RFH
rfhansen.wordpress.com
I understand that the M9 is hopefully a lot better than the R-D1, but is there anyone here who has used both cameras and can comment on the differences in image quality between the two?
I'm asking because I'm contemplating an upgrade.
I purchased a 2nd hand 5D to satisfy my full-frame curiosity, but I don't find it to be significantly better than the R-D1. Upsized to 17MP, for instance, the R-D1 wins hands down, which surprises me very much.
I have also successfully printed a 60x80cm image from the R-D1.
So, your thoughts?
I'm asking because I'm contemplating an upgrade.
I purchased a 2nd hand 5D to satisfy my full-frame curiosity, but I don't find it to be significantly better than the R-D1. Upsized to 17MP, for instance, the R-D1 wins hands down, which surprises me very much.
I have also successfully printed a 60x80cm image from the R-D1.
So, your thoughts?
flip
良かったね！
If the question is image quality, a good search may be most useful.
I expect RD-1 users will praise the ISO 1600 B&W noise quality, which is considered somewhat film-like.
Realistically, the price and crop factor are far more determinative than image quality, I imagine.
I expect RD-1 users will praise the ISO 1600 B&W noise quality, which is considered somewhat film-like.
Realistically, the price and crop factor are far more determinative than image quality, I imagine.
sevres_babylone
Veteran
I haven't used my R-D1 that much since getting my M9, but recently, going back to some older R-D1 files, I've been surprised how good they are. I think you need to borrow an M9, and get some samples at the lower ISOs where the M9 is supposed to be at its strongest, and then decide for yourself, if it's worth the substantial cost to you. I half-joke to myself that if the OM-D had been around at the beginning of last year when I bought my M9, I might have continued with the Epson, and bought the Oly for higher ISO work (which I do a lot of.) You might ask yourself if there are any situations in which you find the R-D1 to be weak, and then buy a complement (Fuji?, Nex?) to it. On the other hand, I'm happy enough now with my M9 that I'm not tempted to sell it and go back to using the R-D1 as my main camera. You might want to wait and see the reports and reviews on the M.
wintoid
Back to film
I went RD1S->M8->M9 over quite a few years
I can remember when I got my M8 being absolutely blown away with the low ISO quality compared to the RD1S, but I tended to stay at or below ISO640, whereas I would go to 1600 on the RD1S. Now I have an M9, and I'll use that at any ISO.
My experience was that the noise of the M8 had bands in shadows and interrupted the enjoyment of the photograph, whereas the RD1S and M9 don't.
This is going to sound really finnicky, but I also thought the RD1S was a little "tall", and I had doubts about accurate focus on occasions, both of which I don't have any problem with on the Leicas (which are a little "fat" instead!).
I quite fancy a RD1 as a backup to my M9
I can remember when I got my M8 being absolutely blown away with the low ISO quality compared to the RD1S, but I tended to stay at or below ISO640, whereas I would go to 1600 on the RD1S. Now I have an M9, and I'll use that at any ISO.
My experience was that the noise of the M8 had bands in shadows and interrupted the enjoyment of the photograph, whereas the RD1S and M9 don't.
This is going to sound really finnicky, but I also thought the RD1S was a little "tall", and I had doubts about accurate focus on occasions, both of which I don't have any problem with on the Leicas (which are a little "fat" instead!).
I quite fancy a RD1 as a backup to my M9
flyalf
Well-known
Hi,
I went from D700 -> RD-1 -> M9. I still use the RD-1 as a backup camera. There are big differences in IQ. The most obvious being the resolution. From M9 I have made prints up to 1m at wides side. With RD-1 I was recommenced by my local professional printer not to proceed 60cm for some RD-1 prints.
Another big difference is the color depth / saturation. The M9 blows away RD-1. But there are pros and cons to this. It seems that the M9 needs more careful post-processing, and it seems easier to get "pastel-like" photos and more natural skin tones with the RD-1.
These are my subjective opinions. I would be happy to have feedback or corrections.
I went from D700 -> RD-1 -> M9. I still use the RD-1 as a backup camera. There are big differences in IQ. The most obvious being the resolution. From M9 I have made prints up to 1m at wides side. With RD-1 I was recommenced by my local professional printer not to proceed 60cm for some RD-1 prints.
