Terao
Kiloran
I'm a regular R-D1 user and am considering an M8. For those of you that have moved from the R-D1 to the M8 (or have both) could you summarise for me what the benefits are? I tend to shoot a lot of low light with fast lenses (35mm Nokton and Canon 50mm f/1.2), but the camera also gets used for general travel photography and the like. I primarily shoot RAW and process to B&W.
I guess I'm most interested in ease of use, build quality, workflow, and of course image quality (highly subjective of course) . I think I already know the answer to the build quality question but what about the rangefinder/viewfinder? Is it really better than the R-D1?
Many thanks in advance...
I guess I'm most interested in ease of use, build quality, workflow, and of course image quality (highly subjective of course) . I think I already know the answer to the build quality question but what about the rangefinder/viewfinder? Is it really better than the R-D1?
Many thanks in advance...
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
I am a current owner of both, now for a little less than a week. Take the following comments with a grain of salt as I am really enjoying the M8. I am trying to decide whether to keep the RD-1 now that I have the M8. It is interesting -- the cameras seem to do well with different lenses. Acceptable focussing accuracy (and by this I mean - don't need to fiddle - just focus and shoot) is as follows.
M8 - 50/35/75/90 Summicrons, Noctilux, 75 Lux, 50 Asph, 50 Summitar
RD-1 50/35 Summicrons, 40 Nocton, 50 Asph, 50 DR, CV 28/1.9
Back/front focus with M8 (preliminary): CV 28/1.9, 135/2.8 (w/goggles), 50 Summarit, Canon 50/1.5 (screw mount)
Both cameras like a J-8 with an adapter. Oddly the M8 doesn't seem to like the 40 Nocton wide open, jury is still out on the CV 35/1.2. The CV 15 is a blast on the M8, as it behaves like a true wide. I will be taking the 24 Asph out into the streets at lunchtime and see what's up there on the M8. The 50 Summitar is just plain fabulous on the M8. M8 won't mount the Dual Range Summicron -- or rather it mounts but won't focus; in contrast my RD-1 just loves this lens - bang on focus and a really nice look. My RD-1 just won't get along with the 75 Cron, the 75 Lux, the Noctilux, the 135/2.8 - these lenses really challange the rangefinder baselength of the RD-1 and I can work with them, but only by calculating focus error and then trying to compensate in the VF with a static subject -- not really RF photography at its best.
Now to the meat of your question: I have been using the M8 with the 1.25 multiplier permanently attached. It does very well in low light with fast lenses. I have some good low-light pix with the RD-1 and the Noctilux, but my image-to-image ability to focus is hit and miss. The biggest difference in how it feels to shoot with the cameras, for me, has to do with the buffer size. RD-1: 3RAW images and you're done until the buffer clears. With the M8 it's 10 pix.
M8 at its best (ISO 160, steady support) is capable of image quality I once could only get by moving up a negative size or two (think Hassie with 400 speed film). I really feel like I have moved up a level in terms of what my Leica glass can do. At higher ISOs I might go with the RD-1 -- I am still feeling my way with regards to noise suppression software on both cameras. Very preliminarily, my feeling is that RD-1 at 800 is equal to or better than M8 at 640, but the jury is really still out on this.
Build quality -- too early to tell really. I have an M2 and two M3's -- now those have build quality that has been proven by 50 years of service. Will either of these digital cameras (M8/RD-1) be clicking away in 50 years? I laugh at the thought of it, given the technilogical cul-de-sac we seem to be charging down pell-mell with digital. It is frickin' insane to think that today's digital cameras with their short product cycles, dependance on odd-shaped specialty batteries and specialty software, LCDs and tiny flat panels and image file compatibilty/grandfathering issues will have anything like the durabilty of manual cameras machined from brass. Of course, you need something to load into the M2, and blah-blah-blah. Rant off. Build quality on the M8 _feels_ superior to the RD-1, but neither of these babies is a Canon A-1, an F3 or an M3, if you get my drift.
Battery life seems marginally better on the M8.
So to conclude: deleriously happy with the purchase of the M8; but having said that the M8 and RD-1 seem to compliment rather than compete with each other. I wish I understood the RF compatibility issues in a way that made sense. Which lens works best on which camera seems random.
Overall, image quality nod goes to the M8, but it is evolutionary rather than revolutionary in the move from 6 to 10 MP.
Let me know whether you have other specific questions. As you can read from the above, I am working through these issues myself.
Ben Marks
M8 - 50/35/75/90 Summicrons, Noctilux, 75 Lux, 50 Asph, 50 Summitar
RD-1 50/35 Summicrons, 40 Nocton, 50 Asph, 50 DR, CV 28/1.9
Back/front focus with M8 (preliminary): CV 28/1.9, 135/2.8 (w/goggles), 50 Summarit, Canon 50/1.5 (screw mount)
Both cameras like a J-8 with an adapter. Oddly the M8 doesn't seem to like the 40 Nocton wide open, jury is still out on the CV 35/1.2. The CV 15 is a blast on the M8, as it behaves like a true wide. I will be taking the 24 Asph out into the streets at lunchtime and see what's up there on the M8. The 50 Summitar is just plain fabulous on the M8. M8 won't mount the Dual Range Summicron -- or rather it mounts but won't focus; in contrast my RD-1 just loves this lens - bang on focus and a really nice look. My RD-1 just won't get along with the 75 Cron, the 75 Lux, the Noctilux, the 135/2.8 - these lenses really challange the rangefinder baselength of the RD-1 and I can work with them, but only by calculating focus error and then trying to compensate in the VF with a static subject -- not really RF photography at its best.
Now to the meat of your question: I have been using the M8 with the 1.25 multiplier permanently attached. It does very well in low light with fast lenses. I have some good low-light pix with the RD-1 and the Noctilux, but my image-to-image ability to focus is hit and miss. The biggest difference in how it feels to shoot with the cameras, for me, has to do with the buffer size. RD-1: 3RAW images and you're done until the buffer clears. With the M8 it's 10 pix.
M8 at its best (ISO 160, steady support) is capable of image quality I once could only get by moving up a negative size or two (think Hassie with 400 speed film). I really feel like I have moved up a level in terms of what my Leica glass can do. At higher ISOs I might go with the RD-1 -- I am still feeling my way with regards to noise suppression software on both cameras. Very preliminarily, my feeling is that RD-1 at 800 is equal to or better than M8 at 640, but the jury is really still out on this.
Build quality -- too early to tell really. I have an M2 and two M3's -- now those have build quality that has been proven by 50 years of service. Will either of these digital cameras (M8/RD-1) be clicking away in 50 years? I laugh at the thought of it, given the technilogical cul-de-sac we seem to be charging down pell-mell with digital. It is frickin' insane to think that today's digital cameras with their short product cycles, dependance on odd-shaped specialty batteries and specialty software, LCDs and tiny flat panels and image file compatibilty/grandfathering issues will have anything like the durabilty of manual cameras machined from brass. Of course, you need something to load into the M2, and blah-blah-blah. Rant off. Build quality on the M8 _feels_ superior to the RD-1, but neither of these babies is a Canon A-1, an F3 or an M3, if you get my drift.
Battery life seems marginally better on the M8.
So to conclude: deleriously happy with the purchase of the M8; but having said that the M8 and RD-1 seem to compliment rather than compete with each other. I wish I understood the RF compatibility issues in a way that made sense. Which lens works best on which camera seems random.
Overall, image quality nod goes to the M8, but it is evolutionary rather than revolutionary in the move from 6 to 10 MP.
Let me know whether you have other specific questions. As you can read from the above, I am working through these issues myself.
Ben Marks
Last edited:
Joe Mondello
Resu Deretsiger
Yeah, what Ben said! ;-)
I'd never have considered an M8 without using the R-D1 first. And each definitely has its charms.
I'd never have considered an M8 without using the R-D1 first. And each definitely has its charms.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
I should also add that the metering on the M8 seems pretty good based on in-camera histograms and double-checking in PS "Levels". My RD-1 has a 2/3 stop underexposure bias when set to auto. Odd, that.
RF patch in the RD-1 is tilted off of square a couple of degrees in the VF. M8 VF is of comparable quality to M7, M6 etc. Leica really knows what they are doing in terms of bright, contrasty viewfinders. With the RD-1 and a 50, I have learned that I need to bump the top of the subject's head right up against the top frame line (or even clip a little hair) to have the subject appropriately placed in the frame. No such issue with the M8. Also: I rather like the quality of the files (16-bit TIFFs) from Epson's native RAW conversion software. I have not bothered to load the software that came with the M8, trusting to either C1 LE (still a bit of a mystery . . . where do those processed files go, actually? Sometimes, I can't find 'em - user error, no doubt) or Adobe Camera RAW.
Shutter noise - same-same, but different. RD-1 is more plastic-y/spring-y; M8 is more motor-y.
IR issue - I don't get it. At least not yet. Last night, just on a lark, I took a close-up picture of chicken cooking on a black gas-grill. Absolutely brimming with IR (or at least it should be). No purples. Hmm. Guess I'll have to track down someone who is dressed in shiny black nylon to see if I can get a case of the purples.
Ben
RF patch in the RD-1 is tilted off of square a couple of degrees in the VF. M8 VF is of comparable quality to M7, M6 etc. Leica really knows what they are doing in terms of bright, contrasty viewfinders. With the RD-1 and a 50, I have learned that I need to bump the top of the subject's head right up against the top frame line (or even clip a little hair) to have the subject appropriately placed in the frame. No such issue with the M8. Also: I rather like the quality of the files (16-bit TIFFs) from Epson's native RAW conversion software. I have not bothered to load the software that came with the M8, trusting to either C1 LE (still a bit of a mystery . . . where do those processed files go, actually? Sometimes, I can't find 'em - user error, no doubt) or Adobe Camera RAW.
Shutter noise - same-same, but different. RD-1 is more plastic-y/spring-y; M8 is more motor-y.
IR issue - I don't get it. At least not yet. Last night, just on a lark, I took a close-up picture of chicken cooking on a black gas-grill. Absolutely brimming with IR (or at least it should be). No purples. Hmm. Guess I'll have to track down someone who is dressed in shiny black nylon to see if I can get a case of the purples.
Ben
Last edited:
boilerdoc2
Well-known
Don't have to cock the M8 after each shot. And can use long lenses up to 135 (altho not officially supported) because of longer base length. The R-D1 is not replaced by the M8 - it is best used for wider lenses with the M8 having longer/faster lenses. i'm keeping my R-D1s! Build quality is robust on the M8 - as it should be.
Steve
Steve
Terao
Kiloran
Thanks all, you've certainly answered my next question which was whether I should trade-in the R-D1 - clearly I shouldn't! Mine is also reasonably beat about by the standards of used rangefinder kit. I'm interested in your (and the wider forum's) thoughts on the RAW workflow. I really like Epson Photo RAW (options for filters and film types in particular) and just don't get on with Adobe Camera RAW. Haven't tried any of the other processors that support DNG.
As to the viewfinder, I wear glasses so am hoping the lower mag will give better eyepoint. I can barely see the edges of the 35mm frame on the R-D1. I don't shoot eyes open so won't miss the 1:1 finder either.
I guess for me the biggest issue is build quality and depreciation. The money invested is so much higher than the R-D1 (got mine for £800). I guess what counts in its favour is that Leica cycle times are bound to be longer than Nikon/Canon, but I wonder just how long. Its not going to be the gradual evolution of the M series to date though, which is part of the problem. Upgradeitis is much more virulent for digital gearheads...
Hmm, decisions, decisions
As to the viewfinder, I wear glasses so am hoping the lower mag will give better eyepoint. I can barely see the edges of the 35mm frame on the R-D1. I don't shoot eyes open so won't miss the 1:1 finder either.
I guess for me the biggest issue is build quality and depreciation. The money invested is so much higher than the R-D1 (got mine for £800). I guess what counts in its favour is that Leica cycle times are bound to be longer than Nikon/Canon, but I wonder just how long. Its not going to be the gradual evolution of the M series to date though, which is part of the problem. Upgradeitis is much more virulent for digital gearheads...
Hmm, decisions, decisions
Gid
Well-known
A lot of sensible stuff already said. The R-D1 IQ is very good. The M8 is very, very good, but it really depends on so many factors that sometimes it is difficult to see a real difference. Ergonomics go to the R-D1. RF/VF goes to the M8. Build quality - the R-D1 feels just as robust as the M8, but the "flaky" RF/VF is well documented. The R-D1 feels like an analogue camera, the M8 a big P&S. I'm definitely keeping my R-D1. The M8 ................................ hmm
ebann
Newbie
Joe Mondello said:
Now where did you find a R-D1
Ben Z
Veteran
I've had a chance to use the M8 quite a bit by now, although I don't yet own one. I really like it, but every time I am about to pull the trigger on one, another report of some new glitch either on the Leica User forum or through a private e-mail from someone, makes me hold off. Part of it is undoubtedly the cost, because I knew going in that the RD-1 had a spotty QC record and virtually nonexistant service&support yet for <$1400 I didn't hesitate to risk it (nb: so far, so good). At $5000 my tolerance level for bugs and defects is a lot lower. I really, really like the M8 and hope to have one sooner or later. The RD1, as long as it functions reliably, will serve as it's backup because a second M8 at full price is out of the question. Especially given that my better half has indicated the intent to match my camera spending dollar for dollar at the jewelry store
Joe Mondello
Resu Deretsiger
ebann said:
I recall seeing one on the shelf at Calumet at 22 W 22nd St a month or so ago.
The M8 at $4795 is a 60% price premium above the R-D1(s) at $2999 -- and arguably is a 60% better camera.
But I was able to get a reasonably decent re-furb 6 months ago fro $1395 so I'm keeping mine as a back up for the M8.
This place in Japan is selling them on eBay for $2195 (new) I think.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Epson-R-D1s-RD-...ryZ50534QQrdZ1QQssPageNameZWD1VQQcmdZViewItem
There recently was a deal from one Japanese dealer with a lens and a strap for $2399 or so (new).
The R-D1 is largely discontinued but used ones pop up from time to time here on RFF and elsewhere.
usccharles
Well-known
i don't use my RD-1 anymore. i was never really fond of the 1.6x crop factor. you lose too much bokeh space when your images are cropped so much, especially with the noctilux. i'm a bokeh freak what can i say the M8 also has a crop factor, but its only 1.33x crop, and i've been much more happy with it than the 1.6x crop.
in terms of image quality, i say M8 hands down. i don't think its the 6mp to 10mp jump. just with simple visual observation, i always find the M8 images to be much sharper and chrisper. WB is excellent with the M8 when it gets it right, but awful when it is off.
build quality: in terms of hardware, i think M8 has a much sturdier feel because it is more metal than the Rd-1's plastic. its more compact too. in terms of software, the only problem i've had was the magneta cast, but thats not really a software problem. its more whether or not you can live with magneta cast/IR filter or not.
my first Rd-1 was faulty, the shutter didn't work. got it replaced with a second one and it worked like a jem. i was running with my rd-1 once and i dropped the camera. it rolled and rolled and rolled, making cracks and dings all over the camera, breaking my summicron 35, but the rd-1 only needed realigning of the viewfinder and it was working fine, cracks and all. i've not rolled my M8 yet and do not wish to find out what happens if it does.
i love the viewfinder on the RD-1. its so cool to open both eyes while taking the picture.
the M8 also has a crop factor, but its only 1.33x crop, and i've been much more happy with it than the 1.6x crop. in terms of image quality, i say M8 hands down. i don't think its the 6mp to 10mp jump. just with simple visual observation, i always find the M8 images to be much sharper and chrisper. WB is excellent with the M8 when it gets it right, but awful when it is off.
build quality: in terms of hardware, i think M8 has a much sturdier feel because it is more metal than the Rd-1's plastic. its more compact too. in terms of software, the only problem i've had was the magneta cast, but thats not really a software problem. its more whether or not you can live with magneta cast/IR filter or not.
my first Rd-1 was faulty, the shutter didn't work. got it replaced with a second one and it worked like a jem. i was running with my rd-1 once and i dropped the camera. it rolled and rolled and rolled, making cracks and dings all over the camera, breaking my summicron 35, but the rd-1 only needed realigning of the viewfinder and it was working fine, cracks and all. i've not rolled my M8 yet and do not wish to find out what happens if it does.
i love the viewfinder on the RD-1. its so cool to open both eyes while taking the picture.