Epson RD-1 digital rangefinder

[Guest Bob Eaton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have been using an Epson RD-1 with Leica Tri-Elmar (standard) lens for about a year, with excellent results. Why does this camera not suffer the same tingeing and banding problems as the M8 ? What does Epson know that Leica don't ?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[krimple]

I have been using an Epson RD-1 with Leica Tri-Elmar (standard) lens for about a year, with excellent results. Why does this camera not suffer the same tingeing and banding problems as the M8 ? What does Epson know that Leica don't ?

 

Bob,

 

Because it made the same comprimises that all 1.5/1.6 crop DSLR cameras make and avoided the wide angle issues (including having an IR filter).

 

I guess Epson's Q/C around image quality was stronger out of the gate--they were using Cosina's bodies but were an electronics company to begin with, and have developed scanners, digital cameras, and other imaging devices for years. However, I do remember several early issues with using the R-D1, including corrupted image thumbnails, lack of a good RAW converter on the MAC at first, anemic RAW converter support from third parties for most of the first six months, etc... A firmware update fixed the corrupted image thumbnails, and the camera got needed support from the industry in 2005.

 

I have an R-D1 and an M8, and am looking to sell the R-D1 once I get the banding fix from Leica in the new year. Epson's rangefinder is a great unit. However, the R-D1 suffers from lower battery life, and 6 Megapixels is on the border of what I want in image size, and it gives me less cropping options when I want a larger end image. I'll use it while the M8 is at Solms, but once it is back, the R-D1 and maybe the M6 TTL will go on auction.

 

Don't get me wrong, the R-D1 is a great machine and I love the manual feel. However, the image quality from the M8 is stunning, some of these issues notwithstanding, and the wider baselength rangefinder can resolve focusing more accurately for wider apertures (I can attest to that).

 

I can show many images where it has been a reliable partner, and yes, I can show you my banding issues in a New York minute. And I have never needed the second battery, except to make it convenient if I forgot to charge the first one after dumping at least four or five 1GB cards.

 

Leica has readied a hardware fix, and for the most part, we early adopters are stuck with that result. At least they have one, and the fact remains that once it was identified they shipped new cameras without the defect. My only complaint is that the several thousands that need fixing won't be swapped with identical cameras, but that we have to ship them to Solms and wait a month.

 

Ken

[Guest Bob Eaton]

Thanks a lot, Ken, your reply is very interesting and obviously well-informed. I shall wait a bit longer before ordering an M8, but certainly intend to do so.

I'm convinced that none of us should abandon film altogether. I belong to two Photo Forums and two Camera Clubs, all in East Anglia, and about fifty percent of members still insist on film-based slideshows at meetings, as well as digital projection including AV.

I do both, and you must not even think of disposing of your M6TTL. Together with the M3 and M2 it is one of the three best bodies Leica ever made.

 

Bob

[krimple]

Bob,

 

I hear what you are saying. I just have too much equipment and want to use what I own.

 

I vascilate between ditching film altogether and going back to medium format. I did a fair amount of shooting with a Mamiya 6 a few years back because developing and scanning 120 film was much easier for me. The problem was the overall size of the camera, so the M6 was my film compromise. I just don't shoot with it much.

 

35mm film takes too much of my time, and I have a dozen B&W rolls of HP5 laying around exposed waiting for me to develop them. Plus, the scan quality on my 120s' was a cut above 35mm film scans, so it took me less work overall to get the image quality I was looking for.

 

Now, if I had a wet darkroom I'm sure my opinion would be different. Or if I shot slides. I haven't shot color film in about two years.

 

Ken

[sean_reid]

Bob,

 

I hear what you are saying. I just have too much equipment and want to use what I own.

 

I vascilate between ditching film altogether and going back to medium format. I did a fair amount of shooting with a Mamiya 6 a few years back because developing and scanning 120 film was much easier for me. The problem was the overall size of the camera, so the M6 was my film compromise. I just don't shoot with it much.

 

35mm film takes too much of my time, and I have a dozen B&W rolls of HP5 laying around exposed waiting for me to develop them. Plus, the scan quality on my 120s' was a cut above 35mm film scans, so it took me less work overall to get the image quality I was looking for.

 

Now, if I had a wet darkroom I'm sure my opinion would be different. Or if I shot slides. I haven't shot color film in about two years.

