astro8
Well-known
Very interesting rfh...thanks for the posts.
umcelinho
Marcelo
that's a good comparative 
I loved my R-D1 and it always surprised me on how good the image quality were. amazing how an 8 yr old camera can still be above the average.
I loved my R-D1 and it always surprised me on how good the image quality were. amazing how an 8 yr old camera can still be above the average.
Chris Bail
Regular Guy
If I hadn't just bought the R-D1 anyway, these comparisons would've sold me. I'm very impressed with the IQ.
Marac
Member
I just bought an R-D1 to compliment my M8 but the wife took a fancy to it and now I must say I 'HAD' an R-D1 for a few hours and loved it.
RFH
rfhansen.wordpress.com
So, a brief follow-up:
After experimenting with Tonyc's RAW files from both cameras, I have come to the (unscientific, so caveat lector) conclusion that yes, the M9 has better resolution of fine details, but with some careful massaging the R-D1 images can be upsized (if need be) and made to look almost as good. The M9 has a few weak points as well (e.g. chromatic aberration), so it's a fine balance, and most of these minor issue can be dealt with in post-process.
Of course there are differences to account for: Different lenses, different FOV, DOF and focus points (no blame on Tonyc, thanks, man).
Just like the 5D, the M9 sensor seems to be about one stop brighter than the R-D1 at the same shooting parameters. Overexposing in PP increases noise rapidly on the R-D1 files, so it's a good idea to expose and set WB carefully to get the most detail on file. I sometimes get sloppy and assume I can just correct everything after the shot. I can, but it usually degrades image quality. Maybe the M9's larger files are more forgiving in that regard.
The cameras (I tested low ISO images) have similar noise properties. At its base file size, I'd say the R-D1 has a nicer noise pattern. But in the upsized examples I posted, the M9 is smoother at 100%, which should come as no surprise.
Both respond very well to noise reduction in ACR.
The R-D1 performs admirably in competition with its German rival, which has thrice the resolution and twice the sensor area. I've had the R-D1 for about two years, so I already know that it's a very good camera that produces beautiful files in combination with a sweet piece of glass. I just never had a chance to test it against the M9.
So for now the answer to my question is that I don't see $5000 worth of difference between the two cameras. I'd like to own a digital Leica RF, and I could if I sold some other gear and cracked the piggy bank, but the price itself is too extravagant for my taste and current financial situation.
In terms of design and ergonomics, the R-D1 can't be beat. If only they'd make a FF R-D2, I'd be all over it, but I suspect this is just a dream that won't come true.
Instead of worrying about pixels I'd rather spend my money on going places to explore and use all the nice equipment I already have. After all, the price of a digital M goes a long way in most parts of the world. It'll even buy me a wide angle for the R-D1 with plenty to spare for a bowl of rice.
After experimenting with Tonyc's RAW files from both cameras, I have come to the (unscientific, so caveat lector) conclusion that yes, the M9 has better resolution of fine details, but with some careful massaging the R-D1 images can be upsized (if need be) and made to look almost as good. The M9 has a few weak points as well (e.g. chromatic aberration), so it's a fine balance, and most of these minor issue can be dealt with in post-process.
Of course there are differences to account for: Different lenses, different FOV, DOF and focus points (no blame on Tonyc, thanks, man).
Just like the 5D, the M9 sensor seems to be about one stop brighter than the R-D1 at the same shooting parameters. Overexposing in PP increases noise rapidly on the R-D1 files, so it's a good idea to expose and set WB carefully to get the most detail on file. I sometimes get sloppy and assume I can just correct everything after the shot. I can, but it usually degrades image quality. Maybe the M9's larger files are more forgiving in that regard.
The cameras (I tested low ISO images) have similar noise properties. At its base file size, I'd say the R-D1 has a nicer noise pattern. But in the upsized examples I posted, the M9 is smoother at 100%, which should come as no surprise.
Both respond very well to noise reduction in ACR.
The R-D1 performs admirably in competition with its German rival, which has thrice the resolution and twice the sensor area. I've had the R-D1 for about two years, so I already know that it's a very good camera that produces beautiful files in combination with a sweet piece of glass. I just never had a chance to test it against the M9.
So for now the answer to my question is that I don't see $5000 worth of difference between the two cameras. I'd like to own a digital Leica RF, and I could if I sold some other gear and cracked the piggy bank, but the price itself is too extravagant for my taste and current financial situation.
In terms of design and ergonomics, the R-D1 can't be beat. If only they'd make a FF R-D2, I'd be all over it, but I suspect this is just a dream that won't come true.
Instead of worrying about pixels I'd rather spend my money on going places to explore and use all the nice equipment I already have. After all, the price of a digital M goes a long way in most parts of the world. It'll even buy me a wide angle for the R-D1 with plenty to spare for a bowl of rice.
Lss
Well-known
The new Voigtländer 21/1.8 seems quite an exciting addition for R-D1 users. With a little bit of practice, one does not need an external viewfinder for this angle of view and can still frame quite accurately. This is not a wide wide on R-D1, but it is fast wide normal that was much more expensive until now.
The unrealistic waiting game for R2-D2 (Star Wars edition), R3-D2 (1:1 viewfinder), and R4-D2 (wide-angle viewfinder) wíll anyway continue.
froyd
Veteran
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I had an R-D1, briefly, but found it too clumsy in operation with the manual wind and funky controls. The few exposures I made with it reminded me most of my Canon 10D, which while a good performer was not outstanding the way current APS-C sensors are. (The 6Mpixel resolution was no problem then, and is no problem now, for me: I still use the even older Olympus E-1 which is only 5 Mpixels and get outstanding results with it.)
The M9, by comparison, is much more like my favorite film M cameras: it just works better for me. The M9's sensor, while not current state of the art on sensitivity, is right on par with anything else in the 18 Mpixel class at its optimum sensitivity setting for acutance and dynamic range.
Lss
Well-known
No such problem here, the camera handles beautifully.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I preferred the M6 over a Voigtlander, even using the same lens and film. Nothing has changed for me. In other words, it is not really about image quality, but about affinity with the camera, its ergonomics, etc.
fotomeow
name under my name
RD1 --> M8 --> M9 .... kept the RD1s the whole time and sold the M8 & M9.
Just looking at IQ, the M9 was far better than the other two.
I have never thought of the RD1s as noteworthy in strict IQ terms. I have kept the Epson b/c of the unique ergo controls, and the "user experience", not b/c of having technically good IQ. I do like the sensor, but use it in combinations with a variety of particular lenses to get the IQ characteristics that I am looking for, which aren't usually clean and sharp.
Just looking at IQ, the M9 was far better than the other two.
I have never thought of the RD1s as noteworthy in strict IQ terms. I have kept the Epson b/c of the unique ergo controls, and the "user experience", not b/c of having technically good IQ. I do like the sensor, but use it in combinations with a variety of particular lenses to get the IQ characteristics that I am looking for, which aren't usually clean and sharp.
RFH
rfhansen.wordpress.com
You expected magic for the $5000 difference huh?
I'd like to see a real comparison... RD1 prints vs. M9 prints at 20x30".
Well... maybe not full-on magic, but light sorcery at least...
I'd be very surprised if a 20x30" print competition would not come out in favour of the M9 in terms of fine detail. My largest print from the R-D1 was in B&W, about 60x80 cm (maybe a bit less with borders, I don't recall) done on a large format Epson printer on pearl paper. I upsized the file and printed in 150 dpi. Up close it's a bit rough, but at a viewing distance of two meters or more, it looks very sharp indeed.
Let's do another test when the new M comes out. If the video capability is good, it might sway me in that direction.