PDA

View Full Version : The R-D1 won "Best prestige camera" award from TIPA


driggett
04-26-2005, 09:00
I read this off the dpreview site. Here is a link to the story.
dpreview (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042602tipa_2005.asp)

Quoted from the site:

Best Prestige Camera: Epson R-D1

The Epson R-D1 is the world’s first digital rangefinder camera. It is a state-of-the-art digital camera that offers outstanding performance and image quality, yet comes in a guise that offers the traditionalist the look, feel and handling of a classic film camera. With a superb blend of classic analogue features and modern digital technology, the R-D1 is a Prestige Camera that gives twenty-first century photographers a way to use the famous Leica lenses from our photographic heritage.


Cheers,
Chris

driggett
04-26-2005, 09:06
State of the art in retro. ;-)

I hope with all the press that there is an increase in camera sales so that there is a R-D2!

Cheers,
Chris

mtokue
04-26-2005, 09:13
A bit tricky because its the only one, ergo "State of art".
Not to be mistaken for the R2-D2 :D !

mtokue
04-26-2005, 09:20
Only digital rangefinder.
Only digital that can make use of L & M mount lenses.
ManGo I do agree that it is kinda weird (The catagory for which it was picked)
Mike.

Huck Finn
04-26-2005, 11:25
I guess it's the camera for those who want to be "lookin' good" . . . who want to "dress to impress." :cool:

Doug
04-26-2005, 19:56
Hmm. I have no quarrel with the complimentary commentary... but "prestige"??? That suggests social points gained by just being seen with one?

RML
04-26-2005, 22:13
Hmm. I have no quarrel with the complimentary commentary... but "prestige"??? That suggests social points gained by just being seen with one?

That's not too difficult. Even my Japanesque Gold covered M2 increases my social standing. Well, at least I get looks aplenty. :p

Nikon Bob
04-27-2005, 02:54
A very nice camera deserving of support, but any digital camera is state of the art unless it is more than 6 hours old. Does this make a Bessa RF without digital innards a "Prestige Camera" ? Lastly, if you are the only one in a race, where exactly did you finnish and what have you won? The award may really be doing a disservice to the R-D1 which is a good concept in digital cameras. It might have been a meaningful award if there had of been some competion. It deserves an award for being the first digital RF using more traditional controls.

Bob

Sean Reid
04-27-2005, 03:53
The category itself makes little sense. I imagine they wanted to give credit to the camera somehow and this was their solution.

Huck wrote: "I guess it's the camera for those who want to be "lookin' good" . . . who want to "dress to impress."

Now Huck. c'mon....you know dat ain't so.

- Aunt Sally

Nikon Bob
04-27-2005, 04:36
Sean

You are right, they should have had a more appropriate category and praised it for what it really is unique for. Now if they could just get it down to a more realistic/affordable price I might even buy one.

Bob

pfogle
04-27-2005, 12:27
You know, I think getting precious about the R-D1 is coming at it from the wrong angle IMHO, 'cos sooner or later, everything's going to be digital. So we're playing with the prototype of digital technology moving into the venerable RF world, which will eventually be entirely DRF. So, sure, it costs; but so did DSLRs when they first came out. And if you're serious (and I appreciate that a lot of you here, are) the body is only 25% of the cost of a kit with 3 leica lenses (dream on...)

It should just be "best digital camera" for me ;)
Phil

Nikon Bob
04-27-2005, 12:59
Phil

That is what I mean and I can wait to see if the cost to value comes more into line with what I am willing to pay. Love digital and would use my C5050 more if it had controls like the RD-1 and the good viewfinder. To me those things and lens interchangability are worth a premium, but not what it is now. I am glad to see it leading the way and hope more follow to give some health competition. Don't worry I would not buy a new Leica for the same reason.

Bob

Jim Watts
04-28-2005, 08:47
So, sure, it costs; but so did DSLRs when they first came out. And if you're serious (and I appreciate that a lot of you here, are) the body is only 25% of the cost of a kit with 3 leica lenses (dream on...)
Phil

Another way of looking at the cost is compared to a film camera + film & developing (not printing) costs.

U.K. prices sorry, but you can convert.
Epson R-D1 2000 GBP
Nearest film only equivalent camera = Bessa R3A at 400 GBP which leaves 1,600 GBP for film and developing.
At about 6 GBP for each film together with processing = 266 rolls of film x 40 exposures a roll (I like top squeese the most possible out :p ) = 10,640 exposures to reach the same price point. I am shooting about 400 frames a month on the R-D1 (some of you are doing much more I think, but I like to give my other cameras an occassional outing :) )

10,640/400 = 26.6 months, just over two years at my rate of use and the camera has paid for its self. Then after that each picture is a freebee :angel:
If your a working Pro and you were to factor in scanning time for the negatives from the film camera you would have paid for the R-D1 in weeks!

I have two friends that have very serious R-D1 GAS since hearing I have one and they haven't even got their hands on mine yet. There is definately something about this camera that inspires lust in serious photographers. Of course pointing them to Sean's reviews and this forum hasn't helped their condition any either. :D :D