codeandtheory
Member
I currently own the Rd1s, I am very happy with the results but I am very interested in purchasing the M8. The images look incredible and seem to capture natural light better. I have read a bunch of reviews and everyone speaks very highly of the camera. Do you think i will notice a big difference? I would really appreciate any advice or thoughts ? Also has anyone seen any side by side images comparing the two cameras?
akptc
Shoot first, think later
Great question. I would be interested as well to hear some opinions. For example, what if the AA filter was removed from the R-D1? Would the results be a complete mess? Can one take an image shot with the R-D1 and, using Photoshop, make it look more like an image obtained with an M8 (other than max size)? Why does an M8 image usually have more "punch" than an image shot with the R-D1? These and similar questions are on many inquiring minds...
K
krimple
Guest
Have both and...
Have both and...
It's just a set of my personal subjective opinions, but:
1. The R-D1 is a little less noisy at ISO 1600 than ISO 1250 on the M8
2. I like the Epson RAW converter's B&W output so much
3. The R-D1 resolution was a drag for cropping
4. The edge goes to the M8 for detail and sharpness, although in an 8x10 you would be hard pressed to tell the difference.
5. That said, I like the ergonomics of the R-D1 better (and like the film winder and ISO dial)
6. I find it easier to focus the M8 when i can view the rangefinder patch
7. I get rangefinder whiteout in bright light on the M8 that I don't get on the R-D1
8. M8 Battery--haven't killed one yet.
If Epson came out with a 10 Megapixel R-D1 I might have stuck with it. If they supported their camera in the US more I'd probably keep it. However, the M8 is a wonderful machine, and I'm more than happy with the image quality, if the shooting experience is slightly less manual and more digital than the R-D1.
I have never gotten as much detail out of an image as I have the M8--that includes the EOS 5D. Yes, there are 2 megapixels more resolution in a 5D, but the image is more smeared due to the AA filter and the CMOS rendering. However, in super low light, the edge currently goes to the 5D for capturing images at ISO 3200. I just don't want to carry it around anymore.
I'll send the M8 to Leica in a few days/weeks and get it fixed for banding. Once it's back, I think i"ll be selling an R-D1, and if I'm crazy, the EOS 5D. (Probably not, though if I did I could get the Leica 21, the 35 Summilux and a 90 Elmar F/4 with the closeup attachment).
Ken
Have both and...
akptc said:
It's just a set of my personal subjective opinions, but:
1. The R-D1 is a little less noisy at ISO 1600 than ISO 1250 on the M8
2. I like the Epson RAW converter's B&W output so much
3. The R-D1 resolution was a drag for cropping
4. The edge goes to the M8 for detail and sharpness, although in an 8x10 you would be hard pressed to tell the difference.
5. That said, I like the ergonomics of the R-D1 better (and like the film winder and ISO dial)
6. I find it easier to focus the M8 when i can view the rangefinder patch
7. I get rangefinder whiteout in bright light on the M8 that I don't get on the R-D1
8. M8 Battery--haven't killed one yet.
If Epson came out with a 10 Megapixel R-D1 I might have stuck with it. If they supported their camera in the US more I'd probably keep it. However, the M8 is a wonderful machine, and I'm more than happy with the image quality, if the shooting experience is slightly less manual and more digital than the R-D1.
I have never gotten as much detail out of an image as I have the M8--that includes the EOS 5D. Yes, there are 2 megapixels more resolution in a 5D, but the image is more smeared due to the AA filter and the CMOS rendering. However, in super low light, the edge currently goes to the 5D for capturing images at ISO 3200. I just don't want to carry it around anymore.
I'll send the M8 to Leica in a few days/weeks and get it fixed for banding. Once it's back, I think i"ll be selling an R-D1, and if I'm crazy, the EOS 5D. (Probably not, though if I did I could get the Leica 21, the 35 Summilux and a 90 Elmar F/4 with the closeup attachment).
Ken
Sailor Ted
Well-known
My gallery is composed mostly of images taken on an R-D1s however I'm adding new M8 images all the time. From what I've seen so far from a small sampling of images, the M8 is in a different league from the R-D1. Both are wonderful cameras however as I learn more about the M8 it's images will only get better.
The proof is in the pudding. Take a look at images from both the R-D1 and the M8 and you be the judge but let's please stop the fighting and BS. We have two wonderful DRF cameras now and let’s be glad of that. For those of us lucky enough to explore the M8's full potential RFf is an invaluable resource to share ideas and technique to make the most of this gift Leica has bestowed upon us- not a place to continue beating a horse with IR glasses. After all this horse is far from dead and as it’s turning out, the M8’s “issues” are also contributing to this cameras exceptional image quality.
(I added the statement regarding beating a dead horse in anticipation of what may be to come in a post asking for direct comparisons between these two excellent cameras. As already noted both have their place and both have their own unique attributes.)
Peace,
Sailor Ted
The proof is in the pudding. Take a look at images from both the R-D1 and the M8 and you be the judge but let's please stop the fighting and BS. We have two wonderful DRF cameras now and let’s be glad of that. For those of us lucky enough to explore the M8's full potential RFf is an invaluable resource to share ideas and technique to make the most of this gift Leica has bestowed upon us- not a place to continue beating a horse with IR glasses. After all this horse is far from dead and as it’s turning out, the M8’s “issues” are also contributing to this cameras exceptional image quality.
(I added the statement regarding beating a dead horse in anticipation of what may be to come in a post asking for direct comparisons between these two excellent cameras. As already noted both have their place and both have their own unique attributes.)
Peace,
Sailor Ted
Last edited:
AusDLK
Famous Photographer
clack, grind, scrunch, creak, whirr, clack
ugh
oh, yeah, and don't forget: slip
yes. i'm sticking to film for my serious work
ugh
oh, yeah, and don't forget: slip
yes. i'm sticking to film for my serious work
Last edited:
K
krimple
Guest
Sailor Ted said:
Am I somehow spreading BS by stating my opinions? I'm not against either camera. Just stating what I think of both cameras as I own both of them. My apologies if so!
Sailor Ted
Well-known
krimple said:
No Krimple I was not referring to you. I’m only anticipating what may be a S*** storm when a post asks us to draw direct comparisons between the R-D1 and the M8. In fact I agree with everything you wrote with one noted exception- the film advance lever on he R-D1. At first I hated the M8's ergonomics in this regard but after using the camera for a while (with the grip bottom) I’ve grown to love it and see it as a refined improvement over the R-D1 at least so far as shutter cocking goes- the exposure compensation in AP mode however stinks on the M8. Anyway things have happily calmed down from the tempest regarding IR cut filters and general heckling of the M8. Our community needs to heal and get along IMO : )
Last edited:
akptc
Shoot first, think later
Well, for one, I am really intersted in getting some feedback to the original questions. I find M8 images very impressive, own an R-D1, and logically, would love to know if some pre/post processing may exist that would allow me to get my RD1 images closer to the M8 look. I very much appreciate Ken's informative post and would love to see more.
Sailor Ted
Well-known
Andy,
The M8's images are impressive I agree. They project color saturation in a film like way that is unlike any other digital camera I've seen aside from medium format monsters I would never consider using outside a studio (and I don't much care for studio photography.) Also no amount of sharpening or algorithm alchemy can recreate information that is first lost- and this I'm afraid is the case with the Epson vs. Leica; the Leica's detail is one part of this puzzle that the Epson will fail to match IMO. That said I'd love to see what some of the PS Gurus come up with in the area of color as this will likewise raise the bar for the Leica.
My 2 cents,
Ted
The M8's images are impressive I agree. They project color saturation in a film like way that is unlike any other digital camera I've seen aside from medium format monsters I would never consider using outside a studio (and I don't much care for studio photography.) Also no amount of sharpening or algorithm alchemy can recreate information that is first lost- and this I'm afraid is the case with the Epson vs. Leica; the Leica's detail is one part of this puzzle that the Epson will fail to match IMO. That said I'd love to see what some of the PS Gurus come up with in the area of color as this will likewise raise the bar for the Leica.
My 2 cents,
Ted
Last edited:
furcafe
Veteran
As far as file quality, the main differences I've seen between the R-D1 & the M8 come down to 4 things: (1) the M8's greater resolution/file size--clear win for the M8; (2) the differences between the various raw file converters (Capture 1 v. Epson PhotoRAW v. Adobe Camera Raw in Photoshop)--quality varies depending on the files, but overall I'd say Capture 1 wins; (3) quality of noise--lower noise in the R-D1 @ 1600 than the M8 @ 1250, but the M8 seems to do better @ 640 than the R-D1 @ 800; & (4) ability to handle mixed lighting--the R-D1 does better w/some lighting, the M8 w/others (hard to quantify because this is related to #2, e.g., Capture 1 does better w/some R-D1 files than the Epson software or Photoshop).
Re: ergonomics, I do prefer the R-D1's overall layout & use of analog-style dials as opposed to nested menus, but using the M8 is hardly brain surgery.
Re: ergonomics, I do prefer the R-D1's overall layout & use of analog-style dials as opposed to nested menus, but using the M8 is hardly brain surgery.
akptc said:
akptc
Shoot first, think later
Thanks! this is just the kind of info I was hoping for to help me make up my mind about the M8. Much appreciated.
summilux
Well-known
just add some more observation to the above:
1. the LCD on M8 is definitely better than Epson's, no wonder considering the time gaps in between. you can check focus easier on M8, color is also more accurate on it.
2. the rangefinder on M8 is more accurate, that will help fast speed lens users.
3. the built in motor of M8 is a real asset if you are out there grabbing shots, M8 is this regard in the first M with built in motor while still keeping its form factor, itself an achievement (although I still think the Hexar RF's motor is quieter)
I really hope there will be more offerings on the horizen, but life waits for nobody, so let us have fun.
1. the LCD on M8 is definitely better than Epson's, no wonder considering the time gaps in between. you can check focus easier on M8, color is also more accurate on it.
2. the rangefinder on M8 is more accurate, that will help fast speed lens users.
3. the built in motor of M8 is a real asset if you are out there grabbing shots, M8 is this regard in the first M with built in motor while still keeping its form factor, itself an achievement (although I still think the Hexar RF's motor is quieter)
I really hope there will be more offerings on the horizen, but life waits for nobody, so let us have fun.
pundit
Established
J. Borger
Well-known
Here are my random thoughts about both cameras ....
There is only one aspect where i prefer the R-D1.. and that is the 1:1 viewfinder. Especially the combination of 50 and 75m framelines is confusing on the M8. I have the 1,25% magnifier glued to the m8 ..... but even than.
For the files ... it's amost impossible to blow highlights or block shadows with the M8 ... the raw files show lots of lattitude with very open shadows ... even using the most contrasty lenses .............. the downside is a file from the M8 almost never looks the way i want it to look of camera ... so in generall i have to post-process a bit more with the M8. I like that ..... what you get is a "negative" with LOTS of information. Files that need little to no sharpening and can be interpolated a long way before showing any form of degradation.
I think Sean Reid put it right in his initial review .... M8 files at lower isos have a look very much like Medium Format files .. very different from R-D1 files in my opinion. THat's part of the "punch" people refer to ......
My M8 is back to Solms for the fix ... so i am using the R-D1 at the moment again after i had it put to rest for the last 7 weeks ...... but i have problems stepping back ..... in ease of use of the camera ( i prefer the ergonomics of the M8) as well as in quality of the files.
I agree with the statement about the Epson Raw converter ........ it is fantastic for B&W conversions ........... so far i am not overly enthousiastic of C1, not even with the dedicated B&W profiles from JFI labs ... i simply do not like the new workflow as much as i liked using the Epson raw converter. Perhaps it takes a bit longer getting used to it.
Accuracy and consistency to focus lenses like the 75 lux and noctilux close-up wide open are other aspects where the M8 shines compared to the R-D1.
There is only one aspect where i prefer the R-D1.. and that is the 1:1 viewfinder. Especially the combination of 50 and 75m framelines is confusing on the M8. I have the 1,25% magnifier glued to the m8 ..... but even than.
For the files ... it's amost impossible to blow highlights or block shadows with the M8 ... the raw files show lots of lattitude with very open shadows ... even using the most contrasty lenses .............. the downside is a file from the M8 almost never looks the way i want it to look of camera ... so in generall i have to post-process a bit more with the M8. I like that ..... what you get is a "negative" with LOTS of information. Files that need little to no sharpening and can be interpolated a long way before showing any form of degradation.
I think Sean Reid put it right in his initial review .... M8 files at lower isos have a look very much like Medium Format files .. very different from R-D1 files in my opinion. THat's part of the "punch" people refer to ......
My M8 is back to Solms for the fix ... so i am using the R-D1 at the moment again after i had it put to rest for the last 7 weeks ...... but i have problems stepping back ..... in ease of use of the camera ( i prefer the ergonomics of the M8) as well as in quality of the files.
I agree with the statement about the Epson Raw converter ........ it is fantastic for B&W conversions ........... so far i am not overly enthousiastic of C1, not even with the dedicated B&W profiles from JFI labs ... i simply do not like the new workflow as much as i liked using the Epson raw converter. Perhaps it takes a bit longer getting used to it.
Accuracy and consistency to focus lenses like the 75 lux and noctilux close-up wide open are other aspects where the M8 shines compared to the R-D1.
iml
Well-known
Sailor Ted said:
Sailor Ted said:
I would have thought the latter would be a very good way of demonstrating the former, and would be useful information for the original poster and for others in the RF community considering which camera to buy or wondering whether to buy an M8 to replace their R-D1. Certainly, if I had both cameras to hand I would post some comparative raw files taken with the same lenses on each to help people judge the relative merits of each camera. I don't think this is BS or an attempt to start a sh*t storm either, just a useful service to the community. I know there are a few people here with both cameras.
Ian
Ben Z
Veteran
I don't put a lot of stock in comparisons between digital cameras at any level other than a final print made on the same machine. After all that's where the viewer is going to see them. I see no merit in comparing RAW files, or worse, files from different cameras that have been run through identical post-processing settings with the erroneous idea that equalizes them. People yap about the AA filter and "soft" RAW files from the 5D but all the prints I've seen have been eye-poppingly sharp, and that's proof enough for me. Each digital camera sees its maximum potential from a tailor made workflow, and right now that's still being investigated with the M8. IMO the image quality can only get better and that's very encouraging.
The RD-1 also suffers from the magenta IR shift, it uses a Nikon D100 chip and all its technology is several years old. Mechanically it is a $500 Cosina and that's where most of its reliability problems seem to be coming from. Nonetheless it cost me $1395 including free shipping, so for the price of a prosumer DSLR I have a DRF that takes my Leica lenses and I feel justified holding a brand-new $4800 camera to a higher standard. I am not ruling out buying an M8 but at least not before all the bugs (aside from the IR) are worked out. I would like to have a finished camera to enjoy, as I take no pleasure in beta testing anything. Perhaps later in the year.
What I particularly dislike about the RD-1 (which will, if it keeps working, remain a backup to an M8 if I get one) is the viewfinder. First of all the widest frame in the camera is 28mm which is equivalent to a 42mm. I disliked and sold an M3 because of the high-mag finder. Second, the rangefinder patch does not travel with the parallax-corrected framelines meaning focusing is off-center at close range, and that causes some problems when the DOF is extremely shallow (as with the 50 Summilux). I also think the manual shutter cocking was an unncessary thing that I would be happy to do without. So once the M8's bugs are worked out I think that ergonomically and in image quality there won't be any question in my mind as to which one I'll rather shoot with.
The RD-1 also suffers from the magenta IR shift, it uses a Nikon D100 chip and all its technology is several years old. Mechanically it is a $500 Cosina and that's where most of its reliability problems seem to be coming from. Nonetheless it cost me $1395 including free shipping, so for the price of a prosumer DSLR I have a DRF that takes my Leica lenses and I feel justified holding a brand-new $4800 camera to a higher standard. I am not ruling out buying an M8 but at least not before all the bugs (aside from the IR) are worked out. I would like to have a finished camera to enjoy, as I take no pleasure in beta testing anything. Perhaps later in the year.
What I particularly dislike about the RD-1 (which will, if it keeps working, remain a backup to an M8 if I get one) is the viewfinder. First of all the widest frame in the camera is 28mm which is equivalent to a 42mm. I disliked and sold an M3 because of the high-mag finder. Second, the rangefinder patch does not travel with the parallax-corrected framelines meaning focusing is off-center at close range, and that causes some problems when the DOF is extremely shallow (as with the 50 Summilux). I also think the manual shutter cocking was an unncessary thing that I would be happy to do without. So once the M8's bugs are worked out I think that ergonomically and in image quality there won't be any question in my mind as to which one I'll rather shoot with.
Sailor Ted
Well-known
Ben,
I think you'll find the new M8 has solved its banding and other issues save the IR shift. I agree that as a back up or as an introduction to DRF photography the R-D1 fits the bill. I have tried to duplicate any banding issues the M8 may have had as reported here and elsewhere but with out success. For me this indicates that aside from the IR shift problem, Leica has sorted the M8 and that future firmware will only improve the breed.
As to the M8’s and R-D1’s image quality I have taken aprox 2000 pictures with the Epson and less then 400 with the Leica. From my monitor and printer I can say without hesitation that the M8 is in a whole different league in terms of sharpness, micro and macro contrast, and in the M8's ability to deliver dramatic prints of a quality beyond what I was getting from 35mm film. (As subjective as this may be) I have shown prints to my friends and family taken with the R-D1s, M8, and M6. In every case people noticeably react to the Leica M8 prints reaching for them and remarking, sometimes gasping, at their apparent sharpness and dynamic range of color. Remarks like "what kind of camera did you use?" or "That picture looks 3D" come to mind. I agree with their observations.
Ted
I think you'll find the new M8 has solved its banding and other issues save the IR shift. I agree that as a back up or as an introduction to DRF photography the R-D1 fits the bill. I have tried to duplicate any banding issues the M8 may have had as reported here and elsewhere but with out success. For me this indicates that aside from the IR shift problem, Leica has sorted the M8 and that future firmware will only improve the breed.
As to the M8’s and R-D1’s image quality I have taken aprox 2000 pictures with the Epson and less then 400 with the Leica. From my monitor and printer I can say without hesitation that the M8 is in a whole different league in terms of sharpness, micro and macro contrast, and in the M8's ability to deliver dramatic prints of a quality beyond what I was getting from 35mm film. (As subjective as this may be) I have shown prints to my friends and family taken with the R-D1s, M8, and M6. In every case people noticeably react to the Leica M8 prints reaching for them and remarking, sometimes gasping, at their apparent sharpness and dynamic range of color. Remarks like "what kind of camera did you use?" or "That picture looks 3D" come to mind. I agree with their observations.
Ted
rvaubel
Well-known
Although I love the RD1, here are my main reasons for preferring the M8
* File size. Although I am not a devotee of megapixel wars, 10MP is a significant and useful increase in horsepower. The maximum linear print size is almost 40% more which is useful, more for cropping than anything else.
* Rangefinder baseline is longer and more reliable. A big plus
* Dynamic range is better
* Crop factor is closer to full frame. This is more important for an M mount camera than a DSLR as the ultrawide selection of any fast lenses under 21mm is mighty slim.
* Leica service and support. This ultimately is the most compelling reason to prefer the M8. The RD1 is an orphan child as far as Epson is concerned. Despite what some people think about the life cycle of a digital camera, I would expect to be using the M8 for 5-10 years into the future.
Rex
* File size. Although I am not a devotee of megapixel wars, 10MP is a significant and useful increase in horsepower. The maximum linear print size is almost 40% more which is useful, more for cropping than anything else.
* Rangefinder baseline is longer and more reliable. A big plus
* Dynamic range is better
* Crop factor is closer to full frame. This is more important for an M mount camera than a DSLR as the ultrawide selection of any fast lenses under 21mm is mighty slim.
* Leica service and support. This ultimately is the most compelling reason to prefer the M8. The RD1 is an orphan child as far as Epson is concerned. Despite what some people think about the life cycle of a digital camera, I would expect to be using the M8 for 5-10 years into the future.
Rex
iml
Well-known
Ben Z said:
Well, no. Most digital images will be seen on-screen. But the advantage of posting raw files is that everybody can then print them if they wish, at any size they like, and process each file in whatever way they would normally do it, and make their comparisons on that basis (i.e., the only useful basis for any individual).
Well, I would find it useful to put a few comparative M8 and R-D1 raw files through my usual processing routine to see whether, for example, the additional resolution of the M8 makes any difference to me in practice, which camera makes the most pleasing b&w conversions, whether there are any DOF/bokeh differences, comparative noise performance, etc etc. This seems like a much more useful exercise than merely posting endless shots of brick walls and the like to show how sharp a camera is or isn't.
Ian
summilux
Well-known
Second, the rangefinder patch does not travel with the parallax-corrected framelines meaning focusing is off-center at close range, and that causes some problems when the DOF is extremely shallow (as with the 50 Summilux).
Ben, that is a good observation.
Ben, that is a good observation.