rbelyell
Well-known
i am an unabashed pixel peeper. when used with high quality lenses and properly exposed, i love pixel peeping my 6mp rd1. never ever felt i was missing anything in that regard, in fact the resolution i see puts a smile on my face every single time. by way of background, ive shot with pretty much every brand of digital slr and mirrorless, including the 24mp sony rx1, and i presently have a fuji xt1.
while i fully understand the listing of 'pros and cons' is inherently subjective, to not list the rd1's huge, singular, 1:1 vf as a significant 'pro' seems as close to an objective oversight as one can get in this subjective process. additionally, having a an uncluttered single set of user controlled framelines is a real plus for alot of rd1 users.
one last huge negative for many is that the m8 cannot realistically be shot over the (wierd) iso of 640, whilst the rd1 produces lovely results up to the (normal) iso of 1600.
bottom line, i'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, and i'm sure you will be happy and productive with your m8. just wanted to provide what i saw as some pretty big missing pieces from the 'pro/con' discussion.
while i fully understand the listing of 'pros and cons' is inherently subjective, to not list the rd1's huge, singular, 1:1 vf as a significant 'pro' seems as close to an objective oversight as one can get in this subjective process. additionally, having a an uncluttered single set of user controlled framelines is a real plus for alot of rd1 users.
one last huge negative for many is that the m8 cannot realistically be shot over the (wierd) iso of 640, whilst the rd1 produces lovely results up to the (normal) iso of 1600.
bottom line, i'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, and i'm sure you will be happy and productive with your m8. just wanted to provide what i saw as some pretty big missing pieces from the 'pro/con' discussion.
Lss
Well-known
I read a comment here and there, and it seems pretty funny that it has all been repeated over and over again through these few years. Meanwhile, new generations of cameras and entire new camera lines have been brought to the market.
Today the M8 remains overall the best camera I have used. There are considerable improvements in other types of cameras (I also use the Sony RX1R), and it would certainly be nice to upgrade at least to a M typ 262 to get some of the underlying tech into the same ballpark as the competition.
Today the M8 remains overall the best camera I have used. There are considerable improvements in other types of cameras (I also use the Sony RX1R), and it would certainly be nice to upgrade at least to a M typ 262 to get some of the underlying tech into the same ballpark as the competition.
rbelyell
Well-known
at the end of the day, for manual focus digital photography, past a certain point, what honestly does 'tech' bring to the table? were i to choose a digi M, it would be an m8 or 9 based ultimately solely on whether i wanted FF or not. the 'newer tech' of post m9s would be irrelevant to me. but given the issues with both, i'll take the rd1.
tbh, i'm at that same point with af digitals. the IQ was good enough for me at 16mp. this was proved to me by my time with my now-sold rx1--dont need the extra tech. so then its just a matter of user experience, not bells and whistles. how does it feel, how well can you see through it, how responsive is it, thats basically it, at least for me. the only 'tech' i miss in the slightest on the rd1 is some method of continuous shooting, no matter how 'primitive'--3-4/second is enough. outside of that, its the 'low tech' aspect that makes it so very appealing. i always find it amusing in these particular discussions of the rd1 that the leica faithful who chant 'simplicity' and having the camera 'just get out of the way' always seem to cite the rd1's 'lack of tech' as a negative! i have yet to find a more simple camera to operate, one that 'gets out of your way' more--film or digital--than the rd1.
tbh, i'm at that same point with af digitals. the IQ was good enough for me at 16mp. this was proved to me by my time with my now-sold rx1--dont need the extra tech. so then its just a matter of user experience, not bells and whistles. how does it feel, how well can you see through it, how responsive is it, thats basically it, at least for me. the only 'tech' i miss in the slightest on the rd1 is some method of continuous shooting, no matter how 'primitive'--3-4/second is enough. outside of that, its the 'low tech' aspect that makes it so very appealing. i always find it amusing in these particular discussions of the rd1 that the leica faithful who chant 'simplicity' and having the camera 'just get out of the way' always seem to cite the rd1's 'lack of tech' as a negative! i have yet to find a more simple camera to operate, one that 'gets out of your way' more--film or digital--than the rd1.
Lss
Well-known
I refer to more modern sensor technology. No need for more bells and whistles.