Epson R-D1 vs. Leica M8

[PrisonersDilema]

RD1s

RD1s

For me, there was no other alternative but the RD1s.

For the price of an M8, I can get a 1DMKIII that can do way more things, is much more durable with weather seals and I can shoot and lock in many more shots in focus than 8 M8's put together because it's 10 FPS, superior AF and system. If I was Nikon, I could get a D2Xs and another AF-D 50 f1.4 for the price of an M8 and still shoot tonnes of stuff that an RF cannot. Example? Birding, birds in flight, sports, War Photojournalism that requires speed, durability and does not give you time to focus slowly and reminisence the nostalgic memories of an old film RF that many old timers feel for. Sorry, I am just being very blunt here. Because I am sure anyone can see the amount of custom functions, technology, noise control and durability that goes into a way more sophisticated machine like a 1DmkIII or a D2xs than an M8 or a RD1s.

At present, the Epson is end of line. It is the only affordable RF in the market now at USD1980.

I bought only a CV15mm and a Zeiss Sonnar C 50mm f1.5 to accompany the RF.

Why is it only the RD1s?

Frankly, both the M8 and RD1s can only be a hobby camera or a camera I would use to shoot where I have all the time, on a trip and require a compact system, a 'non-speed required' situation.

If I was on a wedding assignment, an event shoot, a sports shoot or a paid magazine shoot, There is no comparison with my EOS 5D or 1DMKII and all the AF lenses. Is there an RF equivalent to the convenience of a 24-70 L zoom, 70-200 f2.8 L zoom or if on a Nikon system an AF-S 28-70 f2.8, a 70-200 2.8 VR on a D2Xs, D200 or even a Fuji S5Pro??

I do not even think a RF format can do the job that requires speed and tracking a subject matter.

So, if one invests heavily on a 35mm format, I do not really think i can invest so heavily on an RF system and still pay USD2000 to USD3500 for a Leica manual lens. It isn't practical when for the same amount I could pay for a EF 400mm f4 IS DO. I am sure there are tonnes of technology and motor parts and lens elements and Image stabilisation that goes into a modern lens compared to a manual lens.

Conclusion? Get the cheapest and most affordable RF digital one can get his/her hands on. It has to be RD1s then and not the M8 (24mm to 90mm??).

I am prepared to get flamed for being very honest and candid about this.

 

[LCT]

...For the price of an M8, I can get a 1DMKIII... There is no comparison with my EOS 5D or 1DMKII...

Sure there is no comparison so why do you compare?
A rangefinder is a rangefinder, not a SLR obviously.
BTW which pics do you prefer with the R-D1 or your big cannon err Canon?
Just kidding

 

[PrisonersDilema]

Canon

Canon

Sure there is no comparison so why do you compare?
A rangefinder is a rangefinder, not a SLR obviously.
BTW which pics do you prefer with the R-D1 or your big cannon err Canon?
Just kidding

The pics from Canon where I can even use tilt shift lenses normally available with only LF cameras. The pics from the Rd1s at ISO 200 look like ISO 800 shots from the 5D.

However, having said that, the RF has a special place because I can bring it with me everyday and shoot anytime as it is inconspicuous and portable. This is such because I am not a full-time photographer. That alone was sufficient reason to keep 2 systems. I will never bring a 5D and a 24-70 lens everywhere I go. I do not want a digicam because of the small sensor and the inability to change lenses or get really quality lenses; I do not believe small sensors with their large pixel densities can ever register really detailed pics because each pixel is so small. I would say even a CV lens may be better than the zoom lens provided by most digicams that come with a fixed zoom lens but with brightness ranging from f2.8 to f5.6.

 

[LCT]

... The pics from the Rd1s at ISO 200 look like ISO 800 shots from the 5D...

I don't like the somewhat plasticky look (with all due respect) of Canon pics personally so it's a matter of tastes i guess.
I still prefer Nikon's from this standpoint but when i compare say my D70 with a Nikkor 50/1.4 or 1.8 to my R-D1 with a Summilux or a Summicron 50, for instance, the Nikon pics look generally sharper but i prefer the B&W as well as color, bokeh and 3D rendition of the Epson/Leica combos by far.
The latters are also much more expensive for sure but anyway DRFs and DSLRs are different beasts with different purposes so comparing their results side by side may be funny somehow but doesn't prove very useful IMHO.

 

[jaapv]

Frankly, both the M8 and RD1s can only be a hobby camera or a camera I would use to shoot where I have all the time, on a trip and require a compact system, a 'non-speed required' situation.

I'm sure the considerable number of pro photographers using the camera would be highly surprised at this statement...

I do not even think a RF format can do the job that requires speed and tracking a subject matter.

This is rather the opposite of the truth, for that kind of subject AF is very dodgy. It usually gets the plane of focus in an undesirable place (wingtip instead of a beak, goal-post instead of the ball etc.) Most specialized bird photographers I know prefer manual focus for flight shots.

I could not have gotten the shots in this thread, at least not as easily, using AF:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42261

 

[garethc]

Hmm...The Epson is a great camera but having got an M8 I don't feel they are close. Having more framelines available, brighter viewfinder, less noise, better dynamic range, ultra sharp images to name just a few of its advantages.

Oh, and not having to worry about what will happen if faults arise (especially the rf going out of alignment).

 

[usayit]

I'm a regular joe who likes to take short bike trips around the neighborhood....

I could spend $5k on a fancy bicycle that the US olympic team uses.... (M8)
or
I could a lot LESS on a bicycle that would even keep an serious biker happy.. (R-D1)

Or...

Spend $5k and have a bike (R-D1) on those wonderful sunny days AND a motorcycle (Canon DSLR) to get me places quick.

personally.. I'd rather have R-D1 and DSLR...

I voted for R-D1. I blew my money on lenses..

 

[sleepyhead]

I could afford either camera, but I bought the RD-1.

This is because of the handling joys that of the RD-1 that others have mentioned and the noise quality of the Epson at ASA 1600. I love low-light photography and the Epson is very film-like in its noise at high ASA.

I also feel that the RD-1 is WAY LESS CONSPICOUS on the streets - with the LCD stowed away, and using the "film advance", I figure the average person thinks I'm just some poor guy who can't even afford a digital P&S.

If any company in the future ever releases a digital RF with a full-frame sensor then I will be very interested in that camera. It would just be nice to use, say the 50mm Rigid summicron, AS a 50mm Rigid Summicron, and not some crop-factor thingy.

 

[hammerman]

this is great because i have just left a dollar on the table for a new or used RD1/RD1s at a pro shop in Melbourne. the word is it will be around $A2K and i think i can cope with that. in another thread there is a question, how much have you spent on camera equipment over the years? well, yes, the equivalent of several M8s and topNikons, no doubt, but now is now. the M8 isn't in the shopping list with the broccoli and dog food this week. but the RD1 is, if i leave out the low fat ice cream and Ethiopian coffee beans.

am excited like Christmas eve...

dj

 

[CDT]

Hmm...The Epson is a great camera but having got an M8... less noise, ..... ultra sharp images to name just a few of its advantages.

I agree the M8 is beter in many respects, but I'm not sure I agree with the two listed above.

The R-D1 has less noise at high ISO than the M8. Also, though the M8 has more pixels, I'm not sure it's really sharper from the images I've seen. Sharpness is a tricky thing to judge in the digital age. Certainly the M8's resolution is higher, so images hold more detail.

 

[sleepyhead]

hope you get it Hammerman - I'm a new RD-1 user and the camera has GREATLY exceeded my expectations.

 

[PrisonersDilema]

RD1s

RD1s

Whilst I say I like the Rd1s images, I am inclined to believe that the Leica will produce more pleasing, better images.

I am mooting on issue of whether it is worth it on account of the overall uselfulness, value and number of items one can buy.

With the Rd1s and better lenses, say the Zeiss ZM lenses, one still has lots of juice to get an EOS 5D, or a D200 or a Fuji, Pentax or Olympus E1 at currentr prices.

This combo of the RF and DSLR allows you to move into shoots beyond 90mm focal length. With a DSLR and a EF 600mm f4 L with 2x TC, it allows one to shoot 1200mm. Can an RF do that? No way.

Different beasts? Sure! But 2 beasts that can do more stuff can beat one expensive beast that can only do some stuff.

Option 1: 35mm DSLR + RD1s (28-50) - shoots 8mm till 1200mm and beyond. EF 14mm f2.8 L USM, 24 f1.4L, 35 f1.4L, 50 f1.2L, 70-200 f2.8L, 300 f2.8 L IS.
Option 2: M8 (24-90mm) + 19mm Leica Elmarit, 24mm Leica, 35mm f1.4 Leica, 50mm f1.4 leica, 90mm f2 Leica.

Frankly, Option 1 may still end up cheaper.

What would you choose?

 

[matt fury]

Honestly, I would choose Option 2. But I went with Option 3:

RD1 + 50mm f2 + 50mm f1.4 and I think I'll have to pick up a 40mm f1.4 or something.

 

[JNewell]

The R-D1 has a superb handling, and an adequate image quality. The M8 has superb image quality (with some significant caveats) and an adequate handling.

Can you elaborate? I would have thought the handling on the M8 was distinctly superior???

 

[Gid]

Can you elaborate? I would have thought the handling on the M8 was distinctly superior???

Then you'd be wrong, IMO.

I have both and I prefer the handling/ergonomics of the RD-1 - ISO and exposure comp are set on the shutter speed dial, just like a film camera - no menus to select and then set. White balance and file quality are permanently visible with easily adjusted controls on the outside of the camera - no menus again. Basically, the stuff that you might want to change on a regular basis can all be done without diving into the menu. The covering on the R-D1 is less slippery than the M8 and there is a built in thumb grip on the back. I think thats probably enough for the RD-1 to pull ahead .

 

[akptc]

I am a happy amateur wielding the R-D1 but have been very intrigued by the incredible clarity of the images that the M8 can produce. So I hope someone can answer this question – is it because of the missing AA filter that pics taken with the M8 (and a good lens, of course) look like one can put a hand through them, i.e. one has the perception of looking through on open window with one’s (20/20) eyes? This as opposed to images generated by other quality digital cameras where, for the most part, one always “knows” it’s a picture; it’s as if though there is some sort of a palpable ether-like separation between the image and the viewer that does not seem to exist when viewing good pics from the M8. I hope this makes any sense because I am really really curious.

 

[johnastovall]

I'm not voting. I have an R-D1 but I would go with an M8 because Leica is going to be here in the future to support it and Epson isn't.

 

[JNewell]

Got it - sounds right. Thanks!

Then you'd be wrong, IMO.

I have both and I prefer the handling/ergonomics of the RD-1 - ISO and exposure comp are set on the shutter speed dial, just like a film camera - no menus to select and then set. White balance and file quality are permanently visible with easily adjusted controls on the outside of the camera - no menus again. Basically, the stuff that you might want to change on a regular basis can all be done without diving into the menu. The covering on the R-D1 is less slippery than the M8 and there is a built in thumb grip on the back. I think thats probably enough for the RD-1 to pull ahead .

 

[LCT]

I am a happy amateur wielding the R-D1 but have been very intrigued by the incredible clarity of the images that the M8 can produce. So I hope someone can answer this question – is it because of the missing AA filter that pics taken with the M8 (and a good lens, of course) look like one can put a hand through them...

You mean on screen i guess. Yes it comes probably from the lack of AA filter. Got the same feeling with my D70 which looks sharper on screen due to a weak AA filter.

 

[johnastovall]

I am a happy amateur wielding the R-D1 but have been very intrigued by the incredible clarity of the images that the M8 can produce. So I hope someone can answer this question – is it because of the missing AA filter that pics taken with the M8 (and a good lens, of course) look like one can put a hand through them, i.e. one has the perception of looking through on open window with one’s (20/20) eyes? This as opposed to images generated by other quality digital cameras where, for the most part, one always “knows” it’s a picture; it’s as if though there is some sort of a palpable ether-like separation between the image and the viewer that does not seem to exist when viewing good pics from the M8. I hope this makes any sense because I am really really curious.

Missing AA filter to a degree but more important Leica glass....

Leica glass did the same with film you could tell slides shot with Leica glass.

It's the Leica look.