 

Ken

 

The R-D1 is a great camera but, in fact, it is sensitive to IR as well but to a lesser extent than the M8. The compromise with the Epson design is that it uses a smaller sensor and also allows much more vignetting when certain wide angle lenses are mounted. It also uses an AA filter and so suffers less from moire but creates much softer files than the M 8.

 

The fact that R-D1 has not suffered from problems with banding and the like owes, I believe, to Epson's expertise and experience with building digital devices, as Ken has suggested.

 

I own both.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[barjohn]

The R-D1 is a great camera but, in fact, it is sensitive to IR as well but to a lesser extent than the M8. The compromise with the Epson design is that it uses a smaller sensor and also allows much more vignetting when certain wide angle lenses are mounted. It also uses an AA filter and so suffers less from moire but creates much softer files than the M 8.

 

The fact that R-D1 has not suffered from problems with banding and the like owes, I believe, to Epson's expertise and experience with building digital devices, as Ken has suggested.

 

I own both.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Sean, can you explain to a newbee why an AA filter leads to less sharpness? How does that differ from putting an IR filter infront of the lens? Maybe Leica should build lens with built in IR filters for digital if this is a common digital problem. Finally, the Canon 5D and other high end cameras appear to produce very sharp files without the IR problem and I believe they use an AA filter so how do they do it? Thanks.

[Guest magyarman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Canon 5D and other high end cameras appear to produce very sharp files without the IR problem and I believe they use an AA filter so how do they do it? Thanks.

 

This becaus people who understand entirely digital processus. Some people want from RAW file to see it right away sharp, ban ban ban make it print. This people dont now if no AA filter than get moire, also need fix up with softaware and this take away some qualitat also. Is many way to get print from digital camera, all is some good oba also some bat things inside. Proof, that is print. If print is good, if print is sharp, dont matters nothing other what is was processus goes before.

[Riley]

Finally, the Canon 5D and other high end cameras appear to produce very sharp files without the IR problem and I believe they use an AA filter so how do they do it? Thanks.

 

If your read Canon's patent literature, you find that the main purpose of the DIGIC chip is to improve the native defects of the CMOS sensor. It has had to some degree issues of its own, still remaining are soft peripherals with otherwise sharp wide lenses, something canons dont do well.

 

Riley

[sean_reid]

Sean, can you explain to a newbee why an AA filter leads to less sharpness? How does that differ from putting an IR filter infront of the lens? Maybe Leica should build lens with built in IR filters for digital if this is a common digital problem. Finally, the Canon 5D and other high end cameras appear to produce very sharp files without the IR problem and I believe they use an AA filter so how do they do it? Thanks.

 

An AA filter is specifically designed to slightly soften the image cast by the lens. I'm travelling and regret that I don't have enough time now for a fuller response but it would interesting, I think, for you to Google "AA filter", anti-aliasing filter, etc. for background info.

 

Moire is directly related to system resolution (lens + camera) in relationship to fine repeated (patterned) subject detail. The AA filter reduces the system resolution with respect to the rendering of fine detail.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[barjohn]

Sean,

I took your advise and did a google search. Interestingly I brought up an article by Kodak that makes the sensor used in the M8. Here, they make it sound like either an IR or AA filter improves sharpness rather than degrades it:

 

How to Identify an Infrared Filter vs. an Anti-Aliasing Filter

 

12 June 2006

 

 

You must use either an infrared (IR) filter or an anti-aliasing (AA) filter to achieve sharp, in-focus images. An infrared filter rejects strong infrared light while it protects the image from color errors and desaturation without losing ISO speed. An anti-aliasing filter performs the infrared functions and reduces scene aliasing and moire.

 

You can mount an AA filter in place of the IR filter for certain types of photography, such as portraiture.

 

This seems to be the opposite of what you and others are saying that the filters reduce sharpness. I can see what Kodak is saying as it applies to auto-focus systems that could be fooled into focusing on the IR illumination rather than the visible light but not when manual focusing is taking place with the human eye since we don't see infrared.

[Riley]

there is a focus shift with purely IR light

given that, i think it means that in order to retain focus

you need the IR or AA filter

 

I have suspected all along that this foray into the edges of IR is a quest for sharpness

I could be wrong, because I have no personal experience with M glass

[sdai]

I believe the issues surrounding the M8 is an accident due to Leica's lack of experience in digital camera engineering ... comparing to the DMR with very similar spec., the M8 test report in Color Foto shows no improvement of image quality despite the lack of IR filtration:

 

M8 Resolution (ISO160/320): 1304/1253 Line Pairs per Picture Height

R9+DMR Resolution (ISO100/400): 1313/1301 Line Pairs per Picture Height

[ho_co]

Bob--

You started the thread by asking what Epson knows that Leica doesn't. I would put the question the other way around. The M8 pushes the envelope, and Leica ran into some difficulties by going further than the more conservatively designed R-D1. The R-D1 is fine, but according to people who have both, despite the snags, the M8 outperforms it in almost every way.

 

 

John--

M8 uses a very thin IR filter for optical reasons, viz the short back-focus of the M lenses. A thicker filter would have reduced sharpness.

 

M8 overcomes vignetting by use of the offset microlenses of the KAF-10500 sensor and by use of firmware tied to specific lenses. (S Reid has pointed out that some lenses which vignette noticeably on the R-D1 hardly vignette at all on the M8 for these reasons.)

 

M8 uses no Low-Pass (Anti-Aliasing) filter because an AA filter works by reducing fine detail. (DMR uses a software-switchable AA filter; Canon 5D uses a weak AA filter.)

 

These are compromises Leica made in the M8 to get the best file quality possible from the M lenses. From the results reported, they were successful.

 

The only problem is that the use of a thinner IR-absorptive glass over the sensor leaves a higher sensitivity to IR than other cameras. (R-D1 has a fair amount of IR sensitivity, as do some earlier Nikon bodies, and probably other brands as well.)

 

For the optical reasons mentioned above, eliminating the IR must be done in front of the lens, using a combination UV- and IR-Cut filter, apparently produced by Schneider's B+W division. In the case of wide-angle lenses, the IR-Cut filter cuts into the visible reds toward the edges, causing a cyan cast increasing in intensity the further one moves from the center of the image.

 

If you feel that responses to your questions are a bit brief, understand that most of your questions have been repeatedly discussed on the forum. Some of the solutions are quite technical and would take a while to restate.

 

Many people on this forum have suggested, "Well, why didn't Leica do thus-and-so?" and most of their points have been discussed ad nauseam. Some people feel that Leica could have done things otherwise, others (in my opinion the more knowledgeable ones) seem to feel that Leica made the best compromises possible.

 

Your questions are good, but to a great degree have been covered several times in the forum. We all did a lot of learning as the individual issues came up--why use such a thin IR-absorptive glass sensor cover, why not use an IR-Cut sensor cover, why not put IR-Cut filters behind the lens or within the lenses, why must we use a filter over the lens, why does the IR-Cut filter look different from different angles, why is there a radial cyan cast with certain lenses when using the filter and how can it be eliminated--we've had to look into whatever material is available for each of these issues. On the other hand, the problems with Anti-Aliasing filters have long been understood, so Leica's decision to avoid AA filtering was expected.

 

I hope what I've said here isn't too basic. Leica builds a superb digital back in the DMR, and has carried their knowledge a lot further with the M8. From reports, it makes the best images to date from 35mm-format equipment; and it does so by making compromises different from those of other brands.

 

Respectfully,

 

--HC

[ho_co]

... comparing to the DMR with very similar spec., the M8 test report in Color Foto shows no improvement of image quality despite the [reduction in--HC] IR filtration:

 

M8 Resolution (ISO160/320): 1304/1253 Line Pairs per Picture Height

R9+DMR Resolution (ISO100/400): 1313/1301 Line Pairs per Picture Height

Simon--

Saying that resolution is about the same between the M8 and the DMR doesn't amount to saying there is no improvement in image quality. Image quality is about a lot more than just resolution.

 

Look at the enthusiasm evinced for the M8 by photographers, not testers: Michael Reichmann, David Adamson, Sean Reid, Guy Mancuso and many more. They all seem to feel that the M8 does a remarkably better job than the already superb DMR.

 

--HC

[sdai]

Look at the enthusiasm evinced for the M8 by photographers, not testers: Michael Reichmann, David Adamson, Sean Reid, Guy Mancuso and many more. They all seem to feel that the M8 does a remarkably better job than the already superb DMR.

 

Howard, I don't recall Michael, David, or Sean has ever commented on the DMR, have they ever used one? if not, how could one claim that the M8 bests the DMR (not to mention all 35mm format) in the image quality department?

 

No disrespect intended, but Guy's opinion doesn't really count ... the newest always seems to be the best in his book.

 

By the way, the 5D has a thicker AA filter than the 1D series, which is made of crystal instead of glass, and Canon has omitted the cover glass on the sensor due to this implementation. To say the 5D has a weak AA is incorrect.

[ho_co]

By the way, the 5D has a thicker AA filter than the 1D series, which is made of crystal instead of glass, and Canon has omitted the cover glass on the sensor due to this implementation. To say the 5D has a weak AA is incorrect.

Simon--That's interesting, since the 5D shows Moiré in that beautiful link published here a few days ago. I stand corrected. Where can I get more info on the topic? I admit I really don't know my way around Canon that well, though I think they make very good equipment. By the way, I can't tell from what you say whether it's the 1D or the 5D which uses crystal--which is it, and what kind of crystal? If it's a different material between the two, how can one compare thickness? I've got a lot to learn about Canon; just barely keeping up with Leica.

 

I don't recall Michael, David, or Sean has ever commented on the DMR, have they ever used one? if not, how could one claim that the M8 bests the DMR (not to mention all 35mm format) in the image quality department?

You are right in regard to Reichmann and Adamson; to my knowledge they haven't commented on the DMR. Reid has reviewed it (ReidReviews) and commented on it several times on this forum. (And he always pops up to correct me when I mis-state what I thought he said. )

 

I hope I'm not putting words in others' mouths, but my point is that one should generally look to photographers to evaluate equipment, not test procedures. Guy, Sean, Michael and David have all purchased M8s. David has never offered to do reduced-price 30x40s for owners of the DMR. Guy has said the M8 outperforms the DMR, and Sean has implied that he feels the same way. Reid, Reichmann and Adamson have all said the M8's files compare favorably with medium-format film scans. Adamson has said the D2Xs doesn't perform at the level of the M8; Reid's reviews of the DMR and M8 indicate that he puts the M8's performance ahead. David has said the M8's image quality is comparable to 4x5, thus my inference that it outdoes the other 35 form-factor equipment from which he regularly prints.

 

Remember, in the '70's of the past century, some Minolta lenses outresolved their Leica equivalents, but the Leica images looked better. I haven't seen the review you speak of, but some magazines have the feeling that a better number in some particular column can define the superiority of one system over another. That was the only reason I commented on your citaton. The question of whether the M8 performs as well as the DMR sounds to me like a valid one to raise, but if Color Foto feels that no progress has been made between the two, don't you think they might need to rethink their test procedures?

 

Thanks a lot for the response. Please let me know where I can get more info on the technical aspects of and differences among the high-end Canon models. I find their website very difficult to navigate.

 

--HC

[Riley]

 

By the way, the 5D has a thicker AA filter than the 1D series, which is made of crystal instead of glass, and Canon has omitted the cover glass on the sensor due to this implementation. To say the 5D has a weak AA is incorrect.

 

This is much more likely because crystal exhibits different qualities of dispersion, refractive index and reflection to that of glass. It seems even a mount as deep as 5D has telecentric issues, and there is the hereto well documented softness at the corners using wide angle lenses.

 

I did look into utilising crystal filter material over the M8 sensor as an alternative to glass, but could not determine with certainty any positive association. However i still think further examination of this proposition warrants merit. The correlation with 5D's use of crystal material certainly makes me suspicious that the idea would bear fruit.

[carstenw]

No disrespect intended, but Guy's opinion doesn't really count ... the newest always seems to be the best in his book.

 

That is a strange reason for disregarding the best opinion we have on this matter. Guy likes the latest (of those which he keeps) because they *are* the best, not the other way around. When the 5D and the D200 were his latest, you didn't hear him claiming they were the best, and eventually, he liked both but kept neither.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Guest Bob Eaton]

Very many thanks to everyone for the mass of information on my original query about the Epson RD-1 versus the M8. I'm overwhelmed, and much wiser.

I joined the Forum only a couple of days ago, so know little about its workings. Does anyone at Solms ever chip in with answers from the horse's mouth ?

 

Bob Eaton

[ho_co]

Does anyone at Solms ever chip in with answers from the horse's mouth ?

For the most part, no.

 

Some here feel that Solms personnel do read the forum, but I would guess they do not, simply because they've got more pressing things to do.

 

However, some frequent posters such as Sean Reid (of ReidReviews) have closer contacts to Leica than the rest of us, and can elicit some responses from them that are as close to official as we're likely to get. These are often posted as "stickies" at the tops of the current topics pages. (Examples are there now.)

 

Sometimes as well, a forum member gets an answer to a specific question and posts it here, again putting some speculation to rest.

 

--HC