Fri, November 26th, 2004 by MattB
The Luminous Landscape has a field test of the new Epson R-D1. A bizarre cooperation between Seiko Epson and Cosina Voigtlander, at $3000 for 6 megapixels and almost no bells & whistles whatsoever, I personally find it hard to imagine they're going sell even half of the rumoured 10,000 product run. But, even though it doesn't make any sense at all, I want one. I just can't help it. Somebody slap me.
New server!
November 26th, 2004 at 2:05 pm
SLAP!!
November 26th, 2004 at 2:14 pm
~if Jim's did not sting enough...*slap, slap*~
p.s. I'd dish out $3k for a Leica though, and I am accepting donations to make that a reality
November 26th, 2004 at 2:25 pm
Oh... my... god... it costs three grands. -_-
November 26th, 2004 at 3:11 pm
I think it only makes sense if a) you already have a bunch of Leica mount lenses or b) you want rangefinder focusing, but digital capture. If that's your situation, what other option do you have?
BTW, I think they'll sell all 10,000 easily.
November 26th, 2004 at 9:20 pm
it's not even full frame. if it was full frame i'd be lusting. i'm glad they did it though. that cosina guy is on a mission to save the rangefinder and bring it to the masses.
the funniest thing about this camera is, you need to wind it to cock the shutter. it has a winder! hahahaha
bah. slapslapslap. it's dorky.
i've read that leica is working on something that might be interesting.
November 27th, 2004 at 2:41 am
You have to wind it? Hahaha, that really is perfect!
Leica have the digital back coming out right? That's like $3500 by itself I think.
November 27th, 2004 at 5:05 am
ah... you kids just don't understand
If you've ever used a leica, you'd understand what this camera is all about. its an attempt to give you the same experience as a leica rangefinder, but with digital. nothing on the market even comes close to this right now.
The important thing here is the leica glass... interchangable lenses... compact size, etc.
Sure the major complaint on this unit is the 1.5 maginification - since the widest leica lens that would work on this is a 21mm, you barely get a decent wide angle -- although there are voigtlander lenses that are wider.
The winder is a dorky item for sure... but dorky in a camera geek kind of way.
November 27th, 2004 at 10:36 am
seems silly to have a digital rangefinder? no?
November 28th, 2004 at 3:15 pm
I LOVE this camera! But there's no way I could afford it.
The winder is a bit dorky, and it would have been wise to make it optional (perhaps it is...?).
Jim, why is it silly to have a digital rangefinder? If one LIKES using a rangefinder then why not digital? The only difference is that the medium is digital, not film -- the use of the camera stays the same as one likes.
Personally, I prefer looking through a viewfinder to looking at the LCD monitor. Unfortunately, the viewfinder on my Nikon CP 5400 is pretty lame. It is miles from full frame, for one thing, and it gives absolutely no information. I'd like to be able to see what my shooting mode, ISO, and other importand factors are -- IN THE VIEWFINDER. I assume the Epson R-D1 does that...
November 28th, 2004 at 8:29 pm
Id love to have one if I lived in a big city, and street style photos were my everyday passion. The camera has massive potential, but years to come before its fully realized I think. It is something the digital world has seemed to skip, but we owe oh so much to the rangefinder
November 29th, 2004 at 4:19 am
Yeah, I understand the rangefinder allure. I've got an M6 and it's a whole other world when compared to SLRs or anything digital. And although it costs $3000, the Epson will soon be the didigtal rangefinder for the rest of us - Leica's working on a digital M7. I'll be surprised if it costs less than twice as much.
November 29th, 2004 at 8:55 am
true its not that I think its silly, I shall rephrase...what I meant was that if I was to get a high end digital I think an SLR digital would be better for me, I just kind of see rangefinders as a film camera, with it being fully manual etc.
sorry to confuse
November 29th, 2004 at 11:12 am
I personally will never ever care one way or another about digital rangefinders.
November 29th, 2004 at 11:34 am
Oh and RE : the mystique of shooting a leica...
I feel just about as mysterious shooting my M6 as I do shooting my 60 dollar canon FT.
November 29th, 2004 at 2:10 pm
i feel just as mysterious watching food network in my boxer shorts as ross feels shooting his m6.
November 29th, 2004 at 3:52 pm
ian and i are on the same page.
November 29th, 2004 at 4:06 pm
Hopefully there will be other digital RF's, with all the cool optics they bring along to the Leica-mounts. The more the better. Even if one isn't interested in the purchase of a digital camera, it's good to have new lenses coming out. It will still fit your old film cam and with rangefinders the threat of an EF-s mount situation isn't as likely.
November 29th, 2004 at 7:21 pm
nobody will ever be rushing out to make leica mount lenses just because there are a few digital rangefinders.
and even if that happened, i'm not too excited about the idea of throwing a tamaron on my M6.
November 29th, 2004 at 9:23 pm
that's because you are a snob, ross. me? i can't wait to get my quantaray - tech-10 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 high speed auto focus zoom for leica.
that is going to make my m3 so much more... effecient.
November 30th, 2004 at 12:54 am
why you gotta be like that?
November 30th, 2004 at 2:39 pm
Cosina and Carl Zeiss are making 7 new lenses for the coming film-Ikon. Then there's the current Voigtländer/Cosina line-up. I don't think these will sell less, if there's 2 or 3 digital RF's coming out. That's what I was getting at, not RF lenses made by Tamron. God forbid!
December 1st, 2004 at 4:40 pm
A few thoughts about the R-D1
1. I think it's a great idea to produce a digital camera that rangefinder/manual-lovers can use with their loved L or M lenses. I've a Bessa-R and I love it, it's a challange to work with it, but a rewarding one.
2. The camera is just too expensive, compared to current digital SLRs. I think, 6 megapixels are not enough (min. 10M needed), a full frame chip would be much better and they have to produce it with a more powerful buffer.
3. I think Epson made a good decision to put its name into photo-history books with the R-D1, and possibly needed this image-enhancement more than getting back their investment right away. (I think they will get back their money, eventually) Maybe this camera is for collectors and enthusiast with enough money...a $ 3000 price-tag makes it more unique and it stands out of the crowd, and my opinion is that htey are not concerned about pure selling volume here...later they will.
4. I hope by the time Leica presents its Digital M (probably in 2006), Epson/Cosina will have the RD-2 ready..cheaper, improved, the same classic design, analog gauges, 10M...everything or almost everything that the leica would offer but for third price...as it happened so far.
5. Hopefully Zeiss, Konica, Rollei and maybe Canon and Nikon will get into this segment and make dow-to-earth, well made, sturdy, puritan cameras that a true professional can use with joy and a beginner can learn the trade with.
6. I'm not against Leica, they make great cameras and lenses. The other side is that we pay with our money for our equippment. Any company in any field that builds its business on its beatiful past, famous name or anything else and not its technology, products, costumer service, price/quality quotient is in danger that people who are not influenced by slogans and marketing ideas will not buy their products. (I'm not talking about Leica here and don't want to hurt any Leica-owner's sensitivity. Also, english is not my first language)
Any opinions?
Miklos
December 2nd, 2004 at 8:58 am
hey miklos,
i have a couple of opinions.
opinion #1: you never need to use the 'english is not my first language' disclaimer again. you have a finer command of the written language than 70% of the u.s.
opinion #2: hoping that other brands besides c.v. and leica will jump into the digital rangefinder ring is likely futile. this is very much a niche market populated by fondlers, collectors, technophobes, and snobs. not that i want to hurt any Leica-owner's sensitivity, understand.
opinion #3: that tea was good, i should get another cup.
December 2nd, 2004 at 11:24 am
I want this camera... It's a nice beauty... Hey, does someone want to donate one to me!?
I'm just a poor, sad college student! 
December 2nd, 2004 at 12:12 pm
will somebody give me a compelling reason to give a shit about digital rangefinders?
December 2nd, 2004 at 2:52 pm
seriously tell me.
December 2nd, 2004 at 11:37 pm
Ross, this is my take on it.
There are two parts to this equation 1.Digital 2.Rangefinder
First is the digi part. I don't know if you are a film guy or a digi guy. Each have their merits. Not to sound like a smart a$$, but if you don't understand why some people like digital at this point, I can't explain it to you. So that covers the digital part.
To show the appeal to a range finder, I'll describe my current shooting situation and why I would like a digital rangefinder. I shoot with two cameras: A Nikon D1H, a digital SLR that is a powerful photojournalists tool. Not very high image quality--but hey, I the images get printed on high-quality toilet paper. The higher resolution from a better camera largely gets waisted. It's responsiveness is pretty good. Shutter lag is minimal (could be better) and autofocus is fast as lightning and manual focus is as fast as the user is capable of using it. But it is big and bulky and because it is an SLR, the mirror gives off a loud slapping sound with each shot.
My second camera is a Nikon Coolpix 5000. It's 5 megapixel images are good enough for decent enlargements. It fits in my pocket. I can manually control my exposures. Shooting is almost silent.
Bad things: On autofocus, there is a shutter lag that makes shooting candids almost impossible. It has manual focus, but it is menu-driven by pressing the right combination of buttons to set the focus at a specific distance. Not very practical for quickly changing situations. Looking through the viewfinder to compose is horible. It feels awkward and doesn't give an accurate representation of what the camera is capturing. Basically the shooting experience sucks. Most the time I'm shooting using the LCD screen. I don't care for that in most situations.
Here's what I would love in a camera: Something that I can fit in a medium-to-large pocket, that shoots silently. I want a camera that is as responsive as a film camera. When I push the button I want the thing to fire imediately. I want to be able either autofocus like an SLR or manual focus by turning the focus ring on the lens. I want to be able to change the shutter speed by turning one dial and the aperature by turning another. I want a viewfinder that shows an accurate representation of what I'm shooting.
Basically I want a camera I can controll the settings quickly, while it is up to my eye. One with imediate responsiveness so I can react to the situation in front of me.
I think the people wishing for a digi-rangefinder are hoping for this kind of camera.
December 3rd, 2004 at 2:08 am
It sounds like size is really the only issue then..
I own both a M6 and a D70 and I don't have a pocket on any article of clothing that would hold either of them.
December 3rd, 2004 at 6:41 am
leica mount rangefinder = quiet, small, discreet, quiet, attractive, quiet, quality lenses available (cheap) from cosina/voigtlander.
as one who stalks people on the street regularly, hoping to interrupt them long enough to take their picture without them being afraid of me, i can say with relative assurance that older, smaller, more "classic" looking cameras are much more readily received than large modern SLRs, especially when wide lenses are mounted.
digital or not, rangefinders are more discreet.
a digital rangefinder would be immensely practical, but only if the image quality was good. this means, obviously, full 35mm frame.
December 3rd, 2004 at 10:43 pm
so it sounds like i DON'T care about digital rangefinders.
check.
December 4th, 2004 at 9:15 pm
ross you have tiny pockets. and you call yourself a photographer. pshaw. or wait, maybe you don't call yourself a photographer.
December 5th, 2004 at 4:12 pm
I call my self a photographer, but that doesn't mean I wear photog vests and cargo pants.
December 6th, 2004 at 12:27 pm
Make a digital back at about 8 mega pixels for the Leica Minolta CL. Then you might have a camera. And for under $1000.
December 6th, 2004 at 12:28 pm
Make a digital back at about 8 mega pixels for the Leica Minolta CL. Then you might have a camera. And for under $1000.
December 21st, 2004 at 11:58 am
Having just come back for a pilgrimage to New York City, I can tell you all that the R-D1 is selling just fine. B&H can't keep it in stock. Even at $3 Grand, I applaud Epson because they will easily sell all of the projected 10,000. But I didn't buy one, and I'm not too sad about that yet.
I am an amateur photog who likes his toys. I've got a Leica M6ttl and a Leicaflex. They sit on my shelf and get oohs and ahhs from visitors. I've also got a Canon 1D Mk II. This one remains in my camera bag, ready-to-use. For a long time, I rejected digital, but now it's all I use. The convenience of processing and finishing entirely by computer is astounding. All this is leading to one point: I've been anxiously awaiting the R-D1. Now that its here, I'll wait for the improvements in the R-D2.
Those of you holding out for the Leica digital back are foolish. Look at the R series. A 10 Mp digital back was announced for the R8 and R9 almost 2 years ago. A working model has been seen at Photokina. Do any of you know whe has one? I'll answer: NO! Why? Because it still has yet to be released to the public and when it does it will cost closer the $10G than $3G. Leica has also been claiming that a digital M is one the way. It may never happen. The R will be the test run, and when it has trouble selling, the M may get the boot. If they do produce the digital M, it will have to be full frame, quiet as any M in production, cost less than $10G (assuming they want shooters to use it rather than just collectors), and be out before Epson can do all those things for less.
The R-D1 is as loud as my 1D Mk II according to the available reviews. The Canon 20D is quieter (sorry Nikon shooters, my references are Canon based). That is unacceptable in a rangefinder.
The R-D1 needs to be higher in Megapixels. The rangefinder found its first home amoung reporters and photojournalists. Now it's home is with art photographers and some well-known photojournalists whose work ends up in galleries rather than papers. That means the current users have need for production higher than 6 Mp. 10 would be a good start.
And don't forget the full frame. In a format where 50mm lenses define a camera, a 50mm lens needs to remain 50mm. Canon was able to do full frame in 11 Mp, so perhaps I should amend my wish for 10.
One more thing... the digital rangefinder will have to handle low-light situations well. It's one of the rangefinder specialties.
Any company who could provide me those things in a $3000.00 package can have my money.
And one more thing
December 22nd, 2004 at 9:27 pm
I think if they could do away with the focal length factor and seal the camera like an SLR (my gear gets hammered with rain, seawater, sleet, concrete...) it would be a total lust object. Then again, it's one now - if an inanimate object could be a lust object.
Anyone know if that camera has any noticeable shutter lag?
December 24th, 2004 at 1:22 pm
Roderick,
The R-D1 is not louder than the 1DMark II by any stretch of the imagination. It is quieter than the 20D but a bit louder than the 10D and the M3 (for example). I discussed this in some detail in the review listed at the top of this thread.
Brian,
There's no shutter lag to speak of. You're absolutely right that we need a digital rangefinder with a sealed body as well as new sealed rangefinder lenses. I made that same point at the end of the review.
Cheers,
Sean
January 12th, 2005 at 4:18 pm
Hello, I have read all your comments to the R-D1 and I want to tell you how I feel with my new digital rangefinder.
I'm a photojournalist who has almost always worked in digital. But giving out all my money I bought a M& and some Leitz lenses. I have use my M6 for work maybe 10 times, because it's expensive, slow and papers ask you color photos anytime in the day and when you're in Sri Lanka and there's no more shops open it's hard to find film processor lab.
Now, I have buy the r-d1 even if I felt it was something that could have seem a toy and not a "working class camera".
The result is that I found out that I can really work with it, and more, I can finally use my Leitz lenses which had cost me too much for staying in my safe when I was 10000 km from home.
I am not the kind of guy who can pay 3000$ for a camera and leave it in a safe for show it to other collectors. I use cameras for work and the cameras have to work.
Using r-d1 is so confortable because is not intrusive. In some situations is better not to look like a "pressphotographer" and a small black rangefinder helps.
The quality is not good as my 1d mark II, especially the white balance, but I don't need 10megapixel files even when I shoot for magazines, and anyway the paper they use for magazines is so bad no one can see the difference between my canon photos and the epson-seiko ones.
Sorry for my english.
Dario
Rome
April 2nd, 2005 at 2:39 am
Guys, I think some of you are missing the point. The RD1 is a work of art in the world of digital SLRs. The simplicity, the attention to detail, and just the sheer balls to make something like this. Is it for everyone ?, no, its not meant to be. It wont out shoot the best Digital Canons or film Leicas. But it just may inspire the next Cartier Bresson or Robert Capa. The RD1 is like a beautiful classic automobile, no AC, no power steering quirky 4 speed transmission. Ive just ordered one, but then I drive a 1965 E Type Jaguar.
May 13th, 2005 at 12:16 am
Well, this is an interesting forum. I bought a G2 several years ago waiting for a full-frame digital body only to have Kyrocera pull the plug on Contax...
I just dropped some serious $$$$ on an M7 and sure the hell hope that a digital range-finder makes it into the Leica line that will give me the ability to use either film or digital and hopefully, learn a little about light.
The RD1 may not be for everyone, but there is a niche.
October 9th, 2005 at 8:02 pm
if i could afford one of these pretty things (i use a 15 quid FED3a with jupiter 8 & jupiter 12 lenses, which means my whole kit is worth about... 50 quid) i would be disappointed that its slowest shutter speed is only 1 second
December 7th, 2005 at 5:30 am
What can I say?! Had the R-D1 for half a year now. It's wonderful! No more hassle with having film developed and scanning it (I still have some 200 rolls left that need scanning!), on the fly changing iso value, wonderful colour rendition, good noise supression at high iso, compact, M mount... I couldn't ask for more. A lower price would be nice, though.
RML
http://shardsofphotography.blogspot.com/
April 15th, 2006 at 7:08 pm
Wow, you're all over the web with your blogs, but it's unfortunate that you're a crappy photogrpher
February 19th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Ross you are an ass.