M8 vs RD1

P

Ponsoldt

Established
Local time
11:09 AM
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
75
I would like to see some photos taken with the RD1 compared with photos from the M8. Is it work the extra money?
 
Reid Reviews is the place to go. He has just completed #3 of his M8 series which directly compares the two cameras. It's a subscription site, but well worth the subscription price.
 
That really -- I'm not being funny here -- depends on how much the money is worth to you. The Leica is a better camera in most ways, both in output and physical quality. Put one way, the Leica and the Epson will produce prints of the same scene, of similar quality, but the Leica print will be bigger. If you print big prints of the same size of the same scene, the Leica print will be better (more dpi.) The Leica will probably last long; the Epson is a marvellous camera, but feels a bit delicate to me. The Leica feels like it's carved from stone. If money is really critical...I'd get a D200 or a 5D; the whole system, from nuts to bolts, will be cheaper, and the print quality will be exellent.

JC
 
I think the jury is still out on whether the M8 produces better image quality than the Epson, unless you're fond of banding effects and magenta faces :)

The Epson is a really good, usable camera, but it isn't a Leica. If that's important to you, pay the extra.

Ian
 
iml said:
Unless you're fond of banding effects and magenta faces :)

The Epson is a really good, usable camera, but it isn't a Leica. If that's important to you, pay the extra.

Ian
Click to expand...

I think you are being a bit unfair here, the banding problem seems to occur only when you have strong hilights, and I can tell from personal experience that you can get banding on the RD-1 under the same conditions, even if probably not as bad.

The Leica seems to be able to resolve more detail than the RD-1, which is nice for bigger prints, or if you need to crop.

But none of this really matters as much as the following question: what kind of support will you get when, in a few years time, your camera will fail?

An M8 will probably be supported even in 20 years time, my RD-1 will probably end up in the dustbin as soon as something major goes wrong with it.
So yes, I own an RD-1 and since it works very well I am not in any kind of rush to upgrade it, but had I to buy a new one now, I would probably go for the M8.

Just my 2c
 
I am with Fransesco here.
The "banding issue" is real and serious but blown wide out of proportion.
That said .. the files of the M8 are 2nd to none in clarity, tonality and sharpness.
Above that the camerabody is more solid and the rangefindermechanism much better.
I can focus my Noctilux quite reliable on the R-D1 .. however not the 74/1.4 wide open close up.
On the M8 i can focus both lenses in any situation reliable and much faster.

The R-D1 is a fantastic camera .... but the M8 is even better and really in a different leaugue.
In practical use however.... both cameras give you excellent pictures and prints....... If you do not print larger than A3 and can live with the QC issues of the R-D1 it is a good option. For good order .. i never had any issues with the R-D1, with the exception of losing the rubber (had to glue several times) and some paint!
I will keep my R-D1 along the M8!
 
I work professionally with the Rd1 to great advantage. I have ordered the M8.
I expect (confidently) that it will blitz the Rd1 from an all round using perspective, but the RD1 does produce amazing results. I have had many problems with the RD1, most of which I have solved. Problems with the M8 will not be a new experience.

When my RD1 'groans', I expect it will 'croak.' When my M8 'groans' I expect it will need a service. Such is the difference in quality of tools. They all perform when in good shape, only some can be/ are worth maintaining.

Cheers,
Erl
 
As a user of the R-D1, who as yet cannot contemplate buying an M8, I have to admit to a bit of envy at the M8 users. Like others, I'll probably go that way when the Epson dies, but not before, unless a rich patron comes along ;)

I moved from the Canon 20D to the 1Dm2 as I prefer larger sensors. For my taste, the 1.33x sensor was a big improvement over the 1.6x. I'd like to follow the same route with RFs and probably will as soon as I can afford it.

As far is IQ goes - they're both good enough for me!

That said, I'd pick the EOS system for earning a dollar, and the RF is really for hobby use. That puts the purchase back a year or two, probably.
 
fgianni said:
I think you are being a bit unfair here
Click to expand...
I was making a little joke. But it does seem to me that banding, ghosting, and fringing effects are alarmingly easy to create with an M8, and that this should be considered a serious problem, until Leica have a fix. If I had one on order, I'd want an assurance from my dealer that a full refund would be available if necessary.

The Leica seems to be able to resolve more detail than the RD-1, which is nice for bigger prints, or if you need to crop.
Click to expand...

6 to 10 MP is not a sufficient jump in resolution on its own for me to consider an M8, but then I never make large prints. When I bought my R-D1s I was concerned that it may not be high enough resolution, but the results I'm getting proved me wrong. I haven't seen any images yet from an M8 suggesting it makes notably better pictures than any other well specified digital camera with good glass, and I've seen a lot of pictures containing ghosting and fringing, let alone the banding issue.

But none of this really matters as much as the following question: what kind of support will you get when, in a few years time, your camera will fail?
Click to expand...
Indeed, on that I have no disagreement.

Ian
 
Last edited:
I have read that the image quality, especially at high ISO speeds, is better with the Epson then with the M8. Isn't that the jist of Reid's reviews?
 
It there was no concern of future servicability of the RD1, I would say the Epson is a better purchase than the M8.
 
ywenz said:
It there was no concern of future servicability of the RD1, I would say the Epson is a better purchase than the M8.
Click to expand...

I am with you on this one, that's why I don't feel any GAS towards the M8, while my RD-1 continues to work fine there is no need to upgrade.

And who knows, someone may decide to start repairing the damn things (really wishful thinking I know)

Overall I am really pissed off with Epson, thay had a very good product in their hands and they were the first to market a digital RF.
Also a digital camera camera that, after more than two years from its introduction, cannot be considered obsolete is another first.

And they squandered it all with a QC that would be barely acceptable with a product like the Holga.
 
The bigger differences between the M8 and R-D1 IMO are the viewfinder and 1.3x crop.
The M8 can be used without external viewfinder up to about 30mm effective, while the R-D1 goes only down to about 40mm.
And with the M8 you can go wider of about 1 focal lenght (35 -> 28, 28 -> 24, 24 -> 21 etc).

The M8 has also a reported better focussing accuracy with longer lenses (90mm or 75 lux) so you gain in the wide and in the long end, not to mention it has 6 framelines instead of 3.
It has clearly better per-pixel sharpness due to the absence of AA filter which, along with 30% more linear pixels, will give better prints at medium-large size.

But the R-D1 is no slouch, I like the ergonomics of the camera even better than the M8 I tested at Photokina and I always found its noise quite acceptable at high ISOs, with great colors and an overall look of the files which I prefer to my Canon DSLRs.
 
I tend to favour the RD1 as things stand, it's the fold-away LCD and that little clock thing the one that looks like it came off a 1936 Alvis that do it for me.
 
My issue is the flatness of the images. I have a leica point and shoot digital, and all the images seem flat. I cannot think of a better adjective. The shots with film appear somewhat 3 dimensional. It may be the brokeh, it might be the lenses. I also have a mark ii. The photos from it are nice but frankly its just not as much fun to use as the MP. So, my question is really whether the photos from the rd-1 and the M-8 will be flat or will they be 3 dimensional. If they are flat are they the same or will the M-8 have more contrast and depth? Comparison shots would be great. Some of you indicated you had both cameras. I would love to see the same scene from both with the same lens.

Bill
 
Do a search at the gallery or flickr on R-D1 and look at pictures.
If these all look flat to you it is not the camera for you..... if some look exactly like you want the pictures to look: the potential is there and it is all up to you!
Contrast, depth , 3d .......... it all has to do with scene, light at the moment, processing etc....... if all these elements works nicely together you get a "good" picture. A machine in itself does not produce flat or lively pictures....
 
Sparrow said:
I tend to favour the RD1 as things stand, it's the fold-away LCD and that little clock thing the one that looks like it came off a 1936 Alvis that do it for me.
Click to expand...

The little clock thingy does it for me too. I swoon every time I turn on the camera and those little stepper motors move those dials into position.

It's the small things that make life worth living

Rex
 
R-D1s is the comer

R-D1s is the comer

Given the fact that a new R-D1s can now be had for about $2K, I'd say it is a real comer. I read Sean Reid's Part 3 review of the M8, comparing it to the R-D1, and I'd say you have to be a real pixel peeper to claim the M8 is significantly better, and that after the R-D1 has already been around for two years! So, I think the M8 will actually give the R-D1 a huge boost in sales. I know I am now planning to buy one.

Yes, I know the R-D1 won't feel and work like a Leica, but if I want that experience I'll just use my M3, M4, or iiic. They're "free", since I already own them.

Regards,
Ira
 
2000$ for a 500$ Cosina with 500$ electronics (sensor like D70 etc.)!? Ok, some of you like certain aspects of this camera, can live with the look and 6MP, can live with no customer service, mediocre build quality, no WA...
But those people shouldn't complain about the price of the Leica M8 - it's build with extremly expensive electronics you won't get with a 1000$ camera and has a build quality unlike any other camera below 10000$!

For those of you who have problems with holding the camera:
The hand-grip is great! Much better than the old, ugly, plastic one. It's part of the base plate and perfectly fits into the look and makes the camera much easier to hold!
 
georgl said:
2000$ for a 500$ Cosina with 500$ electronics (sensor like D70 etc.)!? Ok, some of you like certain aspects of this camera, can live with the look and 6MP, can live with no customer service, mediocre build quality, no WA...
But those people shouldn't complain about the price of the Leica M8 - it's build with extremly expensive electronics you won't get with a 1000$ camera and has a build quality unlike any other camera below 10000$!

For those of you who have problems with holding the camera:
The hand-grip is great! Much better than the old, ugly, plastic one. It's part of the base plate and perfectly fits into the look and makes the camera much easier to hold!
Click to expand...

The issue here is the D70 sensor out performs the M8 sensor for many people who values high ISO / low light photography. Build quality is a nice thing to have, but it is after all a camera - A.K.A an image taking machine. As a digital RF camera that specializes in available light photography, it should satisfy some basic qualities of that nature.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom