Good new for all of you R-D1 lovers

Eyal_bin said:
Only by sensor size and resolution, as I said here before, on all other factors, I don't think that the M9 is better.
Click to expand...

Then, keep using RD-1 as it is your tool of choice and suits your shooting style.
Personally, i dont get blown away by looking at RD-1 results.
 
M9 is an awesome tool. While I love my R-D1 and find it to have lots of charm and think the IQ is amazing, it's different.

I'd feel much more comfortable bringing an M9 on an important shoot. It's simply a more direct tool for the job. It buffers faster and you don't have to cock a shutter back manually (something I personally love about the R-D1, but realize it does take more time) making it less likely you miss a key shot, it can take more the 2gb memory cards, it's got a reasonable screen on the back for checking images (folding the R-D1 screen away is charming and helpful for discipline, but that's about it), it's built like a tank, which can come in handy for heavy user--

And the image quality. Full frame. It's nice to have, I know this. I don't think about the difference when shooting the R-D1, but it is nonetheless a clear advantage. The IQ is beautiful, the design is beautiful-- it's a beautiful camera all around. The R-D1 has a bit more charm in my book, but the M9 is all around the better performer.

My problem is that I've spent so much time thinking the M9 is my dream camera only to realize a few weeks ago that if I had an M9 in my possession I'd trade it in post-haste for an MP.
 
It has taken some time but the M8 body style has grown on me to the point where I no longer wish it felt like the RD1 the second I pick it up.

I've been thinking about selling the RD1 to pick up a film Leica, but I wouldn't trade it for another digital.
 
I haven't used an RD-1 but the M8 was a revelation for me. I really like the simplicity of the handling compared to DSLR's and MFT cameras that I came from. I not only love shooting it, carrying it every day, etc. but I even find myself looking at it when I am not using it (LOL). To me its everything a camera should be. I find that I have a lot more "keepers" than I ever had before and the whole process is much much more fluid without messing around with menus vs. what I have used in the past. At a recent Boston RFF meeting I mentioned I loved not using menus and the simplicity of the M system... and someone mentioned... "But with the M8 you DO use menus for ISO right?"... it so easy to use I really forgot... but its true you do have to use them at times.

That being said... I do wish it had some of the things I really liked when looking at an RD-1... Namely, the beautiful analog controls and feedback for ISO, exposure compensation, and being able to cover the back of the camera. I really thought about getting an RD-1 but was concerned about the age and given the price of a used M8 the Leica was a better choice for me however your mileage may vary. Either way, they are (RD-1, M8, M9) great digital RF cameras so whatever gets you out there and works for you is best.

KD
 
Last edited:
Eyal_bin said:
Only by sensor size and resolution, as I said here before, on all other factors, I don't think that the M9 is better.
Click to expand...

Well, that and the rangefinder base. And automatic frame selection. And taking bigger memory cards. And having a good range of fast wide-angles. And (assuming R.S. is right, and I've no reason to call him a liar) faster buffering.

And, come to think of it, image quality (which depends on sensor size and resolution) is quite an important factor when it comes to cameras.

Cheers,

R.
 
I still like my Kodak DCS200ir.

And it was really the first. DSLR with an integrated storage device. The DCS100 took a BIG Tethered pack about the size of a Compaq Luggable Computer.
 
JSU said:
I used one RD-1S for about 5 - 6 months and realized I was constantly comparing it with the M6's and other Leica M's I had owned since 1974. Specifically, I was comparing the images I was getting and all too often not getting. My percentage of keepers with the RD-1S just wasn't satisfactory. I was missing too many shots due to missed focus. My assessment is that the RF baselength and RF patch in the VF just doesn't work for me compared to a Leica M.
Click to expand...
You're probably probably wrong in that respect. Yes the RF baselength is shorter in the R-D1 (38.2 vs 47.1), but taking into account the increased DoF for the smaller 1.5x sensor, I'd venture the difference isn't that big an issue (it would need a 42mm BL to be the same), certainly to the point where you can't blame consistently missed shots on it.

Also, fun fact, because of the increased DoF with the FF sensor, the R-D1 has a much more accurate RF than the M9 (with an R-D1 needing just a 31mm BL to be as accurate as the M9).
 
Last edited:
R-D1, R-D1s and R-D1x are the only 1:1 dRFs so far. Shooting both eyes open is a unique experience that M9 users cannot share w/o an 1.4x magnifier. The Epsons are also the only dRFs that photogs can use w/o chimping at all. And what a pleasure to have only one frameline in the viewfinder. I like much my little M8.2 for sure, it's IQ is better in color but framing is so much easier with the Epsons that it helps me taking better photographs like i did with my dear old M3. The M9 is a nice camera for sure but it will never be on par from those view points.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
If you like your camera, that's great. People do not like being labeled as "rich or nostalgic" because they use a Leica.
Click to expand...

What ^^ he said.

Congrats everyone... I just test drove a Ferrari and stayed a night at a mansion. Its overrated... I can now return to my card board box.
:bang:


PS> I've own the R-D1, M8 and M9. Like all three... for there own specific reasons.

Let the self loving and self re-assurance continue.
 
Last edited:
punkromance said:
You're probably probably wrong in that respect. Yes the RF baselength is shorter in the R-D1 (38.2 vs 47.1), but taking into account the increased DoF for the smaller 1.5x sensor, I'd venture the difference isn't that big an issue (it would need a 42mm BL to be the same), certainly to the point where you can't blame consistently missed shots on it.

Also, fun fact, because of the increased DoF with the FF sensor, the R-D1 has a much more accurate RF than the M9 (with an R-D1 needing just a 31mm BL to be as accurate as the M9).
Click to expand...

Not quite understand. Lens wise, for the same lens the DoF is fixed, regardless of sensor size. View finder magnification does affect yes.
 
fuwen said:
Not quite understand. Lens wise, for the same lens the DoF is fixed, regardless of sensor size. View finder magnification does affect yes.
Click to expand...
Yes variables are VF magnification, but also focal length and circle of confusion (CoC). APS cams use wider lenses to get the same FoV as FF and the formers' CoC values are smaller due to the crop factor. For example we stand good chance to get higher hit rates with a 50/1.4 on the 1:1 R-D1 than with a 75/1.4 on a 0.68x M w/o magnifier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

jonwaltermoceyhanton
epson r-d1 owner - seeking repair advice
Replies
6
Views
3K
Darthfeeble
Darthfeeble
A
My Leica SL2-S settings
Replies
0
Views
634
Archiver
A
J
  • Article Article
A Leica Lover’s Guide to Acquiring a Digital M:
2
Replies
26
Views
4K
ranger9
R
vicmortelmans
Epson R-D1 white balance Kelvin values
Replies
3
Views
2K
vicmortelmans
vicmortelmans
J
  • Featured
  • Article Article
What exactly is a point & shoot camera? Glad you asked!The Kodak of 1888 may have been the first, and even Leica got into the act!
Replies
16
Views
564
Jason Schneider
J
Back
Top Bottom