Another big difference is the color depth / saturation. The M9 blows away RD-1. But there are pros and cons to this. It seems that the M9 needs more careful post-processing, and it seems easier to get "pastel-like" photos and more natural skin tones with the RD-1.
These are my subjective opinions. I would be happy to have feedback or corrections.
Lss
Well-known
I have both R-D1 and M8 and use both up to ISO 1600 (1250 on M8). I seldom go to ISO 2500 on M8. They have comparable performance in my use with M8 obviously having the advantage in resolution and also showing less vignetting. RD-1, on the other hand, has that special R-D1 look.
gdi
Veteran
I used an R-D1 along side a M9 for years (and previously an M8). I kept the Epson with the M9 for 2 reasons - it is simply more fun to shoot than the overly thick M's and I sometimes shot infrared. (Also add higher ISO images as an advantage when comparing to the M8). The image quality of the M9 is far better than the Epson.
At this point in time I would consider the possibility of having a problem that can't be fixed with the R-D1, since Epson is dropping support soon. I have had 3 of them and 2 needed major repairs, they are not that reliable.
At this point in time I would consider the possibility of having a problem that can't be fixed with the R-D1, since Epson is dropping support soon. I have had 3 of them and 2 needed major repairs, they are not that reliable.
RFH
rfhansen.wordpress.com
Thanks for all the replies. If anyone has done a direct comparison (same subject, lens etc.) I'd be very interested in seeing the pictures, especially RAW files and 100% crops.
Yes, I know I can go to Pixel-peeper.com and find large samples, but then I'd miss 'talking' to you guys
Yes, I know I can go to Pixel-peeper.com and find large samples, but then I'd miss 'talking' to you guys
tonyc
Established
Hello
I just made the leep [or rather nervous shuffle] from R-D1s
to M9, and have done a few unscientific tests between the two
to calm my purchase nerves.
After quite a bit of shooting my thoughts are :-
If you want higher resolution, or want wider than 35mm FOV
oe prefer longer RF base, then get the M9.
Otherwise I would say it is not really much of an upgrade -
[similar if not worse noise than R-D1S, worse ergonomics, rather
hollow boxy construction]
But hey it does make a nice SX70 noise after each shot, and has
zoomable histogram, and auto braketing.
Now some images [sorry not really artistic, more what was nearby]
Here is the same scene shot on both cameras, RAW converted
in ACR with default settings [no noise reduction] just WB and exposure
adjusted to match.
RRD1S @ 200ISO NOKTON 40MM
M9 @ 200ISO SONNAR 50MM
Sorry the FOV is'nt quite the same.
More to follow . . .
I just made the leep [or rather nervous shuffle] from R-D1s
to M9, and have done a few unscientific tests between the two
to calm my purchase nerves.
After quite a bit of shooting my thoughts are :-
If you want higher resolution, or want wider than 35mm FOV
oe prefer longer RF base, then get the M9.
Otherwise I would say it is not really much of an upgrade -
[similar if not worse noise than R-D1S, worse ergonomics, rather
hollow boxy construction]
But hey it does make a nice SX70 noise after each shot, and has
zoomable histogram, and auto braketing.
Now some images [sorry not really artistic, more what was nearby]
Here is the same scene shot on both cameras, RAW converted
in ACR with default settings [no noise reduction] just WB and exposure
adjusted to match.
RRD1S @ 200ISO NOKTON 40MM
M9 @ 200ISO SONNAR 50MM
Sorry the FOV is'nt quite the same.
More to follow . . .
tonyc
Established
. . . >
One problem I have found with the M9 is it needs quite a bit
of massaging in RAW conversion for some colours to look good.
The above chair example is fine, as there are lots of nice soft pastel
shades, but skintone can be rather difficult on M9 compared
to the R-D1s.
Strong saturaed colours also seem to cause a bit of bother, I get
a lot of clipping on strong blues.
The R-D1s shows a lot more IR problem on the black nylon
on the RHS can be quite bad on black jumpers etc.
Here is a 100% crop [M9 resized to match R-D1s] of an ugly
picture [hence no full shot :_)]
To the eye the M9 gave quite false colours for the fluro green
sock, and rather clipped blue on the stripe sock.
But most normal situations are fine.
R-D1S @400ISO NOKTON 40MM 100% CROP
M9 @400ISO SONNAR 50MM RESIZE to 3K 100% CROP
If you want some ERF vs DNGs let me know.
One problem I have found with the M9 is it needs quite a bit
of massaging in RAW conversion for some colours to look good.
The above chair example is fine, as there are lots of nice soft pastel
shades, but skintone can be rather difficult on M9 compared
to the R-D1s.
Strong saturaed colours also seem to cause a bit of bother, I get
a lot of clipping on strong blues.
The R-D1s shows a lot more IR problem on the black nylon
on the RHS can be quite bad on black jumpers etc.
Here is a 100% crop [M9 resized to match R-D1s] of an ugly
picture [hence no full shot :_)]
To the eye the M9 gave quite false colours for the fluro green
sock, and rather clipped blue on the stripe sock.
But most normal situations are fine.
R-D1S @400ISO NOKTON 40MM 100% CROP
M9 @400ISO SONNAR 50MM RESIZE to 3K 100% CROP
If you want some ERF vs DNGs let me know.
RFH
rfhansen.wordpress.com
Thanks, Tony. Just what I was looking for. I'd really like to see the RAW files. I'll PM my email address to you.
I must say I am amazed to see how well the R-D1 holds up to the challenge so far, just as I was when I started comparing it to the 5D, which after all has twice the sensor and twice the resolution.
The first two are remarkably similar, and among the second two the R-D1 seems to me to have less noise, more detail (see the orange stripes on the socks) and more accurate colours. I can't wait to examine them up close.
Where is all the detail in the red sleeve in the M9 shot? Is it just missing because the M9 has a more shallow DOF?
I must say I am amazed to see how well the R-D1 holds up to the challenge so far, just as I was when I started comparing it to the 5D, which after all has twice the sensor and twice the resolution.
The first two are remarkably similar, and among the second two the R-D1 seems to me to have less noise, more detail (see the orange stripes on the socks) and more accurate colours. I can't wait to examine them up close.
Where is all the detail in the red sleeve in the M9 shot? Is it just missing because the M9 has a more shallow DOF?
tonyc
Established
. . . >
Sorry RFH please dont read to much in these tests for sharpness
mostly they were done for colour rendition and noise, sorry not
quite the same focus point.
The red detail on the M9 shot is missing, simply because it is not
in focus !!
The M9 is nice and sharp, dont worry.
Here is another scene on both cameras
ISO200, RAW conversion in ACR default settings apart from
WB and Exposure to match.
The crops show some noise even at 200ISO, I find the M9 quite noisey,
but with the M9 resolution you will only see it on a large print or when
peeping the pixels.
One thing I notice a lot in the M9 is a CYAN/RED colouring on out-of-focus
edges - I have seen it on all the lenses I have used, not just the Sonnar, Planar too.
It does not appear to be the same type of chromatic abberation as seen on
high contrast hard edges
RD1S @200ISO NOKTON 40MM
M9 @200ISO SONNAR 50MM
RD1S 100% CROP
M9 RESIZE to 3K 100%CROP
I think the best thing to do is borrow or hire the M9 from a shop and
see how you feel about the images you get from it.
Unless you are printing BIG, personally I think Portra400 is a lot better, way more
dynamic range and lovely skin tones !
-TC
Sorry RFH please dont read to much in these tests for sharpness
mostly they were done for colour rendition and noise, sorry not
quite the same focus point.
The red detail on the M9 shot is missing, simply because it is not
in focus !!
The M9 is nice and sharp, dont worry.
Here is another scene on both cameras
ISO200, RAW conversion in ACR default settings apart from
WB and Exposure to match.
The crops show some noise even at 200ISO, I find the M9 quite noisey,
but with the M9 resolution you will only see it on a large print or when
peeping the pixels.
One thing I notice a lot in the M9 is a CYAN/RED colouring on out-of-focus
edges - I have seen it on all the lenses I have used, not just the Sonnar, Planar too.
It does not appear to be the same type of chromatic abberation as seen on
high contrast hard edges
RD1S @200ISO NOKTON 40MM
M9 @200ISO SONNAR 50MM
RD1S 100% CROP
M9 RESIZE to 3K 100%CROP
I think the best thing to do is borrow or hire the M9 from a shop and
see how you feel about the images you get from it.
Unless you are printing BIG, personally I think Portra400 is a lot better, way more
dynamic range and lovely skin tones !
-TC
RFH
rfhansen.wordpress.com
Yeah, I'll go by the shop and check it out for myself.
I never really liked the form factor of the digital Ms, so if it's not too much of an upgrade in terms of image quality, I'd rather save my hard-earned $ for a lot of other things.
I never really liked the form factor of the digital Ms, so if it's not too much of an upgrade in terms of image quality, I'd rather save my hard-earned $ for a lot of other things.
umcelinho
Marcelo
good thread. I've just sold my R-D1 to fund an M9/M-E/M(who knows..) and been looking at many threads but mostly images taken with M9s and M-E.
I managed to take a few test shots using an M-E at Leica's shop here in Sao Paulo and even though they told me it was already set to raw (I couldnt find quickly on the menu how to se it) the images were in jpg. Shot a few using iso 1600, some with iso 800. IQ in both iso values is very, very similar to the R-D1's. what I noticed at first is that there was more color noise on the M-E files, but then I realised R-D1 and X100 files already started with a +25 set on the color setting on the noise adjustments. fixed that on the M-E files and ta-da, pretty good stuff. iso 1600 is enough for me and even though above that it might be not so good, might be helpful every now and then and new raw engines should improve noise anyway, so it's not such a big deal.
also, the M9/M-E sensor delivers incredibly sharp images, some lenses I have (like the 35/1.2) I had no idea were THAT sharp.
I managed to take a few test shots using an M-E at Leica's shop here in Sao Paulo and even though they told me it was already set to raw (I couldnt find quickly on the menu how to se it) the images were in jpg. Shot a few using iso 1600, some with iso 800. IQ in both iso values is very, very similar to the R-D1's. what I noticed at first is that there was more color noise on the M-E files, but then I realised R-D1 and X100 files already started with a +25 set on the color setting on the noise adjustments. fixed that on the M-E files and ta-da, pretty good stuff. iso 1600 is enough for me and even though above that it might be not so good, might be helpful every now and then and new raw engines should improve noise anyway, so it's not such a big deal.
also, the M9/M-E sensor delivers incredibly sharp images, some lenses I have (like the 35/1.2) I had no idea were THAT sharp.
RFH
rfhansen.wordpress.com
For what it's worth: 100% crops of both images, I upsized the R-D1 file to 17MP to make the challenge bigger and tweaked both to look as good and similar as possible. I didn't work too much on the colour tone, though.
R-D1 to the left, M9 on the right.
R-D1 to the left, M9 on the right.
astro8
Well-known
I'm quite impressed with the R-D1...
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
What postprocessing software are you using? It appears to me that you are using the wrong profile for the M9. It has a different red-green balance. You may need to update.
tonyc
Established
Hello
Not my conversions I know, but is there a special
profile for M9 in ACR ?
I have searched on the web, but have never found one.
Made my own profiles by photographing colour socks !
umcelinho
Marcelo
I think the 100% size crops picked wont reflect well the image quality, since focus on the M9 one seems to be a bit off, making the interpolated R-D1 file show more detail. I'd also pick a more contrasty/detailed area of the scene where the point of focus would be clearer.
RFH
rfhansen.wordpress.com
Yes, it was a bit of an unfair comparison. The M9 image is focused on the top of the chair, while the R-D1 image is sharper around the lower curve I showed in the above post.
So, this comparison comes with the same disclaimer: One is sharper due to the difference in focal point.
R-D1 (left) upsized to 17MP, converted in ACR with same settings (sharpen, NR, contrast). Crop from view in Photoshop before any PP.
So, to account for the difference in focus, this might compare better (the R-D1 image exposure has been increased by 0.75 stop. I would not go too far beyond that to avoid noise:
& one more:
So, this comparison comes with the same disclaimer: One is sharper due to the difference in focal point.
R-D1 (left) upsized to 17MP, converted in ACR with same settings (sharpen, NR, contrast). Crop from view in Photoshop before any PP.
So, to account for the difference in focus, this might compare better (the R-D1 image exposure has been increased by 0.75 stop. I would not go too far beyond that to avoid noise:
& one more: