Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/02/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Simon,
I am glad that it worked out for you.
My epson r-d1 serial number is 17xx but so far I have had none of the
problems I have see mentioned on this list. I will keep my eye out.
I find that if I keep my eye back from the eyepiece just a little bit
the focusing patch is very bright and easy to see. I will look at
getting a rubber eyecup for it and see if that helps. The Nikon FM2
size I believe fits.
I wish that they would have included a 21mm frame line as I too do a
lot of family and school shooting in which I need a true 28mm size.
Now why can't they make an electronic frame lines in which a lcd or
projector or whatever could display the frame line in the viewfinder
matched up with the lens placed on the camera. This would be great if
the Leica Digital M had this!
Cheers,
Chris
On Feb 13, 2005, at 2:02 AM, Simon P-J wrote:
> Chris,
>
> I did what you suggested. I did already have the latest Epson drivers,
> so
> for some reason or other installing the 10.3.8 update had interfered
> with
> them.
>
> Once I had deleted and re-installed them the 1280 was back to normal,
> and I
> could get on with comparing some available light portraits shot on the
> R-D1
> at iso 400 and 800 and with M's on Fuji Superia 400 and 800. (35 and 50
> 'luxes on the R-D1 - 50 and 75 'luxes on the M's)
>
> With my two respective digital workflows (R-D1 Raw or Polaroid SS 4000
> into
> Photoshop CS and Epson 1280) I have to conclude that I can do much
> better
> with the R-D1 (at prints up to 14 x 11). By comparison, the SS 4000
> combined
> with the Fuji films give some unpleasant noise/grain effects and
> limited
> dynamic range even on quite low contrast negatives. I'm sure a more
> up-to-date scanner would make a difference, but I wonder whether it
> would
> make enough difference for me to prefer it to the R-D1 output.
>
> I have had no problems focusing anything on my R-D1 at any distances -
> including 35 'lux, Noctilux, 75 'lux, and 90AA. I've been very
> pleasantly
> surprised that my proportion of in focus shots is similar to what I'd
> expect
> with M's when shooting people moving around in low light at relatively
> slow
> shutter speeds. I like the bright viewfinder and the 1:1 view. The very
> conservative frame lines play a nice psychological trick in that they
> at
> first exaggerate the effect of the 1.53 crop factor and then when you
> see
> that the actual shot covered quite a lot more it makes it seem that
> the crop
> factor is not so bad after all. The rangefinder patch itself is very
> far
> from M standards, having much less contrast, clarity and snap, and
> being
> very sensitive to the angle at which you peer through it. Nonetheless,
> for
> somebody experienced with rangefinder focusing it seems that it's
> perfectly
> possible to get it to work well enough even on the more difficult
> lenses.
>
> The worst and most un-M-like feature of the R-D1 is its shutter
> release,
> which has little feel and which has some confusing 'rules' that I
> haven't
> got to grips with. I don't think the shutter will fire unless you have
> already activated the meter by a half pressure on the release. So
> sometimes
> an immediate full pressure on the release results in nothing
> happening. And
> then, of course, there's also the fact that after every 3 seconds or
> so of
> rapid RAW shooting the buffer clogs up for a couple of seconds. All of
> which
> means that I find that about 10 percent of my attempts at the shutter
> release are frustrated. I get that shot a second or two after I
> wanted. Very
> un-M-like.
>
> However, I do find that the shortcomings of the shutter release are
> off-set
> in practice for the kind of photography I do most of the time (indoor
> available light of family and friends) by the fact that I feel free to
> make
> many more exposures than I would with film. Given the fact that the
> main
> factor that ruins shots of people at 1/15th to 1/60th is subject
> motion, I
> don't mind trading off a few moments missed due to the shutter release
> for
> the extra moments that I have a go at. Having said that, I wouldn't
> want to
> use the R-D1 for anything where specific moments really mattered, such
> as
> weddings.
>
> My first R-D1 (under 2000 serial#) had to be replaced because it
> started
> shooting about 20 percent black/blank frames. The replacement (over
> 3500
> serial#) has worked perfectly so far - both electronics and
> rangefinder.
> They obviously did have some serious quality control problems with the
> early
> batches.
>
> Simon.
>
>
>
> On 12/2/05 4:21 pm, "Christopher Driggett" <driggett@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> Simon,
>> Try the following steps if you can.
>>
>> 1) Look at the Epson's site to see if you have the latest drivers.
>> 2) disconnect the printer from the computer.
>> 3) delete the 1280 printer from your system.
>> 4) reinstall the Epson drivers.
>> 5) Connect your printer.
>> 6) Add the printer through the printer setup utilities.
>>
>> Now try to print.
>> The above has worked for me in the past.
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>>
>> On Feb 12, 2005, at 8:16 AM, Simon P-J wrote:
>>
>>> Having installed the Mac OS X 10.3.8 update today my Epson 1280 is
>>> playing
>>> up. Nasty partly posterised prints that look like a driver
>>> compatibility
>>> problem.
>>>
>>> Anyone else experienced this? The Epson drivers have always been a
>>> problem
>>> with OS X.
>>>
>>> I was looking forward to a weekend of printing, and now I'm kicking
>>> myself
>>> that I went ahead and installed the update!
>>>
>>> Simon P-J
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Leica Users Group.
>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information