[Leica] Here we go, RD-1 in the US

[bdcolen at earthlink.net (B. D. Colen)]

I was, not shockingly, Richard, being sarcastic. My only point was that
it seems pretty silly to suggest that the camera sucks, and is therefore
not worth $2900, but it's worth spending $1500 on. If it sucks, it's not
work spending a nickel on. If it's reasonably good, THEN the question is
whether it's worth spending the asking price to get into digital
rangefinding.

That said, I suspect your right with the parallels to the Hexar debate.
I have allot of respect for Henning, and if he says the camera had allot
of problems, I assume it did. On the other hand, we've heard allot of
positive things from a number of other heavy hitters whom I also
respect. 

I fully understand your wanting to make use of your M lenses, and stay
in the rangefinder world. For some time I've had my feet in both worlds,
and would like to be able to do that with digital as well. I, too, am
very tempted by the RD-1 at under 3K - I would NOT be tempted by a
digital M at over $4 because I'm not prepared to pay that for a single
camera body - particularly for a manual focus, less than full-frame
digital body. But that's my decision; it's pretty obvious allot of
people will feel quite differently.

B. D.

-----Original Message-----
From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org
[mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of
Richard F. Man
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 8:14 PM
To: Leica Users Group
Subject: RE: [Leica] Here we go, RD-1 in the US


Well BD, we know the camera cannot be a total dog. It may have some 
problems experienced by some people, but I bet it's kind of like the
Hexar 
RF fiasco - some people swear there is a problem and some not, and both
can 
produce voluminous mathematical data showing why they are right...
So....

My rationale is this: if I buy a digital camera (most likely an E-1), I 
would need lens. So adding a 50/2 macro and the 14-55, the total cost
would 
be $2600-$3000, and the camera would handle like a SLR.

Right at the moment, I am engulfed by the rangefinder religion, and
small 
as my OM-4T is, the RF experience is better for me. So I'd imagine that
if 
I were to get the E-1, wonderful it may be, I would still reach for the
M.

Now if I get the R-D1, I can reuse all the lens I have (well, I would
need 
to get a 28mm besides the Tri-Elmar to get ~42mm view :-(, so the cost
is 
not so bad, in that sense.

I need to reread the thread on sneaking things pass the CFO though...

At 04:49 PM 10/22/2004, B. D. Colen wrote:

>But wait, girls and boys - EITHER this camera is the dog described by 
>Henning - in which case $1500 is $1500 too much - or else it is the 
>pretty good camera described by many others who have used it, a camera 
>that produces images on a level with the D100, in which case the price 
>is high, but perhaps acceptable in order to be able to shoot digitally 
>with a rangefinder.
>
>Which is it? ;-)

// richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly,
please 
use richard at imagecraft.com)