m9 and the rd1

back alley

back alley

IMAGES
Local time
2:27 PM
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
41,289
consider this…

if one wanted a 'true' old fashioned rf experience in a digital package these 2 cameras are the closest thing to it…right?
rf focussing…manual lenses (as in no af), interchangeable lenses, shutter speed dial, aperture rings, iso dials…
the m9 has the advantage of a 35mm lens acting like a 35mm lens while on the rd1 there is the need to multiply by 1.5…

price is certainly pretty reasonable on both these days…repair situation is similar depending on what needs fixing…

what do you guys think?
 
I've owned both and, if you can swing it, the M9 is worth the difference. The RD-1 is a nice camera to use, but the IQ is outclassed by a lot of newer alternatives, and the file size feels small after having more mp to play with. That being said, if Epson had updated their body with a newer sensor and electronics, I'd probably be looking to buy one.

The M9 on the other hand, is an amazing camera to use, with a few quirks, like any Leica. I find the IQ excellent, and enjoy using the camera. The M240 is a better camera overall, but the M9 is still a close second.
 
If Zeiss were to build a digital camera that incorporated the many positive features of their ZI rangefinder I would sell my M9 in a flash and move to it. But, for now, the M9 is the closest I have come to the film experience in a digital.
 
The M8 would probably be a better candidate to compare to the RD-1. Both are no longer made. I believe the M8 is still a good choice today, but the RD-1 is a bit behind.

Gil.
 
There is no reason to disregard the M8. It is in many ways halfway between the other two.

Should Epson build an updated version of the R-D1 with a bigger sensor, it would be at the top of my list. I would appreciate a longer rangefinder base, though.
 
Just get an M9 Joe.

Stop thinking and comparing.

If you were happy with the RD1, then the M9 will blow you away.

It could mean the end of your GAS.

h.
 
I don't think the repair situation is in any way similar- i had three Epsons and 2 had to have major repairs - one had to go to Japan and it cost a LOT! Now they don't even service them as I understand it. Leica will still service the M9 and even the M8 in most cases.

Plus the M9 results are a lot better than the Epson; i agree that an M8 is a better comparison to the R-D1.
 
back alley said:
consider this…

if one wanted a 'true' old fashioned rf experience in a digital package these 2 cameras are the closest thing to it…right?
rf focussing…manual lenses (as in no af), interchangeable lenses, shutter speed dial, aperture rings, iso dials…
the m9 has the advantage of a 35mm lens acting like a 35mm lens while on the rd1 there is the need to multiply by 1.5…

price is certainly pretty reasonable on both these days…repair situation is similar depending on what needs fixing…

what do you guys think?
Click to expand...

Absolutely, and that's why I've been saying, in various threads here and there recently, that the value of the M9 can only go up, the same way that the R-D1 did before. (Now, "value" here is defined as inclusive of "use value", and not exclusively based on "exchange value").

I really wonder if there will ever be another digital camera from any manufacturer including Leica this simple and direct?

I was out shooting two days ago with an M-E and simply loved it, the way I loved my ZI (almost; the VF on the ZI is just so much bigger and brighter). Were I to sell this camera in the coming year, it certainly wouldn't be to buy another camera, but rather only to liberate funds to do things unrelated to photography.

Footnote: I place stock in astrology and would wait until the current Mercury retrograde is over on November 10th before I made any purchase of electronic equipment, including of course cameras. (And the fact that Sony released their camera during the retrograde shadow period suggests a strong possibility of future disappointments).
 
I had the M9 (since upgraded to a M240) and still have my R-D1. The R-D1 has even more of the film RF experience, what with the analog dials and manually cocked shutter, and the ability to turn the screen around to resist the temptation to chimp. That said, the M9 is clearly the better camera.

