Epson R-D1 vs. Leica M8

Epson R-D1 vs. Leica M8

  • Epson R-D1 or R-D1s

    Votes: 267 55.6%

  • Leica M8

    Votes: 213 44.4%
  • Total voters
    480
LCT said:
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.
Click to expand...
Right, I mean on the computer screen. I have not seen any prints from the M8 but assume they exhibit the same clarity.

johnastovall said:
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.
Click to expand...
The thing is, when I use my 35/2 summicron on the R-D1, I cannot achieve the same or similar clarity of image, no mater how much post-processing effort, as I see on some M8 images :confused:.
 
akptc said:
...I mean on the computer screen. I have not seen any prints from the M8 but assume they exhibit the same clarity. The thing is, when I use my 35/2 summicron on the R-D1, I cannot achieve the same or similar clarity of image, no mater how much post-processing effort, as I see on some M8 images :confused:.
Click to expand...
I compared both bodies with the same Leica lenses and i found that the M8 pics looked sharper on screen, but on prints the sharpness was roughly the same up to the A4 format. I don't print larger though. Now what kind of workflow do you use? Mine is very simple and gives quite good results with the R-D1. I simply use the Epson raw plug-in and the medium setting of Fred Miranda's Nikon CS Pro for sharpening plus iCorrect for white balance. Also i always disable the Epson profile. Worth a try IMHO. Just a snapshot (FF and 100% crops) with the Summilux 50 asph at 200 iso below.

EPSN2539-afterweb.jpg


EPSN2539-aftercropweb.jpg


EPSN2539-aftercropweb02.jpg
 
LCT said:
I compared both bodies with the same Leica lenses and i found that the M8 pics looked sharper on screen, but on prints the sharpness was roughly the same up to the A4 format. I don't print larger though. Now what kind of workflow do you use? Mine is very simple and gives quite good results with the R-D1. I simply use the Epson raw plug-in and the medium setting of Fred Miranda's Nikon CS Pro for sharpening plus iCorrect for white balance. Also i always disable the Epson profile. Worth a try IMHO. Just a snapshot (FF and 100% crops) with the Summilux 50 asph at 200 iso below.



EPSN2539-aftercropweb.jpg
Click to expand...
Wow, these shots certainly show spectacular clarity. I am still experimenting and don't have a well-defined pp process but wil try yours, it obviously works well. Still, I wonder how much of it due to the 50 lux asph being the superior lens that it is?
 
akptc said:
...I wonder how much of it due to the 50 lux asph being the superior lens that it is?
Click to expand...
This one has been shot with the 'modest' Elmar 50/2.8 (200 iso, FF & 100% crop).

EPSN0447-afterweb.jpg


EPSN0447-aftercropweb.jpg
 
LCT said:
This one has been shot with the 'modest' Elmar 50/2.8 (200 iso, FF & 100% crop).
Click to expand...
Thanks! clearly, I need to work on my post-processing skills! I had no idea all this could be "squeezed" out of an R-D1 image...
 
I voted for the Epson because it makes more sense vis-à-vis the more costly Leica. However, we must keep in mind that the impossibility so far of a full frame rangefinder allows for this concept to be viable as a film camera only.
 
R-d1

R-d1

fgianni said:
A camera that handles like the R-D1 and has an image quality comparable to the M8 but with a full frame sensor.
What are the chances of this happening in my lifetime?
Click to expand...

i agree with you, that´s the point
 
5d

5d

capronimus said:
i agree with you, that´s the point
Click to expand...

I have the Rd1s.

EOS 5D, 1DsMkII all capture details as they are fullframe and 12.8MP and 16MP respectively.

I do not think my Rd1s images blow me away because I have seen the images of my EOS 5D and say 24-70 L, TSE 90 etc. Even at ISO 1600, the details are retained way better than a ISO 400 on my RD1s.

This brings me back to my point that RF's can never be the main digital camera system. If someone chooses it, perhaps they have not shot sufficiently with an SLR to realise that RF's are outdated hobby cameras with limited range (24-90 for M8, 28-50 for Rd1s).

I certainly bought it for pure fun, portability.

5D images
516036693_775c49d7dd_b.jpg


515995858_f1d6eaa9f6_b.jpg


ISO 400 (very very clean and looks way cleaner than ISO 200 RD1s)
298081905_53533e7e17_o.jpg


ISO 1600 (super clean and noise-less)
297421310_ff14a9b899_o.jpg
 
Last edited:
Why do people feel compelled to post DSLR pictures here? Wtf has that got to do with R-D1 vs M8 comparisons? :mad: I think we all KNOW how versatile a DSLR can be and there are plenty of opportunities to view such images elsewhere! :bang:

/Rant off
 
Last edited:
Reluctantly M8

Reluctantly M8

I have a couple of M8's and also I'm on my 2nd R-D1.

I would agree with the other posts here that the ergonomics of the R-D1 are superb. I really really like the manual winder, simple exposure compensation and manual ISO controls. I also really like the retro gauges and even the quirky & simple LCD navigation.

However, the M8 delivers stunning image quality with extra resolution that require virtually no post processing. It is a joy to use. The Epson produces fine images but unfortunately they can't match the performance of the M8 at most ISOs. (You could argue that the R-D1 handles higher ISO better than the noisy M8 at 1250+).

As a tool I enjoy using, the M8 is superb. If Leica had managed to maintain some of the more 'manual' aspects of the ergonomics such as the manual winder vs motor buzz, or the ISO selector & exposure compensation then it would be just about perfect.
 
If one puts various ISO settings under the "user" button, ISO compensation is just one push and a set away...
 
I'm really happy to hear that it sounds like the Epson takes the cake at high ISO. Being that's where I'm always stuck shooting, it sounds like I don't have (too) much to regret about not being able to afford the M8.
 
GrahamWelland said:
Why do people feel compelled to post DSLR pictures here?
Click to expand...

People who do so usually, especially to extol the virtues of the dSLR over those of a dRF, end up on my ignore list. Guess what I did just now? :p
 
northernlights, can you take those pictures down or at least post small pictures? they are completelly messing with the layout of this page... also, i dont really see what they have to do with this discussion.
 
notherlights made my day from humoristical point. his pictures shows how bad really are Canon images at technical basis (I'm not talking about his wonderful photography). They look not sharp, not contrasty, not film like, quite smeary like watercolor, a bit dark.

When I got Rd-1, I do take this with me every time when I go outside. It was not the case with Nikon D70 with 18-70 which is quite compact. This combo is aldready starting to collect dust and I must to sell this soon.

So avid DSLR users doesn't recognize how crucial are size and weight of the tool for street photography. I appreciate big nice viewfinder which is even brighter than D2xs or 1Ds XXII lol. Also much more people use RF cameras for their living maintenance than NLs can imagine.

I guess that one who uses 70-200 zoom, is on wrong forum here :)

you, my Summilux blow away your 5D to dust :)
 
Last edited:
tomasis said:
you, my Summilux blow away your 5D to dust :)
Click to expand...

What about a 5D + Summilux (35, 50 or 80) ? :)
Seriously, I have a R-D1 and a Canon 350D and I prefer to shoot wih the Epson, of course.
Neverthless, image wise I think both are capable of make very good images. If any I'ill take the Canon for more pixels and a bit less noise, but that's not the point.
If you give me a M8 at 4200 € or a 5D at 2500€ I'll take the Leica any time, but if you give me a M8 with a Canon sensor or a 5D with the Kodak/M8 sensor fullframe, I'll take the Leica too. For me is not a question of pixel peeping but of rangefinder vs Reflex
 
artur5, very well said. I joked while I typed the last sentence. It is no way for comparison of a lens and a camera as dslr vs drf. It was intended to be an illogical statement, lol :) As you said, I'd not take anything as 2x larger body even if it theoretically is 3x better IQ wise.
 
Last edited:
in the digital world, post processing is more important than ever, its important even if you are scanning film and want to present a faithful reproduction. you could argue that the shots northerlights posted aren't edited to your liking, but it's not like that is the only look that a canon camera (insert any camera name here) is capable of. raw files are extremely flexible,

tomasis said:
notherlights made my day from humoristical point. his pictures shows how bad really are Canon images at technical basis (I'm not talking about his wonderful photography). They look not sharp, not contrasty, not film like, quite smeary like watercolor, a bit dark.

When I got Rd-1, I do take this with me every time when I go outside. It was not the case with Nikon D70 with 18-70 which is quite compact. This combo is aldready starting to collect dust and I must to sell this soon.

So avid DSLR users doesn't recognize how crucial are size and weight of the tool for street photography. I appreciate big nice viewfinder which is even brighter than D2xs or 1Ds XXII lol. Also much more people use RF cameras for their living maintenance than NLs can imagine.

I guess that one who uses 70-200 zoom, is on wrong forum here :)

you, my Summilux blow away your 5D to dust :)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom