[Leica] Epson digital, or what?

[pklein at 2alpha.net (Peter Klein)]

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