M8 vs RD1

Equipment be damned. The quality of an image is in the hands of the user, no matter what equipment he or she uses. Better equipment does not make you a better photographer. From the images I have seen so far on this site, with all due respect, the M8 really seems like a piece of crap. I know the feeling one gets when a new piece of equipment arrives, the excitement, the anticipation. Pointing a Leica at any subject does not make that subject or subsequent image any better than if it was taken with a Zorki or a Fed. I'd like to see images from the M8 from owners after they have had it awhile, and it becomes a part of their workflow.

C'mon guys!
 
Last edited:
Yes, good photog can squeeze the best image out of the M8. Much better than what we've seen I'm sure. However, equipment limitations will *limit* the quality of the images, no matter how good the photographer is. I know the M8 will never have silky smooth high ISO night time pics, the same way I know even the best photographer will not be able to capture an image with silky bokeh on a Ricoh GRD due to its small sensor.
 
Actually, Sean Reid said that the M8 was very good at high ISO, probably second only to the 5D. I was one of the guys forcing banding and false imaging over the weekend, just to see if I could do it. I could, but only under extreme circumstances. I then went out shooting along the Stillwater riverfront at night and got no banding at all. The M8 is excellent at high ISO -- better than the R-D1, I think. I could go out tonight and experiment with the two of them, and the same glass, but I'm sort of tired of messing with pictures of garage doors and bare lightbulbs, which I normally don't spend a lot of time shooting.

JC
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom