R-D1 versus M8 Example

Gid

Gid

Well-known
Local time
9:03 AM
Joined
Mar 10, 2005
Messages
1,794
R-D1 with CV 35 F2.5 colour skopar, M8 with hexanon 35 UC F2 (B+W IR cut filter attached). Shot from same position within a minute of each other. These are crops from much larger images. Printed at A4 I can see no difference in the level of detail. Both resized using CS2 bicubic and then sized for web.

Just for fun, can you tell which is which?
 

Attachments

  • image-1.jpg
    image-1.jpg
    104.2 KB · Views: 0
  • image-2.jpg
    image-2.jpg
    91.8 KB · Views: 0
If quality=price counts pic 1 M8 pic 2 R-D1...if I am wrong it doesn't really matter, I am not going digital anyway...
 
I have used both cameras extensively, and am reasonably familiar with their virtues and faults. It is entirely possible to have very similar-looking crops from the two systems, but as one enlarges more the greater resolution of the 10 MP sensor is apparent. Shots from the M8 often seem comparable with mdium format work, where as the R-D1 can't be enlarged more than, let's say, the average 35mm negative / slide.

I have not set aside my R-D1 at all since getting the M8. The ergonomics of the R-D1 are really superior. IMO it feels like a Leica with digital capabilities, whereas the M8 feels like a Leica RF / VF system added onto a computer. The R-D1 is more tactile to operate, more involving personanlly. I am waiting to get a good grip for the M8, as perhaps that will make it seem less "you press the button, we do the rest". This last is just a thought, without being able to produce the reasoning, but there is something missing for me on the M8, no matter how wonerful some of its images are.

Ed
 
I'm with Haagen (Fellow Jersey folks gotta stick together lol). 1st is RD1 second is M8.

I like Ed's comparison. Epson R-d1 is what would result if Leica + Digital. M8 is a Digital + Leica RF. I'll have to use that the next time someone asks me about my R-d1 and how it compares to the M8. thanks...

The ol' 6mp vs 10mp and so on.... is the same for any camera (Nikon and Canon folks included). On the web or at anything under 8x10 prints its difficult to see a major advantage. My DSLR is 8mp and it meets my needs and then some. Haven't had a situation that made me say.. wish I had more pixels and I print 11x14 regularly. The true advantage is your ability to crop down which I avoid from the very beginning.

I shot with a 3mp for a long time. I was happy but I did run into problems when I wanted enlargements.
 
#1 R-D1
#2 M8

Detail wise I can't tell, but I'm no expert. I have the UC35 though, and the OOF area looks better to me on #2, so I hope that's the M8.
Also, I have been reading some of Artichoke's posts about M8 foilage color, and #2 is very different (and not as appealing) as #1.
Did you install the latest M8 firmware (1.102) that I believe was just released yesterday?
 
#1 is less exposed, so I'm guessing #1 RD1 (because it often underexposes) and #2 M8. Personally I prefer #1, so kind of hoping it's the RD1, as I can't afford an M8 and already have an RD1s.
 
I printed a slightly larger crop from the original files at A4 which would equate to something around 18 x 12 if I'd printed the whole image. There is no discernible difference between the two shots. Different subject matter (e.g. a detailed landscape) might show up the limitations of the R-D1 and the benefit of more mp and a thinner sensor filter. As it happens, the first shot is from the R-D1. This, of course, doesn't prove anything but the R-D1 is no slouch. I have to say that the results surprised me.
 
Gid said:
As it happens, the first shot is from the R-D1.
Click to expand...

BINGO:D :D :D
the reason i guess M8 on the 2nd pic is because it looks pinkish and reddish
i am not sure if that has to do with the IR issues
 
Last edited:
saxshooter said:
Please, another test with the same lens on both! Limiting the variables...
Click to expand...

I'm not really into testing per se. I just did this because I was bored and wanted an excuse to go out and take some pictures. The reality is that unless I use the same lens the same FOV and a tripod, I won't be limiting the variables. In the real world most RF shots are hand held. A lot are zone focused or shot using hyperfocal focusing, so ultimate sensor or lens quality can get lost in the mix and that tends to narrow the gap.

Two more shots below both crops both at F8 and both focused on the left hand end of the barn. The full size images are in the next post.
 

Attachments

  • image-3.jpg
    image-3.jpg
    64.9 KB · Views: 0
  • image-4.jpg
    image-4.jpg
    57.5 KB · Views: 0
Gid, I wasn't asking for the most scientific of all tests. I was just commenting on how, with two different cameras and two different lenses, it's hard to tell if the difference in results is the lens or the camera, or more likely, both. But thanks for posting and lucky you, you have the M8 and the RD-1. I have the Epson and may get the M8.
 
saxshooter said:
Gid, I wasn't asking for the most scientific of all tests. I was just commenting on how, with two different cameras and two different lenses, it's hard to tell if the difference in results is the lens or the camera, or more likely, both. But thanks for posting and lucky you, you have the M8 and the RD-1. I have the Epson and may get the M8.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your argument and wasn't trying to put it down. At the very least the same lens would be helpful.

I do consider myself lucky, but I had to lose a lot of very nice guitars (my other passion) to end up with this stuff :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom