LCT
ex-newbie
pfogle said:
I agree.
My success rate is better at f/1.4 now that i've adjusted my very slight vertical misalignment.
Best,
LCT
rvaubel
Well-known
Yes, I have a R3a that "pops". It is quite startling how clear it is. Although I claim my R-D1 is perfect, it isn't really because it won't "pop" because of a very slight vertical misalignment. But I'm afraid to fix it because focus is still spot on and I've heard to many stories of people messing with their RD's only to be plagued by drifting problems from then on. Leave well enough alone I quess. But I'm tempted.
Rex
Rex
S
Sean Reid
Guest
pfogle said:
Yes, I agree.
Cheers,
Sean
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
It scares me, that a new camera of such a price category needs homemade rf realignment.
Great post, Jim.
Great post, Jim.
S
Sean Reid
Guest
I understand what you're saying but to think of this as the rangefinder of a $3000 camera would be a little misleading. The R-D1 is based on the CV Bessa R3A, which is a $540 camera. The Bessa is designed for value and it is significantly less expensive than the other aperture priority options (Ikon at $1400 and M7 at $3500). Why did Epson go with Cosina? I suspect that it was the only option they had. No one in the world other than Cosina (to my knowledge) sources rangefinders, bodies, etc. for other manufacturers. It's no coincidence that the new Zeiss is also Cosina-based. Leica seems to be the only other major company in the world right now with the tooling and knowledge to make RF cameras. Others, such as Canon, could potentially do it from scratch if they wanted to but I've seen no evidence that they have any interest. If Epson hadn't been able to get much of this camera from Cosina, there would have been no R-D1. So the R-D1 has the RF of a $500 camera that was designed and built for value.
What made the R-D1 so expensive was the R&D time and investment that was needed to turn an R3A into the world's first digital rangefinder. All that investment, moreover, has to be recouped from the sale of just 10,000 units. The chronograph style displays all by themselves were likely pretty pricey to create and manufacture.
One could argue that perhaps Epson could have planned on 30,000 units selling for $1500 each (I'm just giving hypothetical numbers here, they're not from my sources at Epson). Maybe that would have worked financially and maybe not. At 10,000 units however, if the R-D1 had been based on a $1500 film camera, it likely would have cost $4000 instead of $3K.
The following is not official but my conjecture is as follows: Cosina manufactures their part of the camera and sends it to Epson with the rangefinder (supposedly) adjusted. We know that some Bessa film cameras come through with misadjusted RFs but it doesn't seem to be that many. Epson then needs to complete the manufacture and I suspect the body is subject to various forces during those parts of the assembly process. I wouldn't be surprised if many cameras go a bit out of RF adjustment during the "digital" part of the manufacturing process. I'll also bet that the cameras don't go back to Cosina before being shipped to dealers, etc. Ergo, unless the Epson factory has a facility to automatically check and adjust RF adjustment after assembly and before shipping (and I'll bet they aren't set up to do that), the units go out as is with the (perhaps faulty) assumption that they are adjusted as well as they were when they left Cosina.
Epson really needed to stretch themselves a bit to build this camera. It required tooling and facilities they don't have and, frankly, some expertise that had to come from Cosina. Leica, by contrast, has the knowledge and facilities to make sure that every digital M camera that goes out has a properly adjusted rangefinder. The Leica is also based on a much more expensive camera (the M7) and so the rangefinder components themselves are of higher quality. And...Leica has a dealer and repair network that knows M rangefinders.
So, if one looks at the whole picture with the R-D1, it's rather amazing that it actually came to be produced at all and (while it's dissapointing), it's not entirely surprising to me that the rangefinders on these cameras are often out of adjustment a bit when they arrive in stores. That's not to excuse Epson but I still am grateful that they produced the camera at all, even with the problems. They were daring and not everything has gone smoothly but at least they actually did it rather than playing it safe and not making production cameras.
I do wish, however, that Epson USA had taken my advice and set up with Stephen Gandy, Don Goldberg, etc. so that cameras that needed RF adjustment could be dealt with properly under warranty. I can't image that orchestrating such an arrangement would be very difficult compared to the challenges of making the camera in the first place. It should have happened. They expressed a lot of interest in the idea but they ultimately didn't do it.
Cheers,
Sean
What made the R-D1 so expensive was the R&D time and investment that was needed to turn an R3A into the world's first digital rangefinder. All that investment, moreover, has to be recouped from the sale of just 10,000 units. The chronograph style displays all by themselves were likely pretty pricey to create and manufacture.
One could argue that perhaps Epson could have planned on 30,000 units selling for $1500 each (I'm just giving hypothetical numbers here, they're not from my sources at Epson). Maybe that would have worked financially and maybe not. At 10,000 units however, if the R-D1 had been based on a $1500 film camera, it likely would have cost $4000 instead of $3K.
The following is not official but my conjecture is as follows: Cosina manufactures their part of the camera and sends it to Epson with the rangefinder (supposedly) adjusted. We know that some Bessa film cameras come through with misadjusted RFs but it doesn't seem to be that many. Epson then needs to complete the manufacture and I suspect the body is subject to various forces during those parts of the assembly process. I wouldn't be surprised if many cameras go a bit out of RF adjustment during the "digital" part of the manufacturing process. I'll also bet that the cameras don't go back to Cosina before being shipped to dealers, etc. Ergo, unless the Epson factory has a facility to automatically check and adjust RF adjustment after assembly and before shipping (and I'll bet they aren't set up to do that), the units go out as is with the (perhaps faulty) assumption that they are adjusted as well as they were when they left Cosina.
Epson really needed to stretch themselves a bit to build this camera. It required tooling and facilities they don't have and, frankly, some expertise that had to come from Cosina. Leica, by contrast, has the knowledge and facilities to make sure that every digital M camera that goes out has a properly adjusted rangefinder. The Leica is also based on a much more expensive camera (the M7) and so the rangefinder components themselves are of higher quality. And...Leica has a dealer and repair network that knows M rangefinders.
So, if one looks at the whole picture with the R-D1, it's rather amazing that it actually came to be produced at all and (while it's dissapointing), it's not entirely surprising to me that the rangefinders on these cameras are often out of adjustment a bit when they arrive in stores. That's not to excuse Epson but I still am grateful that they produced the camera at all, even with the problems. They were daring and not everything has gone smoothly but at least they actually did it rather than playing it safe and not making production cameras.
I do wish, however, that Epson USA had taken my advice and set up with Stephen Gandy, Don Goldberg, etc. so that cameras that needed RF adjustment could be dealt with properly under warranty. I can't image that orchestrating such an arrangement would be very difficult compared to the challenges of making the camera in the first place. It should have happened. They expressed a lot of interest in the idea but they ultimately didn't do it.
Cheers,
Sean
Last edited by a moderator:
lightwriter
Established
rvaubel said:
Yep, it's the one that loctite recommends for small screws. I used it on mine last November and have not had it move since.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
i'm not bugged by the price tag. I'm bugged by the little issue that you need to realign the rf of the camera when new out of the box. I bet they spent alot on R&D, i wonder why that did not cover the costs of such an " unimportant" detail like stability/precision of a rangefinder in a RANGEFINDER CAMERA.
You know it's a bit like, you buy a lamborghini for 200.000 (or whatever it might cost) and it has a volkswagen diesel motor, that needs some adjustments before you can drive it, because the price reflects the cost of the chassis design.
You know it's a bit like, you buy a lamborghini for 200.000 (or whatever it might cost) and it has a volkswagen diesel motor, that needs some adjustments before you can drive it, because the price reflects the cost of the chassis design.
LCT
ex-newbie
Pherdinand said:
The R-D1 defects are well known since the beginning, they have been reported in length here and on other forums, so those who took the risk to buy that camera are not scared by a mere screwdriver i guess.
Best,
LCT
S
Sean Reid
Guest
It's more like buying a Volkswagen that costs much more because it is the first hybrid compact car made. Those of us who did our homework knew that we were buying a $3000 digital version of a Bessa R3A. And I, for one, am very glad that I did. The percentage of owners who would buy the camera again is very high despite the frustrations.
Cheers,
Sean
Cheers,
Sean
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
i'm happy you're happy
It's just the idea, that a 3000 bucks camera out of the box needs realignment. Maybe i'm old style (although young guy) but i think a 3000 bucks camera of such capabilities should not need a realignment.
I understand *you knew* you were buying a camera with a weak and potentially misaligned rf, but that does not mean it's right to sell it like that.
I'm also not scared of a screwdriver, that's not the issue here.
It's just the idea, that a 3000 bucks camera out of the box needs realignment. Maybe i'm old style (although young guy) but i think a 3000 bucks camera of such capabilities should not need a realignment.
I understand *you knew* you were buying a camera with a weak and potentially misaligned rf, but that does not mean it's right to sell it like that.
I'm also not scared of a screwdriver, that's not the issue here.
pfogle
Well-known
Well, we can argue about what the R-D1 should be, but I quite like owing an original, and, in a way, a beta product.
Next year we'll save up and get digi M's, and look back fondly on these pioneer times
Next year we'll save up and get digi M's, and look back fondly on these pioneer times
LCT
ex-newbie
Pherdinand said:
Nobody says it's right Pherdinand.
Great of you to care for us though.
Best,
LCT
rvaubel
Well-known
I'm beginning to get a little misty eyed about my sweet little RD. Pherdinand is hurting her feelings. I mean, golly, she WANTS to be a good camera.
Rex
Rex
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
hey guys, no hard feelings heh?)
Lok, it's not your child i'm criticizing. Hell, i'm not even having a rpoblem with the camera itself! I have a problem with its creator
)Lok, it's not your child i'm criticizing. Hell, i'm not even having a rpoblem with the camera itself! I have a problem with its creator
rvaubel
Well-known
Pherdinand
You got to remember that this creation was the results of an unholy marriage of convienience between a father (Epson) who has abandoned, and a mother (Cosina) who seems ashamed. But the little tyke, with all its teething problems and no help from daddy and mommy, has managed to develop quite a following. Well, afterall, she is the only kid on the block.
I hope her feelings arent to hurt when her beautiful sister Leica makes her debut in the fall.
Rex
You got to remember that this creation was the results of an unholy marriage of convienience between a father (Epson) who has abandoned, and a mother (Cosina) who seems ashamed. But the little tyke, with all its teething problems and no help from daddy and mommy, has managed to develop quite a following. Well, afterall, she is the only kid on the block.
I hope her feelings arent to hurt when her beautiful sister Leica makes her debut in the fall.
Rex
S
Sean Reid
Guest
I truly am LOL!!! That is one of the funniest and truest things I've ever read about the R-D1. Boy, did you nail it. Except that the Leica is not her sister.
"unholy marriage of convienience between a father (Epson) who has abandoned, and a mother (Cosina) who seems ashamed"
That really is wonderful. No wonder we feel so protective of this thing.
Victor Hugo's history of the R-D1 as conveyed by Rex Vaubel. My daughter (herself a writer) asks (about Rex) is he a writer? If not, she says, he must read a lot.
Cheers,
Sean
"unholy marriage of convienience between a father (Epson) who has abandoned, and a mother (Cosina) who seems ashamed"
That really is wonderful. No wonder we feel so protective of this thing.
Victor Hugo's history of the R-D1 as conveyed by Rex Vaubel. My daughter (herself a writer) asks (about Rex) is he a writer? If not, she says, he must read a lot.
Cheers,
Sean
Last edited by a moderator:
rvaubel
Well-known
I didn't know Victor Hugo wrote "Cinderella". I thought Walt Disney did.
Rex
Rex
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
cinderella, isn't that just another grimm invention?
S
Sean Reid
Guest
It's not really a Cinderella story, IMHO, a bit more like Les Miserables with the R-D1 as Cosette (but very loosely so).
S
S
rvaubel
Well-known
I knew it! This site is littered with the bodies of English majors!
Rex
Rex