Ponsoldt
Established
I have an R-d1. I looked at Reid's review and comparison shots between the R-d1 and the M8 and do not notice a significant difference in the photos. I have an opportunity to buy a M8 and I do notice a significant difference in the price. Is it worth it and if so why?
kbg32
neo-romanticist
Only you can decide if you need the extra megapixals based upon your work and needs. We can all make suggestions, but ultimately, it is your decision. While the RD-1 is a great camera, 6 megapixels for what I need is not enough.
Sailor Ted
Well-known
Take a look at my photos taken with my R-D1s and M8 on my flickr account. Aside from the fact you can focus the M8 I would say "yes" however only you can be the judge.
Ben Z
Veteran
There are several top-end, professional-quality digital cameras with more megapixels than the M8, so if that's a primary criteria then it probably isn't cost-effective to trade up from the RD-1. Likewise, if you are the type who will be livid with rage or green with envy if Leica soon releases an upgraded model that does not need accessory IR filters to give reasonably good color rendering and if the current M8 is not upgradable it and the stack of ~$100/ea. filters depreciate heavily before you've had the opportunity to realize sufficient cost savings from film/developing. I admit that's part of why I nixed the urge to buy an M8 and in fact bought an RD-1 refurb just recently. Waiting and watching.
As a new RD-1 owner and an almost M8 buyer, I am first to say it's not all roses with the RD-1. Since you have one and it's working, I'll assume the reliability and service issues haven't been a problem for you. Certainly there are enough sporadic reports of teething glitches with the M8 that it can't be called all that reliable yet but it's so early in the game, in a few months that should all be history (if the M8 isn't as well). But at least Leica has an identifiable service department and acts like a company committed to a product--something that can't be said for Epson in the case of the RD-1.
The M8 has several distinct advantages to my mind. Whether image quality is one or not I can't say, because nothing I've seen on the 'net looks to me any better than any other contemporary digital. You'd really have to compare prints made by people with credible post-processing skill, not uploads sized for the web.
One advantage is the relative crop factor and the viewfinder. The RD-1's 1.5x translates focal lengths to weird in-betweens, whereas in most cases the 1.33x of the M8 bumps them very close to the next-longest common focal length. In addition the RD-1's framelines go only to the 28mm lens which is a 42mm f.o.v., so if like me your most-used lens has been 35mm, you need a separate finder. I didn't mind with the ultrawides, but for my "standard" lens I'm finding it a PITA. Also the rangefinder area in the RD-1 does not move along with the parallax framelines so at close focus it's way off center.
I also find the manual shutter winder of the RD-1 a ridiculous nod to nostalgia. The camera needs batteries to work, and there's no film to move. All the manual lever does is slow me down.
In all I was mightly happy with the M8 when I had a chance to handle one, and just bubbling over with anticipation to get one. Then I found out about the need for IR filters in color and all the excitement just vanished. I'm content with the RD-1, especially at the $1395 price, for the meantime as it allows me to use my Leica lenses on digital while I wait to see if Leica steps up with a revamped sensor IR filter. If they don't by the time the warranty runs out on my RD-1, with great disappointment I will sell all my Leica goodies and resign myself
to a full-frame Canon dslr.
I have been using Fred Miranda's sharpening and uprezzing plugins meant for the Nikon D100 (which uses the same chip as the RD-1) with good results up to 11x14 which is as large as I ever print. I suppose they do nothing magic, but I am not really excited about going through a trial-and-error curve to DIY in Photoshop with a camera most likely I won't have a year from now.
I can't understand anyone committing almost $5000 sight-unseen to a camera, based on what other people say--good or bad--on the 'net, though it seems like that's what a lot of people have done. A few have sent theirs back or sold them, most are keeping them and using them and seem to get overly defensive when anyone suggests they are in any way flawed so I have to wonder in their heart of hearts how happy they really are, no matter how strenuously they try to convince others (and maybe themselves). In any case, the important IR filters are in very short supply, the major firmware upgrade (1.10) is still not ready for downloading, and various and sundry other bugs are surfacing here and there. If you have a good working RD-1, I can't see where there's much of a downside to waiting a few months to see what shakes out.
As a new RD-1 owner and an almost M8 buyer, I am first to say it's not all roses with the RD-1. Since you have one and it's working, I'll assume the reliability and service issues haven't been a problem for you. Certainly there are enough sporadic reports of teething glitches with the M8 that it can't be called all that reliable yet but it's so early in the game, in a few months that should all be history (if the M8 isn't as well). But at least Leica has an identifiable service department and acts like a company committed to a product--something that can't be said for Epson in the case of the RD-1.
The M8 has several distinct advantages to my mind. Whether image quality is one or not I can't say, because nothing I've seen on the 'net looks to me any better than any other contemporary digital. You'd really have to compare prints made by people with credible post-processing skill, not uploads sized for the web.
One advantage is the relative crop factor and the viewfinder. The RD-1's 1.5x translates focal lengths to weird in-betweens, whereas in most cases the 1.33x of the M8 bumps them very close to the next-longest common focal length. In addition the RD-1's framelines go only to the 28mm lens which is a 42mm f.o.v., so if like me your most-used lens has been 35mm, you need a separate finder. I didn't mind with the ultrawides, but for my "standard" lens I'm finding it a PITA. Also the rangefinder area in the RD-1 does not move along with the parallax framelines so at close focus it's way off center.
I also find the manual shutter winder of the RD-1 a ridiculous nod to nostalgia. The camera needs batteries to work, and there's no film to move. All the manual lever does is slow me down.
In all I was mightly happy with the M8 when I had a chance to handle one, and just bubbling over with anticipation to get one. Then I found out about the need for IR filters in color and all the excitement just vanished. I'm content with the RD-1, especially at the $1395 price, for the meantime as it allows me to use my Leica lenses on digital while I wait to see if Leica steps up with a revamped sensor IR filter. If they don't by the time the warranty runs out on my RD-1, with great disappointment I will sell all my Leica goodies and resign myself
to a full-frame Canon dslr. I have been using Fred Miranda's sharpening and uprezzing plugins meant for the Nikon D100 (which uses the same chip as the RD-1) with good results up to 11x14 which is as large as I ever print. I suppose they do nothing magic, but I am not really excited about going through a trial-and-error curve to DIY in Photoshop with a camera most likely I won't have a year from now.
I can't understand anyone committing almost $5000 sight-unseen to a camera, based on what other people say--good or bad--on the 'net, though it seems like that's what a lot of people have done. A few have sent theirs back or sold them, most are keeping them and using them and seem to get overly defensive when anyone suggests they are in any way flawed so I have to wonder in their heart of hearts how happy they really are, no matter how strenuously they try to convince others (and maybe themselves). In any case, the important IR filters are in very short supply, the major firmware upgrade (1.10) is still not ready for downloading, and various and sundry other bugs are surfacing here and there. If you have a good working RD-1, I can't see where there's much of a downside to waiting a few months to see what shakes out.
Sailor Ted
Well-known
Actually Ben that is the most balanced account of the M8 and R-D1 I've read from you- spot on good job.
rvaubel
Well-known
Sailor Ted said:
Ben
I agree that your account is very balanced. You do "get it"
That being said, the only real problem (besides obviously cost) with the M8 is the filter issue. Even though I hate filters, I decided that the benifits of the M8 were greater the horrors of the filters. That's just a descision that I made, for me the right one.
What I don't understand is your crusade. We do understand your point.
BTW, I have the RD1 also. I don't know which one will break first, but I'm ready
Rex
eef
Established
Got the RD-1 sight unseen, based on reviews. Sean Reid was especially helpful, thanks Sean! I love that camera, even though I had to send it back twice. It got me back into photography.
The short rangefinder base, and some other limitations convinced me that the M8 would be better. Again I have to thank (blame?) Sean for that one. I figured if he like the RD-1 and I did too, then his opinion on the M8 was worth something.
Ben makes a good point about relying on other peoples opinions, especially ones found on the net. Trying to assess the credibility and worthiness of online chatter is difficult. For example, I don't mind the winder on the Epson, it reminds me that the shutter is mechanical, which seems nostalgic in a way. Others do!
Some people are really bothered about the IR filter jazz on the M8. I don't have the filters (yet) and am pretty happy with my pictures. I also figure that since I am one of those crazies who is worried about getting crud on my lenses, and always have a filter on them anyway, the upgrade to IR filters is just some $.
What you have to decide is: what matters to you? Maybe you really want a self-timer and don't like this idea:
http://home.att.net/~drt-3d/toys/timers/
In which case you need the M8!
The short rangefinder base, and some other limitations convinced me that the M8 would be better. Again I have to thank (blame?) Sean for that one. I figured if he like the RD-1 and I did too, then his opinion on the M8 was worth something.
Ben makes a good point about relying on other peoples opinions, especially ones found on the net. Trying to assess the credibility and worthiness of online chatter is difficult. For example, I don't mind the winder on the Epson, it reminds me that the shutter is mechanical, which seems nostalgic in a way. Others do!
Some people are really bothered about the IR filter jazz on the M8. I don't have the filters (yet) and am pretty happy with my pictures. I also figure that since I am one of those crazies who is worried about getting crud on my lenses, and always have a filter on them anyway, the upgrade to IR filters is just some $.
What you have to decide is: what matters to you? Maybe you really want a self-timer and don't like this idea:
http://home.att.net/~drt-3d/toys/timers/
In which case you need the M8!
Gid
Well-known
Only you can decide if the price difference is worth it. I have both. I've had the R-D1 for just about two years and I've taken some of my favourite photographs with it. I love the ergonomics and the big VF. I've never had any problems with it apart from VF drift which I've fixed myself, twice in two years and occasional dust which I've cleaned off twice in two years. I've printed to A3+ and I am very happy with the results.
When the R-D1 was released it was £2000 (that's what I paid ). That was roughly 5 times the price of the voigtlander "donor" body. An M7 costs £2000 which makes the M8 1.5 times the price of the "donor" body. This makes the M8 relatively inexpensive, although it is expensive in absolute terms.
I've had my M8 for less than two weeks. My initial reaction was negative - size, shutter noise (louder than R-D1), menu system, absolutely diabolical auto white balance, magenta (and not just on synthetics). However, I'm starting to like the camera in spite of its shortcomings and provided that the firmware fixes and my filters come through I will most likely keep it.
Finally, what sold it to me was an informal test I did this afternoon. I walked around the village with both the M8 and the R-D1. M8 with 50 'cron at ISO 160 and R-D1 with 50 hexanon at ISO 200 (effectively the same, as M8 sensitivity is 25% higher than quoted). Took the same shot with each camera from the same position at the same aperture and both in Raw. Got home and processed the R-D1 through photoraw and the M8 through lightroom with no sharpening. Now, I don't generally pixel peep, but when I looked at the corresponding images at 100% I was blown away by the sharpness/detail of the M8 image. It is so much better than the R-D1, which up until this afternoon I thought was very good. However, the colour balance and overall exposure from the R-D1 is much better, but I have used it for two years and I'm sure I will get used to the M8's exposure bias.
Does all this make it worth £3000 - that is a difficult one to answer, but I have bought one
When the R-D1 was released it was £2000 (that's what I paid
). That was roughly 5 times the price of the voigtlander "donor" body. An M7 costs £2000 which makes the M8 1.5 times the price of the "donor" body. This makes the M8 relatively inexpensive, although it is expensive in absolute terms.I've had my M8 for less than two weeks. My initial reaction was negative - size, shutter noise (louder than R-D1), menu system, absolutely diabolical auto white balance, magenta (and not just on synthetics). However, I'm starting to like the camera in spite of its shortcomings and provided that the firmware fixes and my filters come through I will most likely keep it.
Finally, what sold it to me was an informal test I did this afternoon. I walked around the village with both the M8 and the R-D1. M8 with 50 'cron at ISO 160 and R-D1 with 50 hexanon at ISO 200 (effectively the same, as M8 sensitivity is 25% higher than quoted). Took the same shot with each camera from the same position at the same aperture and both in Raw. Got home and processed the R-D1 through photoraw and the M8 through lightroom with no sharpening. Now, I don't generally pixel peep, but when I looked at the corresponding images at 100% I was blown away by the sharpness/detail of the M8 image. It is so much better than the R-D1, which up until this afternoon I thought was very good. However, the colour balance and overall exposure from the R-D1 is much better, but I have used it for two years and I'm sure I will get used to the M8's exposure bias.
Does all this make it worth £3000 - that is a difficult one to answer, but I have bought one
POINT OF VIEW
Established
You didn’t mention what lens will be using on the M8, if the majority of your lens are Leica buy the M8.
To me it’s like installing a Porsche engine in a Volkswagen. Plus Leica needs the money.
To me it’s like installing a Porsche engine in a Volkswagen. Plus Leica needs the money.
barjohn
Established
I had both and kept the M8 for many of the reasons stated. Today I got one of the 486 IR filters for my lowly Minolta 40/2 lens and took some shots of objects in my house that had been given a magenta cast. Wow-- black like they should have been! For my other lenses that use standard filter sizes I am waiting for my freebees. As a result I can't tell how they will be. The Minolta uses 40.5mm so I ordered one from Cambridge World and they overnighted it to me.
The other thing that influenced me was TTL flash. I broke down and purchased the SF 24D and was surprised at how small and light it is and how well it works with the camera. I prefer not to use a flash but there are times when you want a flash and I didn't want to have to lug some big heavy thing around. It is nice sized and doesn't make the camera feel like it will tip over.
The other thing that influenced me was TTL flash. I broke down and purchased the SF 24D and was surprised at how small and light it is and how well it works with the camera. I prefer not to use a flash but there are times when you want a flash and I didn't want to have to lug some big heavy thing around. It is nice sized and doesn't make the camera feel like it will tip over.
Ponsoldt
Established
looking at sailor Ted's photos it appears that the M8 photos are brighter and sharper. I am assuming Ted used the same lenses and the same processing paramaters. Does anyone agree? By the way, I have Leica lenses but I don't think that is the deciding factor since I also have an MP.
S
sreidvt
Guest
Ponsoldt said:
I tried to go through a lot of the pros and cons for this decision in those first two M8 reviews and I'll add whatever I can think of here. Both camera's are sensitive to IR, enough so that color rendering can be affected but the problem is stronger with the M8. In ordinary work, one certainly can see the difference in resolution between the two cameras but that may or may not be important to you.
Have you had a chance to read the long-term R-D1 review?
The M8 has a better and more accurate rangefinder but a well-adjusted R-D1 RF can do fine so long as it doesn't have play in the yoke.
The question of long-term support for the R-D1, out of warranty, may be a legitimate concern. It's my understanding that cameras can go back to Japan for service but I believe the cost may be significant. It would be good to have an independent specialist who was able to work on various aspects of the Epson, including the electronics. It's not so much a question of whether or not Epson is a "camera company" but more one of how much effort they'll choose to put into supporting the camera long-term. The M8s have had some teething problems but I expect support for that camera will be excellent and will last a long time.
Then again, the Epson is a lot less expensive and that may weigh in favor of taking the plunge even if future support is a question mark. If you get an R-D1 with a good rangefinder (that is adjusted properly or can be) it might be serviceable for quite awhile. I still have one R-D1 and, as far as I can recall, the only problem I had my various R-D1 bodies (aside from the rangefinder) was an AE lock button that froze and made it impossible to turn the shutter dial. I'd have to reread my own article but I don't recall having any other concerns that weren't addressed by the firmware upgrade.
Both cameras will make excellent use of high-quality RF lenses from any maker. The M8 will exploit the resolution of certain lenses to a greater degree but then that's not necessarily what photography is about.
