R-D1 or M8?

LCT said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're right, in that the difference between effective baselength is not the 50% I quoted, more like 24%. But I disagree that only the effective baselength counts.

A bigger baselength, smaller mag setup will generally give more accurate results than a higher mag setup with the same effective baselength.

(And I still love the R-D1, its VF is fine for most lenses, but not as good as a Leica M).
 
Last edited:
Paul, it is not a matter of love ;) but of laws of physics as you said perfectly.
A rangefinder with a short mechanical baselength but high finder magnification can be more accurate than another one with long physical baselength but low finder magnification. In practice, an R-D1 with a 1.3x magnifier will be more accurate than an M8 for this reason.
 
LCT said:
Paul, it is not a matter of love ;) but of laws of physics as you said perfectly.
A rangefinder with a short mechanical baselength but high finder magnification can be more accurate than another one with long physical baselength but low finder magnification. In practice, an R-D1 with a 1.3x magnifier will be more accurate than an M8 for this reason.
Click to expand...


You've been a great supporter of the R-D1, I remember your posts form the time I got one and really appreciated them, so I shall leave this, but only say that high-mag, short-baselength will amplify errors in the system, compared to lower mag, long baselength, it's been posted here previously.

I would personally stress the R-D1s massive ergonomic advantages over the M8, rather than the VF. Even thinking about them makes me feel nostalgic for mine, really a much better camera than my present GF1.
 
Just using formulas like b' = (e * f^2) / (k * z) where b' is the effective (not mechanical) base length, e the visual acuity, f the focal length, k the aperture and z the circle of confusion. Now i agree with you about ergonomics and mirrorless cameras. :)
 
I have always found the R-D1 image processing of higher quality, albeit with a lower pixel count, and that's what counts for a digital camera, beyond the better ergonomics of the body over the M8.
The M8 is a great camera, no doubt, but unfinished from a design point of view (wrong finder frames, IR pain-in-the-neck filters issues, unreliable sensor). The M8.2 should have been the M8, but then it's the price of 2 R-D1's... That answers pretty much your question...
 
A Nex 5n will give you everything you want. No real noise up to 6400iso. Save some cash and get some glass. I have never used an M8 or RD1 but think the sensors are dated by new standards.
 
jsrockit said:
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).
Click to expand...

Yes, but think about what will happen to the used digital M market when Fuji makes this camera.

Joe
 
Were it not for the fact that I prefer wide angle lenses, I probably would not have a strong preference. The 28mm frameline on my M8.2 is easy to see with glasses, and gives a 37mm equivalent. The 28mm Frameline on the R-D1 is hard to see with glasses, and only gives a 42mm equivalent. And though the M8's 24mm frameline is harder to see, it is at least there, and gives me the option of shooting a 32mm equivalent without needing an accessory finder.

So. I prefer the M8.2 for its greater utility with wide lenses. If I liked normal to long equivalents views, I think I would like an R-D1, even though it has fewer pixels. The ease of using the R-D1, and its superior high ISO performance, might make up for the lower resolution.
 
cosmonaut said:
A Nex 5n will give you everything you want.
Click to expand...

Especially if one wants a rangefinder...

Oops, this reply was already given, sorry... OTOH, the reply to take a EVIL or some other digicam also is repeated every time someone asks about a rangefinder. I'm asking myself, if the difference is so hard to understand... You can not replace a R-D1 or M8 with a Nex or even a X100. They are not rangefinders.
 
Last edited:
Yes they are not RFs and they are unable to use wide Ms w/o vignetting and artefacts in the corners AFAIK. Not the case for the Ricoh GXR with Mount A12 module though. But as far as focusing is concerned, current EVFs are far from equalling a 50+ years old rangefinder.
 
LCT said:
But as far as focusing is concerned,
Click to expand...
Not just focusing but focusing while framing, all in one go. Perfection.

Slightly off-topic: Although I would like to try the Bessa T (which separates these processes and requires a separate viewfinder regardless of focal length), I don't think it could work as my only camera. Too slow for my general style, but very interesting as a film backup/slow workflow camera.
 
jsrockit said:
What am I missing here? I thought most cameras let you focus while framing... :confused:
Click to expand...
Sure, I should have been more verbose. I meant the lack of dependency between framing and focusing, and the fact that both functions are available to you with one glance in such a way that you can effortlessly move between them. This is pretty much the old see-beyond-the-framelines argument and the old see-everything-in-focus argument rolled into one. This is a process the rangefinder camera has perfected.
 
I've seen no evidence that the Fuji thing will either be M-mount or take M-mount. It would be silly of them not to have it at least adaptable, but camera companies aren't known for the same grasp of conventional wisdom as the collected neurons we call photo fora! (That whole second sentence is spiced with playful sarcasm).

I say that while you wait for the mythical Fuji uberphotoapparat, buy an R-D1 and join the proud owners of the only digital camera with a wind lever. (Yes, I also installed a vestigial crank on the front my Prius.)
 
Lss said:
Sure, I should have been more verbose. I meant the lack of dependency between framing and focusing, and the fact that both functions are available to you with one glance in such a way that you can effortlessly move between them. This is pretty much the old see-beyond-the-framelines argument and the old see-everything-in-focus argument rolled into one. This is a process the rangefinder camera has perfected.
Click to expand...

That makes sense... and is the reason I use M cameras... but the Fuji X100 works in a similar manner in OVF mode just with AF instead.
 
Last edited:
Joe AC said:
Yes, but think about what will happen to the used digital M market when Fuji makes this camera.

Joe
Click to expand...

Perhaps nothing at all... the Leica M is in a class of its own and rarely gets affected by other companies cameras. I'm not saying it is not going to be a game changing camera for people who like the ergonomics of a rangefinder, but some people will never abandon Leica or mechanical rangefinders.
 
R-D1 or M8

R-D1 or M8

Hi,

I'm an RD-1 owner and fan. I just bought a gorgeous M8-2 in very good shape three days ago. I'm still wondering which one I'll keep !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom