what they are worth to me.
And RE image quality: I'm certain that what defines image quality for me is not at all the same as how my dSLR-using friends define IQ. It's not that we are speaking different languages, it's more like we are different species. Our brains are different; we have no common points of reference.
Short of a major family finance disaster I have no plans to sell the R-D1, any more than I would sell my OM-1, or even my E-300. I could not get dollars for them equal to what they are worth to me.
And RE image quality: I'm certain that what defines image quality for me is not at all the same as how my dSLR-using friends define IQ. It's not that we are speaking different languages, it's more like we are different species. Our brains are different; we have no common points of reference.
JTK
Established
I wish Epson would clean up the little problems; maybe come out with an enhanced model (a few more MP?? More reliable rangefinder?
With Cosina? No hope.
Really, they ought to realize the value and importance of what they have created, and follow through until it is a success, rather than abandoning it.[/quote]
Epson only sells scanners and printers in order to sell pigments and paper. It doesn't seem like rangefinder users are commonly serious printers.
jbf
||||||
I think many of you are under-estimating 'image quality'.
examples:
http://www.fletchart.com/photography/
examples:
http://www.fletchart.com/photography/
Last edited:
georgef
Well-known
Akiva, sshhhhhh man!
Let the DSLR spec-race selling principles govern this: "sell your Xmp camera because the new X+mp camera is out"...I am looking for a second body
yanidel
Well-known
Akiva, sshhhhhh man!
Let the DSLR spec-race selling principles govern this: "sell your Xmp camera because the new X+mp camera is out"...I am looking for a second body
eh eh eh I was thinking the same, that is why the RD1 will probably never go below $1000, owners of one body will probably get a second one (I will) as a back up if prices get there.Roger Hicks
Mentor
Roger Hicks
Mentor
By the same logic, we'd still be using glass wet-plates (super fine grain, dead flat...) and not this new-angled floppy, grainy film stuff. Roll-film wouldn't stand a chance next to cut film; 35mm would be seen for the fraud that it is; and no-one would buy a digital camera under 20 megapixels, because a Kodachrome can deliver that...
In other words, convenience, size, price and many other factors are more important, to more photographers, than image quality. This is even true in advertising, where digital was adopted long before it could match a decent 6x7cm tranny, let along 4x5 inch. The clients preferred speed to quality.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Murray Kelly
Well-known
Jim Watts
Still trying to See.
I second Gid's sensible view entirely. I've had mine from new for over 3.5 years. It still capable of taking the same pictures now as when new. It is perfectly capable of doing what I ask and will probably be able to in 6 years time. If you prefer rangefinders for your style of shooting, but want digital capture, then the Leica M8 and the (discontined) R-D1 are still the only tools available. I think the secondhand price of R-D1's has held up well for a digital camera, but as I would not want to sell mine its of little concern. If the 'tool' does the 'job' well why change it.
It's good though that there are stil plenty of people like Leica Sniper who must have the 'cutting edge' in technology (whatever its merits with regard to better picture making) to keep the camera majors going. Most are struggling in the compact market now as consumers are saying my present model or my mobile (camera) phone gives me all the quality I need.
Last edited: