r-d1 megapixel poll

r-d1 megapixel poll

  • 6mp

    Votes: 22 14.6%

  • 12mp

    Votes: 81 53.6%

  • 18mp

    Votes: 28 18.5%

  • 24mp

    Votes: 20 13.2%
  • Total voters
    151
aizan

aizan

Mentor
Local time
12:22 PM
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
5,185
i was looking at the r-d1 (again). the only things i don't really like about it are the "film advance" lever, the indicator dial, the viewfinder magnification, and most of all the megapixel count. but other than, it says WANT.
 
I owned a RD-1 for a short time. I enjoyed it, but thought sensor should have been a least 10 - 12 mp to be worthwhile.
 
The good thing about the 6MP count is that the pixel sites are larger, allowing the R-D1 to deliver a very good high-ISO noise performance. So I think a modest increase in pixel count would be enough. around 7.5MP is all you need to print at 7.5 x 10 inches at 300 dpi. Maybe they could achieve that by increasing the sensor size a little bit, let's say to the 1.33 crop ratio of the M8. That would allow a larger pixel count without having to make the individual receptors smaller. No one seems to complain about the R-D1 IQ even as it is, so maybe a big change is not necessary.
 
aizan said:
i was looking at the r-d1 (again). the only things i don't really like about it are the "film advance" lever, the indicator dial, the viewfinder magnification, and most of all the megapixel count. but other than, it says WANT.
Click to expand...


I actually liked the cocking lever, and the indicator dial. I wish the M9 has something like that ;)

6MP is well just a tad low, around 10MP would be sufficient for me.
 
it's fine the way it is...for me anyway.

if it were possible to add some mp without changing the look of the images then i would say up it to 12 max.
 
IMO, RD1S has only one problem with it - short RF base. Everything else if fine, even only 6 MP is not so bad, really. Sure they could make it higher, but even as it is it delivers great results!
 
My only negative is the RF alignment issue.

I suppose the film lever is a bit silly and could get annoying.
I have forgotten to wind on a few times.

I like everything else about the camera.
Of course you always want a better sensor, but the RD1s delivers very nice looking pictures....... and is a pleasure to use.
I love the ergonomics and layout actually.
 
i use 2 fast lenses on my rd1, a 50/1.5 and the 40/1.4 and focus has not been a problem so the short base is not a problem for me...maybe if a used longer lenses it would be.

i like the 'advance' lever.
 
I agree with a bigger sensor. I'd get one in a heartbeat.

I'd still contemplate getting one as it is though
 
Full frame at around 10-12 megapixels would be great and an update definitely worth buying. Even a smaller change in the crop factor would improve the camera a lot for me, but I do love the camera the way it is.
 
For me, I'd like a larger screen and a simplified menu as it is a little dated (too much button pushing). But for actually shootiing / IQ the RD1 is fine.
 
r-d1 files uprez well to print 8x10 or 8x12 at 240-300 dpi, depending on the subject. maybe even a bit bigger, if the shot was taken well at low iso. so for me, the r-d1's resolution is fine as is, since i wasn't using it for larger print files.

the only thing i didn't like about the camera was its inconsistent auto-exposure indoors in lower light, which is just when i like to have accurate AE. and to be picky, its short batt life (used to carry 4 spares - no biggie).

i agree with wallo, though. a 10-12 mpx full frame r-d1 would be fantastic. but we'd never see it at the same price.
 
I wouldn't change a thing about the RD-1. That "film advance" lever makes me laugh every time I charge the shutter! It's just so ridiculous I love it!! :D

But an RD-2 with a full frame 12MP sensor would be the bees knees! :)
 
Sold It

Sold It

Hi, at last i couldn´t bear sensor crop, short RF base, and the incapacity to deliver results as a film camera can.

Anyway I would say that a FF epson would be great thou,

bye!
 
aizan said:
i was looking at the r-d1 (again). the only things i don't really like about it are the "film advance" lever, the indicator dial, the viewfinder magnification, and most of all the megapixel count. but other than, it says WANT.
Click to expand...

The steampunk nature of the RD1 is one of its most endearing qualities. As for the viewfinder magnification, well it has none right? My images seem to print right good at 8*10, and that's as large as I can go with my home printer. Others complain about the camera's "crop" factor, but the crop factor only exists when we compare the RD1 to a 35mm film camera. The RD1 is a good picture taking machine.
 
I believe the pixel count here is not that meaningful, especially for the kind of photography I guess the r-d1 is most used for. I'd rather have 6 mpx with improved quality control instead of 12 mpx with the original quality control. My old r-d1 is still fine but my more recent r-d1s (bought as "backup") is already almost dead: when shooting above iso 200, you only get a Pollock's style of pixel painting... You really don't want to know what I mean...). More, I'd rather stick with a lower mpx if image processing/algorithm is not up to date.
What I'd really like is a better rangefinder mechanism: it is too easy to knock off alignment, fortunately it is easy to fix and I do it routinely but still...
 
aizan said:
...the only things i don't really like about it are the "film advance" lever, the indicator dial, the viewfinder magnification...
Click to expand...
Matter of tastes obviously. Those very features make me prefer the R-D1 over any other digital RF personally. Otherwise pixel count is of no importance if you don't intend to print A3 or larger. Take a 6MP cam like Nikon D70 or D40 and compare it to a 10MP one like Nikon D40x and you'll see what i mean.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top