Cheers,
Sean
Last edited by a moderator:
POINT OF VIEW
Established
In 2 years ( the length of the Leica Warranty ) will Epson be there for support. I can’t get them to help with a 13 month old printer. If customer support fits in your equation any ware, go Leica, they are after all, a camera company.
Sailor Ted
Well-known
Ponsoldt said:
Actually I apply less sharpening to my M8 images then to my R-D1 images. Also sharpness is not the same thing as detail- sharpness aside the M8 has a LOT more detail and a greater dynamic range of color and contrast. As to the lenses yes I use the same lenses for both camera bodies- nearly all my images are shot on either Zeiss or Voightlander glass. I am however getting a Summilux 35mm thanks to the 30% discount- I love you Leica : )
Last edited:
S
sreidvt
Guest
Sailor Ted said:
That's a great choice Ted. The 35 Lux Asph is one of my favorite Leica lenses and nothing from Zeiss or CV is quite like it.
Cheers,
Sean
Sailor Ted
Well-known
Why thank you Mr. Reid and thank you also for such a wonderful website resource- cheers!
Ted
Ted
AusDLK
Famous Photographer
I am a former M8 -- and R-D1 owner -- deciding that digital rangefinder cameras require too much of a compromise for what I like to do with them.
While I have never attempted to make serious prints from M8 RAW files, I have from R-D1 RAW files.
I have made numerous 11x17" prints, often cropping out on the order of 50% or more of the image area, and I still left with impressively crisp prints.
Perhaps the same image from the M8 would be as good or better -- but the results from the R-D1 are excellent.
Therefore I'm not sure that improved image quality alone would be a particularly strong reason to "upgrade".
While I have never attempted to make serious prints from M8 RAW files, I have from R-D1 RAW files.
I have made numerous 11x17" prints, often cropping out on the order of 50% or more of the image area, and I still left with impressively crisp prints.
Perhaps the same image from the M8 would be as good or better -- but the results from the R-D1 are excellent.
Therefore I'm not sure that improved image quality alone would be a particularly strong reason to "upgrade".
barjohn
Established
I haven't made large prints yet but I would agree that the R-D1 makes excellent images. In my opinion, the M8s are slightly better with more detail. Like everything else , high end audio, high end video, cars, watches, etc. you pay a very high premium for a very small incremental improvement. It's called the law of diminishing returns. Only you can decide whether the increment is worth the cost. In my high end audio days it took $30K to have a decent high end system compared to $1-2K for a consumer sound system and to reach the pinacle of sound systems you were looking at $100K plus room modifications etc. Now, it's more like $200K.
Ben Z
Veteran
I think it's also fair to point out that the RD-1 has a much more pronounced tendency to vignette (light falloff caused by the sensor, not the lens) with the same lenses than the M8. A case in point is the 15mm Voitlander, one of my favorite lenses. It vignettes quite badly on my RD-1 but I've seen shots on the M8 and it doesn't (and there is no coding so no in-camera vignetting reduction being applied). Moreover the M8 allows a wider fov (lower crop factor) so the taming of the vignetting is even more impressive. Yes, vignetting can be "corrected" in post-processing, but not without some losses. Neither of these are perfect cameras. I doubt we will see another effort from Epson, let alone a better one. I do expect the next model from Leica will solve the IR issue without the filters...if they sell enough of the current ones to stay in business. To that end I think they ought to publicly pledge that any such an upgrade will be retrofittable to the current M8.
AusDLK
Famous Photographer
>the RD-1 has a much more pronounced tendency to vignette
This true.
But while the EpsonRAW software has the ability to correct for vignetting as per a specific focal length, more often than not I selected "no correction" regardless of the lens used as the vignetting produced a more dramatic image.
I've decided that vignetting is my friend...
This true.
But while the EpsonRAW software has the ability to correct for vignetting as per a specific focal length, more often than not I selected "no correction" regardless of the lens used as the vignetting produced a more dramatic image.
I've decided that vignetting is my friend...