dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
What a strange ride! As some of you know, while waiting for the GXR M module, I picked up a slightly-defective R-D1 here on the forum....to "hold me over".
The defect ended up not being an issue at all. It had slop in the rangefinder mechanism, and Steve Choi did his best to fix it to no avail. It could only be fixed by Epson in Japan. But either it was the nature of the specific slop or Steve's efforts, the rangefinder was accurate in one direction (joining the images from right to left) and not the other. I thought it might be an issue but I quickly learned to always go in the one direction, or overshoot a bit and then backtrack. Not a big deal after ten minutes.
And sometime in that ten minutes of adjustment time, I thought, this camera is really cool! I loved the 1:1 viewfinder. I loved the gauges and the easy access to quality, WB and ISO. I even liked the funky little hieroglyphics above the buttons and under the glass gauge cover. I loved the shutter speed dial coaxial with the shutter speed dial like an M5. The shutter cocking lever, well, that was kind of corny, but no big deal. I used such a lever for years.
Then I saw the JPEGs that came out of the camera. First with a humble Nokton 40/1.4, then with a Zeiss 25/2.8. And I was taken. This thing is not only well-designed, but it has a great image processor in it. The colors were great. I even liked the slight vignetting it gave on the 25, or the slightly-wider coverage than the full viewfinder.
By the time I got the GXR M-module, my mind was probably a bit closed to it. The R-d1 was just too much fun! The GXR is a fine, fine camera, and does some things extremely well, like the silent shutter and great art filters (diorama being my favorite to play with, since you can adjust both the width and position of the in-focus-area). The GXR focused closer with my 25. It had higher max ISO, and lots of other better specifications. But the JPEGs from the Ricoh were kinda lackluster, whereas the R-D1 produced images I could pretty much use straight away. JPEG processors are like film stock to me, I don't mind working within their constraints if they promise relatively little work in post. The Epson ranked up with the best JPEG cameras I ever used, the Olympus Pen and E series. It did a better job with the Raw files than I could!
But the camera was limited. No self-timer, no live view, no macro mode, no autofocus, no video or ability to work with an intervalometer (unless the intervalometer had a way to cock the shutter). All things I use on occasion. So I sold it and the GXR and got a Sony Nex 5n with the autofocus adapter and a good fast SSM lens (the new 16-50), an M-to-nex adapter, and I thought that was that.
I've worked with Sony stuff before and I like it. The 16 megapixel chip in the 5n (same as the Pentax K5, Nikon D7000 and Sony A580 and A55) is a real high-iso champ and is altogether awesome. Sony's JPEGs are usable. It did most of the other things, though I still don't have an intervalometer for it. I don't mind shooting away from my face as it reminds me of working with a TLR, though I did not that without stabilization it showed camera shake readily, a function of sharp glass, a high-res sensor and a very light anti-alias filter. I noted the same thing on the D7000 actually.
But i missed the RF experience, I really did.
Then I got the crazy idea to eschew AF entirely, and try an M8. That was last week, so this is all still fresh. I bought one. And I shot with it this weekend on a restaurant gig. The first time I pressed the shutter button I was kindof revolted. What a strange noise, click/whir like a film camera with a sluggish auto-advance system. But it was beautiful, simple to use and set up, and felt great in my hand. It felt so much like using a film leica that a few times I fumbled around with my thumb looking for the film advance! I got used to the noise, especially on discrete mode, which only cocks the shutter after you release the shutter button.
The files are all right. Raw, I mean. You have to shoot RAW. The JPEGs are wretched, I mean, if I were Leica I would have just stood tall and said "We don't do JPEG!". RAW is for the Leica Man!
Raw workflow is a lot easier than it used to be. I use Adobe Lightroom and it is pretty easy to get a decent image from the M8. I have to use a lot of Chroma noise reduction, but as usual I use no luminance reduction, which just tends to blend the fine detail away. No complaints about the IQ, except that I found the IR issue to be intermittent. I have a few shots of the restaurant dining room where all black is purple, then a few shots later in the same space, same lighting, where it was fine. Not sure why that is!
I quickly hit the high-ISO wall in that dining room. But even the Nex was having a rough time. Heck, I shot in restaurant dining rooms that even dared to defy the Nikon D700! But every time I shot the Nex, I was thinking about the Leica.
By which I mean, I was missing the RF interface in general. The M8 was nice. I wasn't really digging the .72 rangefinder all that much. It's nice. It's very clean-looking. The whole camera exudes a kind of graceful quality and it reminds me of the M3. A kind of self-confidence. I liked it, even the stubborn adherence to the nonsensical base plate. I had dreams of dressing my M8 up in some mahogany goat skin from cameraleather and walking around Tokyo posing with it. (Not an original thought. i remember wandering through a cavernous department store and finding this wood-paneled room with this ridiculously expensive men's clothes, and there was a case, next to some $500 pants and $700 shoes, with a bunch of Leica M7s, M8.2s and M9s in it, with a plethora of fancy exotic half-cases. And then I started to grok a bit of Leica's marketing niche).
By the way, before you flame me for being hipster and lame, I'm a gen x-er. There is sarcasm seeping from my fingertips.
I processed the images that I took on the M8, and reflected on the whole experience. It was mixed. Fun, but an expensive, $700 shoes kind of fun. Inevitably I began to compare the M8 to the R-d1. Well, I had been all along, so I mean to say I started doing it out loud. Or rather, out loud in my head. You know what I mean.
Both cameras have their vistigial tails. The R-d1 has it's film advance lever (yeah, yeah, even I called it a shutter cocking lever, but we all know it's a film advance lever). The M8 has it's baseplate.
The M8 is prettier by far, and smaller. It's really quite a piece of industrial design. It looks good with my $700 shoes. (No, not really! I mean, I don't really have $700 shoes. If I did I'd have an M9.)
But the R-D1 has a Bessa kind of utilitarian appeal. The R-D1 is the camera you see in the Batcave. The M8 is a seductive spy. The R-D1 is the guy who fights Indiana Jones under the crazy uniwing airplane, without I think any fascist political leanings.
The R-D1's viewfinder, for me, is the winner. 1:1 can't be beat. The M8 one wasn't hard to use, but it just wasn't as transparent as the R-D1.
The R-D1's analog controls win out for me. The M8 takes minimalism to the uncomfortable extreme. The menus are easy to use and navigate, but one welcome development from digital is the freeing of ISO from something you change every roll to something much more variable. The M8 recognizes this with auto-ISO and then sticks it in a menu. Along with WB.
I guess if it's a RAW-only camera, WB doesn't really mean much, but I kinda hate reviewing images that are all orange or all blue. And the AutoWB is...not so good. So dive in the set menu I must. It's not a huge knock on the M8. Auto-WB in general is a dubious thing. The GXR was actually pretty good at it, come to think of it. The Epson's auto WB is okay, but I like setting it manually with the hieroglyphics. I feel like Indiana Jones.
In general the R-D1 wins in the control category for me. The analogue dial, while bordering on the corny, works a treat, as does the navigation knob repurposed from the film rewind.
The M8 sounds nicer. It took me a while to get used to the sound, but I really like it. Again, it's kinda vestigial. I mean, I swear it's a film camera. The M8 seems to get better performance from its batteries. The R-D1 is kinda crappy in that department. The Leica's screen is bigger.
The M8's files are bigger, 10megapixel vs. 6. That's not an insignificant difference, but I've had my R-D1 work published before and it will be again, so no big deal.
The clinchers for me are the JPEG output of the R-D1, and the 1:1 viewfinder. Well, and the $1000 price difference. The M8 is almost, just about, worth it for me. If it had a good JPEG engine like the R-D1 this would be a very hard decision. But as it is, it's not. The M8 is going on the chopping block (though I'll pose with it in some photographs to remember it by) and my new (used) R-D1 should be here by the end of the week.
In general I feel lucky to have had the chance to use both machines. Using the M8 has really made me appreciate Epson's creative genius in putting the R-D1 together, just as the R-D1 makes me appreciate the Bauhaus uberwonderfulness of the Leica M design.
Back to the batcave.
The defect ended up not being an issue at all. It had slop in the rangefinder mechanism, and Steve Choi did his best to fix it to no avail. It could only be fixed by Epson in Japan. But either it was the nature of the specific slop or Steve's efforts, the rangefinder was accurate in one direction (joining the images from right to left) and not the other. I thought it might be an issue but I quickly learned to always go in the one direction, or overshoot a bit and then backtrack. Not a big deal after ten minutes.
And sometime in that ten minutes of adjustment time, I thought, this camera is really cool! I loved the 1:1 viewfinder. I loved the gauges and the easy access to quality, WB and ISO. I even liked the funky little hieroglyphics above the buttons and under the glass gauge cover. I loved the shutter speed dial coaxial with the shutter speed dial like an M5. The shutter cocking lever, well, that was kind of corny, but no big deal. I used such a lever for years.
Then I saw the JPEGs that came out of the camera. First with a humble Nokton 40/1.4, then with a Zeiss 25/2.8. And I was taken. This thing is not only well-designed, but it has a great image processor in it. The colors were great. I even liked the slight vignetting it gave on the 25, or the slightly-wider coverage than the full viewfinder.
By the time I got the GXR M-module, my mind was probably a bit closed to it. The R-d1 was just too much fun! The GXR is a fine, fine camera, and does some things extremely well, like the silent shutter and great art filters (diorama being my favorite to play with, since you can adjust both the width and position of the in-focus-area). The GXR focused closer with my 25. It had higher max ISO, and lots of other better specifications. But the JPEGs from the Ricoh were kinda lackluster, whereas the R-D1 produced images I could pretty much use straight away. JPEG processors are like film stock to me, I don't mind working within their constraints if they promise relatively little work in post. The Epson ranked up with the best JPEG cameras I ever used, the Olympus Pen and E series. It did a better job with the Raw files than I could!
But the camera was limited. No self-timer, no live view, no macro mode, no autofocus, no video or ability to work with an intervalometer (unless the intervalometer had a way to cock the shutter). All things I use on occasion. So I sold it and the GXR and got a Sony Nex 5n with the autofocus adapter and a good fast SSM lens (the new 16-50), an M-to-nex adapter, and I thought that was that.
I've worked with Sony stuff before and I like it. The 16 megapixel chip in the 5n (same as the Pentax K5, Nikon D7000 and Sony A580 and A55) is a real high-iso champ and is altogether awesome. Sony's JPEGs are usable. It did most of the other things, though I still don't have an intervalometer for it. I don't mind shooting away from my face as it reminds me of working with a TLR, though I did not that without stabilization it showed camera shake readily, a function of sharp glass, a high-res sensor and a very light anti-alias filter. I noted the same thing on the D7000 actually.
But i missed the RF experience, I really did.
Then I got the crazy idea to eschew AF entirely, and try an M8. That was last week, so this is all still fresh. I bought one. And I shot with it this weekend on a restaurant gig. The first time I pressed the shutter button I was kindof revolted. What a strange noise, click/whir like a film camera with a sluggish auto-advance system. But it was beautiful, simple to use and set up, and felt great in my hand. It felt so much like using a film leica that a few times I fumbled around with my thumb looking for the film advance! I got used to the noise, especially on discrete mode, which only cocks the shutter after you release the shutter button.
The files are all right. Raw, I mean. You have to shoot RAW. The JPEGs are wretched, I mean, if I were Leica I would have just stood tall and said "We don't do JPEG!". RAW is for the Leica Man!
Raw workflow is a lot easier than it used to be. I use Adobe Lightroom and it is pretty easy to get a decent image from the M8. I have to use a lot of Chroma noise reduction, but as usual I use no luminance reduction, which just tends to blend the fine detail away. No complaints about the IQ, except that I found the IR issue to be intermittent. I have a few shots of the restaurant dining room where all black is purple, then a few shots later in the same space, same lighting, where it was fine. Not sure why that is!
I quickly hit the high-ISO wall in that dining room. But even the Nex was having a rough time. Heck, I shot in restaurant dining rooms that even dared to defy the Nikon D700! But every time I shot the Nex, I was thinking about the Leica.
By which I mean, I was missing the RF interface in general. The M8 was nice. I wasn't really digging the .72 rangefinder all that much. It's nice. It's very clean-looking. The whole camera exudes a kind of graceful quality and it reminds me of the M3. A kind of self-confidence. I liked it, even the stubborn adherence to the nonsensical base plate. I had dreams of dressing my M8 up in some mahogany goat skin from cameraleather and walking around Tokyo posing with it. (Not an original thought. i remember wandering through a cavernous department store and finding this wood-paneled room with this ridiculously expensive men's clothes, and there was a case, next to some $500 pants and $700 shoes, with a bunch of Leica M7s, M8.2s and M9s in it, with a plethora of fancy exotic half-cases. And then I started to grok a bit of Leica's marketing niche).
By the way, before you flame me for being hipster and lame, I'm a gen x-er. There is sarcasm seeping from my fingertips.
I processed the images that I took on the M8, and reflected on the whole experience. It was mixed. Fun, but an expensive, $700 shoes kind of fun. Inevitably I began to compare the M8 to the R-d1. Well, I had been all along, so I mean to say I started doing it out loud. Or rather, out loud in my head. You know what I mean.
Both cameras have their vistigial tails. The R-d1 has it's film advance lever (yeah, yeah, even I called it a shutter cocking lever, but we all know it's a film advance lever). The M8 has it's baseplate.
The M8 is prettier by far, and smaller. It's really quite a piece of industrial design. It looks good with my $700 shoes. (No, not really! I mean, I don't really have $700 shoes. If I did I'd have an M9.)
But the R-D1 has a Bessa kind of utilitarian appeal. The R-D1 is the camera you see in the Batcave. The M8 is a seductive spy. The R-D1 is the guy who fights Indiana Jones under the crazy uniwing airplane, without I think any fascist political leanings.
The R-D1's viewfinder, for me, is the winner. 1:1 can't be beat. The M8 one wasn't hard to use, but it just wasn't as transparent as the R-D1.
The R-D1's analog controls win out for me. The M8 takes minimalism to the uncomfortable extreme. The menus are easy to use and navigate, but one welcome development from digital is the freeing of ISO from something you change every roll to something much more variable. The M8 recognizes this with auto-ISO and then sticks it in a menu. Along with WB.
I guess if it's a RAW-only camera, WB doesn't really mean much, but I kinda hate reviewing images that are all orange or all blue. And the AutoWB is...not so good. So dive in the set menu I must. It's not a huge knock on the M8. Auto-WB in general is a dubious thing. The GXR was actually pretty good at it, come to think of it. The Epson's auto WB is okay, but I like setting it manually with the hieroglyphics. I feel like Indiana Jones.
In general the R-D1 wins in the control category for me. The analogue dial, while bordering on the corny, works a treat, as does the navigation knob repurposed from the film rewind.
The M8 sounds nicer. It took me a while to get used to the sound, but I really like it. Again, it's kinda vestigial. I mean, I swear it's a film camera. The M8 seems to get better performance from its batteries. The R-D1 is kinda crappy in that department. The Leica's screen is bigger.
The M8's files are bigger, 10megapixel vs. 6. That's not an insignificant difference, but I've had my R-D1 work published before and it will be again, so no big deal.
The clinchers for me are the JPEG output of the R-D1, and the 1:1 viewfinder. Well, and the $1000 price difference. The M8 is almost, just about, worth it for me. If it had a good JPEG engine like the R-D1 this would be a very hard decision. But as it is, it's not. The M8 is going on the chopping block (though I'll pose with it in some photographs to remember it by) and my new (used) R-D1 should be here by the end of the week.
In general I feel lucky to have had the chance to use both machines. Using the M8 has really made me appreciate Epson's creative genius in putting the R-D1 together, just as the R-D1 makes me appreciate the Bauhaus uberwonderfulness of the Leica M design.
Back to the batcave.
back alley
IMAGES
you weren't kidding about 'long'...
i love my rd1 cameras...i think you made a good choice...what scares me is that we seem to think in a similar manner...
i love my rd1 cameras...i think you made a good choice...what scares me is that we seem to think in a similar manner...
umcelinho
Marcelo
the R-D1 has an underdog appeal that is just so striking. I've taped the white lettering on mine, installed black griptac (original rubber was coming off), black large soft release... add an all black lens and it's really a batmobile. i wonder if someone sells hotshoe fixable pointy ears
the R-D1 is an unique camera for sure and it's pretty hard to letting go of it. I'm considering getting an M9 ahead but I guess only after a year or so using it I'll have a better idea on whether i'll keep the R-D1 or concede the joy of using one to another lucky person. i'm betting on keeping it.
I share a lot of what you've described in the text.
the R-D1 is an unique camera for sure and it's pretty hard to letting go of it. I'm considering getting an M9 ahead but I guess only after a year or so using it I'll have a better idea on whether i'll keep the R-D1 or concede the joy of using one to another lucky person. i'm betting on keeping it.
I share a lot of what you've described in the text.
tomtofa
Well-known
Great read. Haven't used many of the cameras you describe, but I will be getting something new (to me) this year, and found your observations interesting. Your thoughts on the JPEGs reminded me of the D2, another old-timer with superlative JPEGs. The only camera I've used that way instead of Raw.
I never had the issues you and many others have with the M8 AWB, but the ISO was limiting; guess it's a bit better with the R-D1, though not at the level of the current offerings.
The Nex units are too small for me; the GXR is tempting, but I have a feeling it might be good to wait on that to see if they update the base - mainly a better EVF/LCD. Still not a rangefinder...I'm also missing that, or at least a viewfinder. Really like to see what's happening at the moment the picture is made.
I'll probably go back to film in order to get full use of lenses, view/rangefinder, etc., about the time they finally stop making it...
I never had the issues you and many others have with the M8 AWB, but the ISO was limiting; guess it's a bit better with the R-D1, though not at the level of the current offerings.
The Nex units are too small for me; the GXR is tempting, but I have a feeling it might be good to wait on that to see if they update the base - mainly a better EVF/LCD. Still not a rangefinder...I'm also missing that, or at least a viewfinder. Really like to see what's happening at the moment the picture is made.
I'll probably go back to film in order to get full use of lenses, view/rangefinder, etc., about the time they finally stop making it...
huntjump
Well-known
similar sentiments here. Thats why i love the r-d1 too. thanks for sharing
dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
I'm keeping the Nex too, for the things the R-D1 can't do. But I think when it comes to enjoying photography, I know what I'll be reaching for.
photografity
Established
I was lucky to have the same R-D1 vs M8.2 experience for 3 weeks....
The out of camera jpegs from the R-D1 beats the M8.2, even when you compare the raw file, the M8.2 files took far too many adjustments to get a decent image.
In the end, sold the Leica......
The out of camera jpegs from the R-D1 beats the M8.2, even when you compare the raw file, the M8.2 files took far too many adjustments to get a decent image.
In the end, sold the Leica......
kermaier
Well-known
I love my R-D1s too. I tried an M9 (loaner, no way I could buy one), and it's very nice, but I'm dead set against having to go into the menu while shooting. (Software engineer: mixing configuration and runtime task flows is a usability no-no.) Which brings me to my one and only gripe about the R-D1: Who needs to be able to change JPEG quality at the flick of a switch?? If you're shooting JPEG, you shoot maximum quality; what you really need is to be able to toggle between color and B&W to suit the image. That's what should have a hard control, and file quality should be relegated to the setup menu! There. I feel much better now.
::Ari
::Ari
Last edited:
kermaier
Well-known
Amen. (But with an X100.)
astro8
Well-known
I love my R-D1's feel, handling and viewfinder so much I'm thinking of replacing my two M2's with Bessa's.
Lss
Well-known
Luckily the generic batteries for R-D1 are dirt cheap.
Out of the cameras in your post, I use the M8, the R-D1, and the NEX-5N (mainly for video) myself.
RobVinc
I am a registered alien..
Great comparison dreilly,
I can understand you total.. Love my R-D1 too..
And for the Leica-feeling there is still an M4-P waiting
I can understand you total.. Love my R-D1 too..
And for the Leica-feeling there is still an M4-P waiting
krötenblender
Well-known
Good bet. I have the R-D1 and the M9. I wouldn't sell the R-D1.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
Excellent read!
I think that BOTH the R-D1 AND the M8 are unique cameras, and there probably won't be anything like either to come in the future.
I think that BOTH the R-D1 AND the M8 are unique cameras, and there probably won't be anything like either to come in the future.
Ezzie
E. D. Russell Roberts
I read the post and felt only a slight pang of regret for selling mine.
dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
I totally agree. That wasn't the wisest choice to put in the gauge. Better would have been black and white and two color settings for different profiles. Though toggling between RAW+JPEG and JPEG would be helpful in that case (I like to shoot RAW+JPEG when the latter is in black and white--I call that fear of commitment!) But it was several camera generations before anyone had implemented a RAW/JPEG button I believe.
Maybe the R-D2 will fix that!
kermaier
Well-known
I totally agree. That wasn't the wisest choice to put in the gauge. Better would have been black and white and two color settings for different profiles. Though toggling between RAW+JPEG and JPEG would be helpful in that case (I like to shoot RAW+JPEG when the latter is in black and white--I call that fear of commitment!) But it was several camera generations before anyone had implemented a RAW/JPEG button I believe.
Maybe the R-D2 will fix that!
Yes, after I posted, it occurred to me that a 3-position gauge for normal-color, vivid-color, monochrome would be best.
And I usually also shoot RAW+JPEG in B&W, except when I know that the color is going to suck, due to crappy indoor lighting (like a room with yellow walls and incandescent bulbs) or mixed lighting (fluorescent overheads plus sunlit windows) or ISO 1600. In those cases, I just want to be able to think B&W exclusively, and not even be tempted to waste my time trying to salvage something half-baked in color.
Oh, who among doesn't pine for the second coming, but my faith is weak and I fear it isn't to be.
::Ari
dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
Too bad that couldn't be changed in a firmware update. Actually, it probably could. A firmware update would be about as likely, or less likely, than an R-D2. Though I don't see how Cosina or Zeiss can continue their camera lines without eventually going digital.
back alley
IMAGES
easy, they just keep selling lenses...
ark8012
Established
Good read!! I love my R-D1. I was tone between R-D1 and GXR, but I am very glad that I got a R-D1. I have not had a chance for a digital M, so I could not comment on M8 or M9, but at least the R-D1 is a great camera.