fgianni
Trainee Amateur
John
If you shoot professionally and you can't stand DSLRs I am afraid the only possible choice is the M8, just make sure you either have your IR filters or, failing that, sharpen your photoshop skills.
The R-D1 is a great camera, but its reliability record makes it unsuitable for professional work IMHO.
Also remeber that on the R-D1 (and probably on the M8 as well) anything shot over ISO 400 may be a bit too noisy for pro use, unless you produce mainly B&W pictures, then the high noise is less of an issue, and I feel even ISO 1600 on the R-D1 is somehow acceptable after converting it in B&W.
If you shoot professionally and you can't stand DSLRs I am afraid the only possible choice is the M8, just make sure you either have your IR filters or, failing that, sharpen your photoshop skills.
The R-D1 is a great camera, but its reliability record makes it unsuitable for professional work IMHO.
Also remeber that on the R-D1 (and probably on the M8 as well) anything shot over ISO 400 may be a bit too noisy for pro use, unless you produce mainly B&W pictures, then the high noise is less of an issue, and I feel even ISO 1600 on the R-D1 is somehow acceptable after converting it in B&W.
emraphoto
Veteran
didier
you seem to speak a lot of wisdom my friend... as much as i want to like and invest in the rd-1 it seems i can't. reason? to many people, including the ones who really adore the camera, have had to send the little machine off for some sort of reason. i cannot afford to be without it. period. it really is dissapointing for me... the m8, where i'm living, would cost me in the neighbourhood of $6000. which just isn't in my budget right now. soooo, to make a long story short i have a pair of d1x's (gasp) on the way. not rangefinders, BIG, requiring new glass BUT reliable. thank you very much for all the impassioned replies. as i'm lugin those fella's about i'll be dreaming of the rd-1 that got away... sigh.
john
you seem to speak a lot of wisdom my friend... as much as i want to like and invest in the rd-1 it seems i can't. reason? to many people, including the ones who really adore the camera, have had to send the little machine off for some sort of reason. i cannot afford to be without it. period. it really is dissapointing for me... the m8, where i'm living, would cost me in the neighbourhood of $6000. which just isn't in my budget right now. soooo, to make a long story short i have a pair of d1x's (gasp) on the way. not rangefinders, BIG, requiring new glass BUT reliable. thank you very much for all the impassioned replies. as i'm lugin those fella's about i'll be dreaming of the rd-1 that got away... sigh.
john
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
John
I did not suggest you to get a DSLR 'cause I was under the impression that you had already ruled it out, but I think for professional shooting, you made the right decision.
I did not suggest you to get a DSLR 'cause I was under the impression that you had already ruled it out, but I think for professional shooting, you made the right decision.
Didier
"Deed"
Sailor Ted said:
Ted
I just re-checked some shots from my brother's recent 50th anniversary party, all made at ISO1600/f1.4. I must admit, my former judgement about the sensor noise might have been slightly too harsh (maybe I'm still angry because of all those issues
... The noise IS NOT not excessive, especially since I underexposed a little bit (which I always do in dark situations as I believe the R-D1 meter does overexpose in such moments). The noise is visible, more than with a Canon EOS 30d oder 5d, but could stand a comparison to a M8 without problems. See a sample and a 100% crop below.Didier
Sailor Ted
Well-known
John buddy, I'm doing the math- you've already got Leica glass and it's cheaper to get a pair of DSLRs that you mention, and new glass then a Leica M8? The Leica M8 is the camera to have with it's IR problems solved (just use filters- no big deal) and it has none of the mechanical issues of the R-D1s if the past 50 years of Leica M cameras mean anything.
Oh yea it also takes much better pictures then the R-D1s. I can't wait to get mine. But as Deed says below a third body, the R-D1s may indeed come into your world very soon.
Oh yea it also takes much better pictures then the R-D1s. I can't wait to get mine. But as Deed says below a third body, the R-D1s may indeed come into your world very soon.
Last edited:
Didier
"Deed"
John,emraphoto said:
The essential is that you just keep pushin the button... The D1x is cool, too. If you work hard enough, a R-D1 as third body will come into your reach soon
Didier
Sailor Ted
Well-known
Deed,
Yes certainly not excessive noise- especially a shot that is underexposed as you say.
Question- did you shoot RAW? If so you can probably correct for WP and lessen the appearance of noise. Assuming the shot will go over exposed seems to have as much to do with the lens as the camera from my brief experience so far. Checking the histogram is a sure fire way to make certain you are not over, or under exposing given a predictable lighting situation and with a particular lens, no?
Yes certainly not excessive noise- especially a shot that is underexposed as you say.
Question- did you shoot RAW? If so you can probably correct for WP and lessen the appearance of noise. Assuming the shot will go over exposed seems to have as much to do with the lens as the camera from my brief experience so far. Checking the histogram is a sure fire way to make certain you are not over, or under exposing given a predictable lighting situation and with a particular lens, no?
Didier
"Deed"
Sailor Ted said:
Ted
Underexposing in darker situations is reducing noise, I believe. I shoot RAW almost all the time. The only reason for not using RAW is when I need a faster shooting pace, or the card space is getting low.
Didier
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
To me, that "noise" looks very film/grain-like. Not too shabby at all!