[Leica] Epson digital, or what?

[rdcb37 at cyberone.com.au (Rick Dykstra)]

Peter, thanks for your thoughtful post on the film to digi transition 
issue.  I've been in a similar quandary for some time, mainly hanging 
out to hear more about the R8/9 digiback, hopefully with news that it 
will have an upgradeable sensor.

And like you I have recently had social experiences where sharing 
digital images would have been so convenient.  My friends have emailed 
me photos while I'm still wondering if I got the image at all, having 
mucked up the flash sync with my R6.2!

I will read your post again now.  Thanks.

Rick.

On 24/05/2004, at 4:39 AM, Peter Klein wrote:

> I'm in a bit of a quandry about the whole film vs. digital situation.  
> I'm going to muse out loud, and I invite others to join me.  But note 
> that this is a practical matter, not a religious issue, from a guy who 
> rarely prints above letter size.  :-)
>
> I would like to change over some (not all) of my photography to 
> digital, and main reason is simple--*time*.  Dynamic range and image 
> quality issues concern me.  But the main issue is time.  Or lack 
> thereof.
>
> The Victoria Spring Shoot is a case in point. I shot three rolls of 
> film--not much by professional standards, sure. But I have a very 
> demanding job and the usual family and personal responsibilities. 
> Plus, my company just moved, and as one of the IT guys, I've been 
> totally swamped lately.
>
> Scanning all the pictures I want to show is taking too much time, and 
> I'm not even half through yet.  My Spring Shoot pictures include some 
> good shots--but not "portfolio keepers"--of people I like, and I'd 
> like to share them.  But the scanning/editing process just takes so 
> long that some of them are not done, and some of them may never get 
> done.  If I'd shot them digitally, I could have probably gotten all of 
> them posted in an evening or two.
>
> Add to all this the thought that I'd eventually like to get paid for 
> some of my photography, and digital becomes a must.
>
> I've tried enough digicams and DSLRs to know that the digicam route is 
> not for me.  Even the high end digicams have sensors that are too 
> small to give me the image quality I demand at ISO 400 and beyond.  
> And operation is just too slow.  This even applies, alas, to the 
> Digilux II, which I must say is the best digicam I've ever tried. But 
> I recently compared D2 images to those from a Pentax *ist, taken of 
> the same subjects.  The *ist images win hands-down at all ISOs, and in 
> terms of shooting speed.  I suspect that other 6 mp DSLRs would give 
> similar results.
>
> At this point, Plan A is to get the Epson R-D1 when it comes out.  I 
> already have the lenses, and I prefer the rangefinder way of shooting 
> to SLR.  It's a natural.  But there are still many "ifs" that won't be 
> answered until the camera is actually available.  Will the viewfinder 
> eyepoint be high enough for a person who sometimes wears glasses?  
> Will the price be anything near reasonable, or will it be priced for 
> collectors and status buyers?  How available will it be in the U.S.?  
> What other investment will be required in terms of special software, 
> proprietary batteries, etc.  Will the shutter be as noisy as the Bessa 
> R2 double shutter, or more Leica-like?  Will it be a flash in the pan, 
> or will Epson support it long-term? Will the camera's internal 
> processing be fast enough for a Leica shooter?
>
> What do I define as "anything near reasonable" a price?  I'd say 
> around $1500.  With DSLRs like the Nikon D70 coming out at the $1000 
> mark, there's only so much premium Epson can charge for the R-D1 being 
> a rangefinder before I look elsewhere.  The figures of $3300 I've 
> heard are just just plain outrageous, and anything over $2000 is still 
> out of line, IMHO.  The R-D1 is not a Leica camera with Leica 
> mechanics and Leica optics.  It can't justify such a price even with 
> all that Leica marketing psychobabble about "branding"--which has 
> pushed the Digilux 2 price above my tolerance level.  I might pay 
> $3300 for a proven Leica M digital.  But not $6000.
>
> Which leads to Plan B.  If the R-D1 turns out to be not for me, I'll 
> probably look for a DSLR in the $1000 to $1500, 5-6 Megapixel class.  
> Probably with a couple of decent primes.  I may not get a zoom with it 
> at all.  I have a number of criteria:
>
> - Most suitable for a Leica-type shooter
> - Fast autofocus in reasonable available light.
> - Good handling, ergonomics (Advantage *ist and D70)
> - Reasonable size and weight.  Advantage *ist and E-1.
> - Handles the blown highlights issue with minimum fuss.
> - Can shoot RAW if needed, but good enough highest-quality JPG shot in 
> reasonable lighting.
> - Availability of good glass.  Probably they all meet this test.
> - Availability of reasonably-priced good glass.  Advantage *ist 
> (Pentax).
> - Can use same-brand old manual-focus glass with reasonable metering.
> - Can use old Olympus glass I already own.  Minor point, advantage E-1 
> and 10D.
>
> So far, the Pentax *ist is looking very good for size/weight, handling 
> and ergonomics.  Nikon and Canon mean going with the market leaders, 
> as in "you can't go wrong by buying ____."  I haven't tried the D70 
> yet, but I have been impressed by the use reports, particularly one at 
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d70.htm.  If I went Canon, I'd 
> probably go for a 10D rather than a Rebel (stripped-down features), 
> but the 10D size is a bit bigger than some others.
>
> So that's what I'm thinking about lately.  Anybody else who is (or has 
> been) in a similar situation, please share.
>
> --Peter Klein
> Seattle, WA
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>