In a M8 vs. R-D1 comparison, I am not so sure the M8 comes out on top - the R-D1 sensor has much better high-ISO performance and does not have the IR sensitivity issues. The main Achilles' heel of the R-D1 is its temperamental RF inherited from the VC Bessas.
 
majid said:
In a M8 vs. R-D1 comparison, I am not so sure the M8 comes out on top - the R-D1 sensor has much better high-ISO performance and does not have the IR sensitivity issues.
Click to expand...
As a fairly long term user of both cameras, this to me is an Internet myth. They are fairly equal in real-life high-ISO performance with M8 having the pixel count advantage.
 
Come on guys..... I love the RD1 in concept too but its not in the same league as the M9 and I would take an M8 over it all day long. If the RD1 were priced lower I would consider one as a back up only.
 
Lss said:
As a fairly long term user of both cameras, this to me is an Internet myth. They are fairly equal in real-life high-ISO performance with M8 having the pixel count advantage.
Click to expand...

+1

Properly exposed and processed high iso M8 files are very close to the R-D1 and resolve more detail. (I, and others, owe RFF user Dan States for cracking the M8 code for processing in C1.) But looking at quick comparison shots that are processed the same (or camera JPGs) the R-D1 looks better - noise-wise.
 
Joe, I suppose it all depends on what type of subject matter, genre, 'stuff' you will photograph. What size you want to print at, if at all. What type of user experience you are looking for.

I've wrestled with the idea of 'upgrading' my R-D1 to an M9 many a time. I came to the conclusion that the M9 doesn't offer anything I need that the R-D1 can't provide for the type of photographs that I like to take and the size of prints that I like to make. My photography is more about mood than anything else.

But this is about you. I know that you like to play with light and textures in your photography. I also know you like to crop to suit your vision. In that regard the M9 may be a better fit for you.

You know what the R-D1 is capable of a lot more than most.
If you feel it lacking in certain areas that the M9 would address for your type of photography, go for the M9.

......and no, it won't cure your GAS. I hope not anyway as I'm a stowaway, along for the ride, enjoying your journey. :)
 
majid said:
... The main Achilles' heel of the R-D1 is its temperamental RF inherited from the VC Bessas.
Click to expand...

what is this :confused: is it the moving patch in viewfinder or...?? all ZI, Bessa's and RD1 has moving rangefinder patch (different to Leica's)?
 
i wasn't thinking about me and buying either of these cameras…but more the experience of shooting with them.
i have returned to film mostly as a means to enjoy the cameras. i started with a few minolta slr bodies and hope to get a canon 7 for the rf experience.

i still have the fujis and digital will remain my main medium but i need that old gear fix occasionally.
 
I'm a stowaway, along for the ride, enjoying your journey…

you might be paying closer attention to me than i am!
but glad you're enjoying it!!
 
jarski said:
what is this :confused: is it the moving patch in viewfinder or...?? all ZI, Bessa's and RD1 has moving rangefinder patch (different to Leica's)?
Click to expand...

The RF falls out of alignment quite easily on the R-D1, but it is also easily accessible for a user fix.

The Leica M240 is supposed to bring a marked improvement in the stability of the RF mechanism. In practice, I never had a problem with my M8, nor my ZI over many tens of thousands of frames. Nor so far the M-E. The RF on my R-D1, as well as on my R4A and Bessa T, became misaligned and had to be serviced.
 
I may be more tempted to go with the M9P, however, I may have to wait and see what the FM2D is all about. In the meantime, an RX1R may be a good alternative while the thinking process is ongoing, then it's a one lens one camera simple set-up.
 
If money were not the issue I'd take an M9, however, compared to an M8, the RD-1 takes first place all day long. All this talk about redundancy and repair issues,we need to bear in mind that the camera has to fail first, my Epsoms are both going strong, there is no screen problems, no IR issue and as for the rangefinder base, I just use a maximum of 50mm lenses which covers that.
The M8 strikes me as a rushed job in answer to Epsoms masterpiece.
I love the colours of the Epsom and an RD-2 would have addressed any shortcomings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom