froyd
Veteran
But drastically different handling.
ramosa
B&W
+1 ( well said.)
LCT
ex-newbie
I own both. Main difference is viewfinder. If you like shooting both eyes open the R-D1 is unbeatable. Even better than an M3 from this viewpoint as the R-D1's VF is a real 1:1. Same if you don't like the motor noise of the M8. The latter is more reassuring though support wise and is much superior with lenses wider than 28mm thanks to the offset microlenses of its sensor. Also the M8's IQ is generally superior for color works but IR-cut filters are mandatory with it. For B&W, i prefer the R-D1 but it is a matter of tastes.
nakedcellist
Established
I had the R-D1 for a while, and while I liked it (it was the first digital camera I liked), in some ways it felt a bit bulky, and I found the image quality not as great as an M8. So I got an M8 and I liked it a lot better, it felt better in my hand, I liked the looks of it and the image quality was for me a lot better, in sharpness and colour (but not in noise). Recently, I just sold a kidney and bought an M9.
RFJapan
Newbie
I used an M8 for a while, and now have an R-D1.
I found that the advantages of the M8 were:
a) Far more aesthetically beautiful, if that's important to you. It's a gorgeous thing to look at and to hold.
b) Sharpness is phenomenal due to the lack of AA filter
c) As other people have said, you can use a slightly bigger range of focal lengths.
d) When you get a shot just right with it, it does definitely have some kind of voodoo to it. Hard to put into words, it just hits you between the eyes.
e) The LCD was less awful than the R-D1's (although not great in itself).
As for the R-D1 based on a couple of months using it :
a) In terms of bang for the buck it offers most of what the M8 does for a significantly lower price
b) No dicking around with filters for purple-blacks and no need for lens coding
c) From memory, the M8's shutter was louder, plus it had the wind-on. The R-D1 has a short, slightly high pitched click and that's it (because you wind it on with the lever)
d) Viewfinder is great
e) Easier to change ISO, and in terms of high ISO performance it's certainly a match for the M8, if not better in some ways (I have little problem using 800 with the R-D1, but I almost never pushed the M8 over 640)
f) So far (touch wood) I haven't had any problems with it. I had tons of issues with the M8: the battery indicator was useless, sometimes the focusing patch would disappear and wouldn't come back unless I took off and remounted the lens, the camera would freeze up if you shot more than three or four shots in continuous mode, etc etc. So far the R-D1's been all but flawless.
Where the two cameras are equal :
a) Black and white; both produce fantastic b/w images
b) The RF shooting experience
c) Small and relatively discreet.
If I was offered the choice again, I'd only take the M8 if they fixed the purple-black issue and removed the need for coding lenses. The R-D1 gives me the same shooting experience for half the price and far fewer hassles.
I found that the advantages of the M8 were:
a) Far more aesthetically beautiful, if that's important to you. It's a gorgeous thing to look at and to hold.
b) Sharpness is phenomenal due to the lack of AA filter
c) As other people have said, you can use a slightly bigger range of focal lengths.
d) When you get a shot just right with it, it does definitely have some kind of voodoo to it. Hard to put into words, it just hits you between the eyes.
e) The LCD was less awful than the R-D1's (although not great in itself).
As for the R-D1 based on a couple of months using it :
a) In terms of bang for the buck it offers most of what the M8 does for a significantly lower price
b) No dicking around with filters for purple-blacks and no need for lens coding
c) From memory, the M8's shutter was louder, plus it had the wind-on. The R-D1 has a short, slightly high pitched click and that's it (because you wind it on with the lever)
d) Viewfinder is great
e) Easier to change ISO, and in terms of high ISO performance it's certainly a match for the M8, if not better in some ways (I have little problem using 800 with the R-D1, but I almost never pushed the M8 over 640)
f) So far (touch wood) I haven't had any problems with it. I had tons of issues with the M8: the battery indicator was useless, sometimes the focusing patch would disappear and wouldn't come back unless I took off and remounted the lens, the camera would freeze up if you shot more than three or four shots in continuous mode, etc etc. So far the R-D1's been all but flawless.
Where the two cameras are equal :
a) Black and white; both produce fantastic b/w images
b) The RF shooting experience
c) Small and relatively discreet.
If I was offered the choice again, I'd only take the M8 if they fixed the purple-black issue and removed the need for coding lenses. The R-D1 gives me the same shooting experience for half the price and far fewer hassles.
back alley
IMAGES
i don't recall ever reading that before...do you have a source that confirms the pixels are bigger?
gilpen123
Gil
Used an RD1 sold it tried an M8.2 sold it and now back to RD1 with an X. I like RD1 noise handling and film like rendering not to mention the colors it produced.
Jubb Jubb
Well-known
I bought an M8 a few months ago, it is a learning curve but i am loving it. I take it with me pretty much everywhere. Go the M8!
fotomeow
name under my name
Thats how it was explained to me Joe. I just did a quick google search, and could not find a source to quote. Perhaps the explanation I received was in regards to another particular camera's sensor rather than all cameras. I think it had to do with the micron size of the pixel. In any case, thanks for the question. I will edit my post to reflect this.
Lss
Well-known
I own and use both the M8 and the RD-1. They are both great.
All things considered the really big differences between these cameras are the number of pixels, crop factor, and viewfinder framelines. The pixel count may seem like a major shortcoming for the RD-1, but in practical terms the biggest things is that it limits heavy cropping.
The crop factor and the framelines affect the lens choice. Sadly, not all lens options exist or are available at reasonable prices (say, around the price of the camera body). The RD-1 is clearly more limiting in this respect, but it can work in your favour, too. Depends.
So, which one to get? I don't know. But knowing what I know based on my experience with these cameras, I would only consider the above things - and money. The crop/viewfinder issue affects lens choice which again means you need to consider money. If you can drop that consideration, save yourself some trouble and get the M9. Also, make it very clear to yourself whether you are looking for a digital rangefinder camera, or a compact digital camera that happens to take rangefinder lenses with an adapter. Very different animals.
All things considered the really big differences between these cameras are the number of pixels, crop factor, and viewfinder framelines. The pixel count may seem like a major shortcoming for the RD-1, but in practical terms the biggest things is that it limits heavy cropping.
The crop factor and the framelines affect the lens choice. Sadly, not all lens options exist or are available at reasonable prices (say, around the price of the camera body). The RD-1 is clearly more limiting in this respect, but it can work in your favour, too. Depends.
So, which one to get? I don't know. But knowing what I know based on my experience with these cameras, I would only consider the above things - and money. The crop/viewfinder issue affects lens choice which again means you need to consider money. If you can drop that consideration, save yourself some trouble and get the M9. Also, make it very clear to yourself whether you are looking for a digital rangefinder camera, or a compact digital camera that happens to take rangefinder lenses with an adapter. Very different animals.
mwooten
light user
I think you'll do fine with either one. It's sort of like Ginger vs. Mary Ann. Both are desirable.
You probably have a year and a half before one would arrive in your hands for use... that's a good amount of time to be having fun with a M8 (which can be sold once you get the other).
Johann Espiritu
Lawyer / Ninja
I was contemplating the same thing not too long ago (in the end I ended up buying an X1 - which soon after led to an M9, but that's a different story).
What it came down to me in the end was: what focal length do you prefer to shoot in? Work the focal length crop factor backwards from there, then choose between the two depending on what lenses you already have or plan to get. Since neither really worked out for me (I shoot the 35mm FL and didn't want to buy a fast 24mm or 28mm which I wouldn't use that much on my film M's), I just got an X1 instead.
What it came down to me in the end was: what focal length do you prefer to shoot in? Work the focal length crop factor backwards from there, then choose between the two depending on what lenses you already have or plan to get. Since neither really worked out for me (I shoot the 35mm FL and didn't want to buy a fast 24mm or 28mm which I wouldn't use that much on my film M's), I just got an X1 instead.
djonesii
Well-known
Ginger vs MayAnn
Ginger vs MayAnn
To add .... from all I can tell, the M8 is Ginger. Never owned one, but certainly lusted after one. What a body, but temperamental as red heads are known for, all those filters to deal with.
On the other hand, I do actually own a RD-1, and it handles like a dream, 3rd party batteries available, I have never out shot the capacity of a 2 gig card in a single outing, I shoot in raw, and get around 250-300 images per card, lets just call it 240-360 for simplicities sake, when was the last time you shot and developed 10 rolls in a day? So not a limit. Think about Solms vs/ Japan for repairs, while I have never had the RD-1 serviced, I think I'd rather risk Epson Japan, they seem to have less horror stories. In short, good old Maryann that you could take home to mom
As to crop factor, if you try the NEX, it it the same. The 1.3x is much more friendly to your wides. I shot a 25 and a 40, giving me effectively a 37 and a 60 ... for me, near enough to a 35/50 combo that I had come to like on my M6 when I had it.
RF base length, for what I shot, with the slow lenses, it was never an issue. I did have the 28/2 CV for a while, but the size and focal length was just not right for me. Even with the 40/1.4, I tend not to shot at 1.4, and a 2.0, it's never been an issue for me.
AA filter ..... a toss up for me, In my street work and casual shooting, not that big a deal. In the studio, it matters quite a bit, but my P30+ is filterless
On to the images ..... from everything I have seen, there is just something about those 6 mpix from the RD-1. I;ve use the same lenses on EP-1, G1, and G3 and they just don't draw the same. If I were more literate, I could explain it. In this case, Flickr is your friend.
Can't say relative to the NEX.
At the end of the day, both the RD1 and the M8 offer the coupled range finder experience. That is distinctly different from either SLR or M4/3 with MF lenses. Only you can say how much you value it.
For me, the question is not RD-1 M8, but rather RD-1 or M9.
YMMV ....
Dave
Ginger vs MayAnn
To add .... from all I can tell, the M8 is Ginger. Never owned one, but certainly lusted after one. What a body, but temperamental as red heads are known for, all those filters to deal with.
On the other hand, I do actually own a RD-1, and it handles like a dream, 3rd party batteries available, I have never out shot the capacity of a 2 gig card in a single outing, I shoot in raw, and get around 250-300 images per card, lets just call it 240-360 for simplicities sake, when was the last time you shot and developed 10 rolls in a day? So not a limit. Think about Solms vs/ Japan for repairs, while I have never had the RD-1 serviced, I think I'd rather risk Epson Japan, they seem to have less horror stories. In short, good old Maryann that you could take home to mom
As to crop factor, if you try the NEX, it it the same. The 1.3x is much more friendly to your wides. I shot a 25 and a 40, giving me effectively a 37 and a 60 ... for me, near enough to a 35/50 combo that I had come to like on my M6 when I had it.
RF base length, for what I shot, with the slow lenses, it was never an issue. I did have the 28/2 CV for a while, but the size and focal length was just not right for me. Even with the 40/1.4, I tend not to shot at 1.4, and a 2.0, it's never been an issue for me.
AA filter ..... a toss up for me, In my street work and casual shooting, not that big a deal. In the studio, it matters quite a bit, but my P30+ is filterless
On to the images ..... from everything I have seen, there is just something about those 6 mpix from the RD-1. I;ve use the same lenses on EP-1, G1, and G3 and they just don't draw the same. If I were more literate, I could explain it. In this case, Flickr is your friend.
Can't say relative to the NEX.
At the end of the day, both the RD1 and the M8 offer the coupled range finder experience. That is distinctly different from either SLR or M4/3 with MF lenses. Only you can say how much you value it.
For me, the question is not RD-1 M8, but rather RD-1 or M9.
YMMV ....
Dave
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
BTW: RD-1 = Same sensor as the Nikon D100, which currently sells for between $105-250 at KEH. For those who are pining for an RD-1's image quality: it is all there for the taking.
ped
Small brown dog
Are all 35mm cameras the same too? I mean I get your point, but the sensor isn't the be all and end all.
ped
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Conceded. But it ain't nothing either. There is a lot of magical thinking that occurs about the qualities of one camera vs. another. If you want to spend a modest sum to get whatever qualities are inherent in the chip, you don't have to spend $1400 on an RD-1. That was my point. There are always differences between lenses, but shoot RAW and it should get you pretty close in terms of whatever properties are inherent in the chip.
Do you think Epson has sold as many cameras as Leica?
Paul T.
Veteran
The argument behind this is that the 6mp sensor has a low photostie density - the sites themselves are bigger, and gather more light than a higher pixel sensor of the same physical dimensions. But the Leica sensor, being physically larger, will be in the same quality area.
No, it's not higher focusing accuracy, because this depends on the rangefinder baselength, too, and that of the R-D1 is much smaller than the M8, roughly 37mm compared to 68mm, which partly contributes to slop in the system (rangefinder inaccuracies are magnified). The Leica VF's performance is, via the maths, around 50% more accurate than the R-D1, and in real life the difference could be greater.
(I love the R-D1 by the way. But it doesn't transcend the laws of physics).
LCT
ex-newbie
Those are the mechanical base lengths more exactly, i.e. 38.2 mm for the R-D1 vs 69.25 mm for the M8. Those are not significant values though. Only the effective base length (EBL) do count i.e. the mechanical base length multiplied by the viewfinder's magnification. Gives closer results i.e. roughly 38mm for the R-D1 vs 47mm for the M8. The longest EBL must be that of the M3 (63mm) IINW.