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
Yes but we use raw files from different brands and with the same pp the results are not the same. I like much my Nikon gear for instance but it does not make the same pictures as an Epson R-D1 or a M8 with Leica lenses obviously.
 
einolu, of course but one couldn't gone very far with standard zoom lens. That's why I said that it sometimes lacks microcontrast, sharpness, rendition, tonality etc. Btw I like Nikon PP more than canon regarding high iso because I like the grain which is quite filmlike. I feel that Epson pp is not much different from nikon thats why it is very good for me. I'm not even excited by Nikkor AF 50/1.8 anymore when I got see what is Summicron perfoming on one digital body even this is worst of crons regarding resolution, lol
 
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.
Click to expand...

I was hesistant to be the first to say so, for fear of being labelled " anti-Canon" again (which I am not) They might be postprocessed to look less plasticky. The 5D can do better than that, and the quality of the images deserves it..
 
jaapv, you might be right. I was not that super serious when I commented above here. I hope also when NLs get a chance to try a M8 with Wate and will sell everything he have after the test and continue to shoot with Xti and 18-400/5.6 and m8 for serious street photography. He can take really good shoots. I can also imagine how nice they could look if they were taken with M8 instead of 5d as he posted images above here.

I dont mind be called anti canon anyway because I was hardcore nikonian lol though I dont mind play R lenses, zuiko lenses with available affordable dslr body which happens to be 5D. but the time with dslr is gone now for me.

you know, im against the violence used by cannons 🙂
 
Last edited:
Film is more fun on a rangefinder

Film is more fun on a rangefinder

Digital needs the versatility of SLR lenses.
IMHO🙂
 
nrb said:
Digital needs the versatility of SLR lenses.
IMHO🙂
Click to expand...

Oh really? I think you'll find that the audience here does just fine with super-sharp crisp prime RF lenses whether they be affordable CV lenses or nose-bleed Leica optics.

DSLR's need the versatility of SLR lenses. DRF's don't. 🙄
 
nrb said:
Digital needs the versatility of SLR lenses.
IMHO🙂
Click to expand...
ROFLMAO

Love it. The obvious is often rarely understated 😉

Reminds me of little mind-benders, like a former mayor of St. Paul, MN who once said: "I'm not indecisive. Am I indecisive?"

No, better yet, Yogi Berra: "You can observe a lot by watching".
 
Yes, all that and much more.
Maybe things get better between 21 and 90 mm when the new M9 gets a full frame sensor.
 
nrb said:
Yes, all that and much more.
Maybe things get better between 21 and 90 mm when the new M9 gets a full frame sensor.
Click to expand...

Given the challenges of getting an M camera to work with RF lenses today and the problems with off axis light paths on the sensor (vignetting etc), I don't think you're going to see a larger sensor any time soon, if ever.
 
M9

M9

nrb said:
Yes, all that and much more.
Maybe things get better between 21 and 90 mm when the new M9 gets a full frame sensor.
Click to expand...

Yes, please! Then I can go out into the big wide world with a camera slung over my shoulder with a price tag of about 9 grand!
 
That is not the case, dear Gabriel.
Actually I think a camera shouldn't cost that much and this is one of the reasons why I'll never buy an M8. In fact I resent the fact that such high prices are being asked for less than 1 kg of technology, in a provocative way to make fun of us photographers. And I'm sure I'm not the only one in this forum to feel this way.
 
Seriously though ...

Seriously though ...

nrb said:
That is not the case, dear Gabriel.
Actually I think a camera shouldn't cost that much and this is one of the reasons why I'll never buy an M8. ... and I'm sure I'm not the only one in this forum to feel this way.
Click to expand...

I quite agree and I'm sure so do many would-be customers out there who don't even visit this forum either - it's plain common sense.
Naturally I was being sarcastic about the "opportunity" of being able to show off a 9 thousand dollar shoulder to all comers.

I suggest a back to basics approach to the DRF idea. The designers nowadays have got completely carried away with "the need" for all the buttons and screens. The RD1 was a good start but I would certainly trade a rear screen for a full frame sensor, what I mean is if with a film rangefinder you have to wait to see the results until you develop the film if on a digital it drops the cost I can do without it too, All I need is an ISO dial apart from what I get on a film rangefinder (and the FF sensor, of course) and that's it.
 
drf are only nische cameras that why it is expensive

noway drf can be cheap as D40x, Xti rebel, Oly 410 when a lot people buy PS and autofocus when it fixes everyting without knowing about anything. Typical comment from my parents about my camera " why it is so heavy" " why does it need more than one objective" "why does this camera need stroke?".

when my dad took my camera, he did only pressed the shutter. He didnt ever to try focus the objective though I said it many times just before the shot. lol

when I did tell price of the camera, they thought I was crazy and they started worry about me. I have thought what'd happen if I said price of m8, lol
 
Last edited:
nrb said:
That is not the case, dear Gabriel.
Actually I think a camera shouldn't cost that much and this is one of the reasons why I'll never buy an M8. In fact I resent the fact that such high prices are being asked for less than 1 kg of technology, in a provocative way to make fun of us photographers. And I'm sure I'm not the only one in this forum to feel this way.
Click to expand...

That reasoning does not make sense to me, by any stretch of the imagination...
 
ywenz said:
That reasoning does not make sense to me, by any stretch of the imagination...
Click to expand...
I'm very sorry but I still don't think that the king's exquisite transparent clothes should have cost all that huge amount of money His Majesty paid...
Someone must cry out that the king walks naked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom