R-D1 vs. M8

[JonasYip]

Well, you've already gotten good answers here, but I'll chime in with my opinions anyway. On the RD-1, I love the folding LCD. And I like the rewind-knob-as-jog-dial. And the real ISO dial.

I personally don't care for the 1:1 viewfinder (would rather be able to squeeze in a 24 frame). I don't like the manual frameline selection. And I wish it had 75/90 frames. I don't really mind using an external viewfinder for wider views, but don't like it for the longer lenses.

Overall though the RD-1 is a great camera if you get a good one. I'd keep mine even if I was getting an M8... which I'm sure I'll succumb to sooner or later...

j

 

[sreidvt]

As most who have posted here know, I compared the two cameras in my first review of the M8. I'll be comparing the file quality of each in a new article. Despite the M8's many strengths, there are still advantages to the R-D1 and I myself will be working with one of each.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I've never handled an RD-1, but I did handle the M8.

I've also handled a wide range of variety of the Bessa Rx rangefinders. If the RD-1 shutter handles like the R2 or R3 or R4m, I stand behind the M8, no question.

The RD-1 may be half as much, and its image quality very up to snuff, but all things considered, for what I am looking for, the M8, no question.

The RD-1 as a backup, perhaps. Just like my 300D is the unlikely backup to my 5D. The Canon 300D is a nice camera, and has a great image, great bang for my buck (bought it for half of a new Nikon D50); but is it better than the 5D? Who are we kidding? If it's not for you, it's not for you.

Same thing with the M8.

 

[kepstein]

Can a 90mm Elmarit be used on the R-D1, and if so, how would you frame? I beleive that would give a FOV of a 140mm lens.

I use mine with a 135 viewfinder.

Ken

 

[nksyoon]

I use mine with a 135 viewfinder.

I tried it with a Nikon 135 finder which has parallax adjustment, but couldn't get it to match what the sensor was seeing. So now I just frame inside the 90mm lines - first shot as a sighter, then after that my estimation is pretty good.

 

[Rayt]

I like the 1:1 finder. A 35mm on the RD-1 and a 24mm on the M8 would just be perfect together.

 

[akptc]

The R-D1 will become a collectible item very soon surpassing any M prices by leaps and bounds...

 

[rvaubel]

I tried it with a Nikon 135 finder which has parallax adjustment, but couldn't get it to match what the sensor was seeing. So now I just frame inside the 90mm lines - first shot as a sighter, then after that my estimation is pretty good.

I dispensed with finders for telephoto on the RD1. I just use the rangefinder patch as a bullseye. It works pretty good. I was shooting with a 135mm Seranar and even that worked OK (with a sighter or two). Digital makes "sighters" possible which changes everything about framing error.

Rex

 

[LCT]

I would be quite happy to get the reliability, raw buffer and sharpness of the M8 but i don't want to loose the 1:1 viewfinder, 75mm FoV, reversible LCD and ergonomy of the R-D1.
If Leica launch a 0.85x or higher mag version of the M8 i could well be tempted to take a look on it though.

 

[pfogle]

Advantage (for me) of R-D1: I've got one!
😉

 

[sgy1962]

How can you make sure you get a problem free R-D1? I'm a bit leary of the QC problems I've read reported on these forums.

 

[iml]

I got my R-D1s from Robert White. I asked them to check it over first, and ensure the rangefinder was properly aligned. So far it's worked flawlessly.

Ian

 

[jaapv]

How can you make sure you get a problem free R-D1? I'm a bit leary of the QC problems I've read reported on these forums.

Buy from Robert White or ffordes or any respected member on this forum.

 

[t_streng]

for me the important differences are:

RD1:
+ better and direct controls of ISO, exposure comp, file quality and White balance
- still unreliable regarding focus (and I allready have my 3rd version) (my biggest and real concern with the rd1)
- no real wideangle internal frame (widest is 28x1.5crop = 42mm fov)


M8:
+ higher resolution
+ no AA filter so more detail/sharpness
+ it seems less vignetting
+ 1.3 crop instead of 1.5 (widest is 24x1.3= about 32mm fov)
+ hopefully hopefully more reliable regarding focus
+ much more frames in the viewfinder
+ I know some like the lever but overall I also had times when I missed images with the rd1 because I am not used to a lever any more - so I wouls say this -IMO- is an advantage of M8 (besides the sound)

 

[sreidvt]

for me the important differences are:

RD1:
+ better and direct controls of ISO, exposure comp, file quality and White balance
- still unreliable regarding focus (and I allready have my 3rd version) (my biggest and real concern with the rd1)
- no real wideangle internal frame (widest is 28x1.5crop = 42mm fov)


M8:
+ higher resolution
+ no AA filter so more detail/sharpness
+ it seems less vignetting
+ 1.3 crop instead of 1.5 (widest is 24x1.3= about 32mm fov)
+ hopefully hopefully more reliable regarding focus
+ much more frames in the viewfinder
+ I know some like the lever but overall I also had times when I missed images with the rd1 because I am not used to a lever any more - so I wouls say this -IMO- is an advantage of M8 (besides the sound)

Hi Thomas,

The focus is quite reliable on the M8. I certainly like having a rangefinder mechanism that is aligned and adjusted correctly from the start. Then again, many R-D1s have been adjusted properly from the factory. But, having gone through three camera exchanges of R-D1s that had play in the RF mechanism (which cannot be adjusted according to DAG), my patience was running out. My older body focusses well and the last replacement they sent was also accurate.

The M8 shows significantly less vignetting than the Epson. Certain CV lenses, for example, that vignette noticeably on the R-D1 barely vignette at all on the Leica. Examples include the 15/4.5. 21/4, 28/3.5.

I compared the two cameras in terms of function in my first M8 review. In part 3, I'll compare file quality from each.

Cheers,

S

 

[hth]

This play in RF mechanism on the RD-1 that cannot be adjusted, does it also affect the Bessa film cameras (which I think should have same RF mechanism)?

/Håkan

 

[CDT]

I fondled the M8 at Hunts photo for 5 minutes yesterday. My 2 cents:
-I like the finder on the M8 a lot more. It's much better if you wear glasses. I could even see the 24mm lines. The frame line pairing is a little annoying after using the R-D1 but I know I'd get use to it.
-Shutter seemed a lot louder on the M8.
-Ergonomics on the R-D1 are better. The M8 grip doesn't feel as secure and changing ISO is painful. I was surpised how bad they designed this. Didn't the people at Leica ever use a digital SLR?

Of course I'd trade my R-D1 for an M8 is a heartbeat as the image quality will be so muc better.

 

[nrj]

I'm still trying out my newly acquired R-D1. I wear glasses for distance viewing and another pair for reading. With the distance glasses one thing I really like compared to using my film M6 is that the view through the R-D1 viewfinder is just the same (ie as clear) as looking at the subject directly, this doesn't happen with the M6 I guess due to the magnification factor. I prefer no glasses when using the M6.

Nik

 

[scoob_e_doo]

You know, I'm really glad I never even had (or rather 'gave' myself) the option of buying an M8 because it is quite apparent from this thread that there are many great things with both to be passionate about. Surely this seems like a tough decision given the great divide I see here. For me, given the option of either, I feel like it's entirely a shooting style issue.

To the average photographer - and perhaps I'm the only one of them here in which case I apologize 🙂 - I say forget about 6MP vs 10MP. Forget about embedded focal lengths in the EXIF. Forget about analog dials vs 7-segment displays. I'd even go so far as to say forget about 'build quality' and 'brand longevity' (most will agree both are built solidly, a great MANY have had perfect R-D1s (not all R-D1 users post on this board), and as long as there is a market - and it looks like it's growing - you will find someone to repair your RF camera).

IMHO, I think the best question to ask is: which camera empowers you to make pictures the way YOU want to make pictures? Will a more film-like camera let you get closer to your subjects? Will being able to keep both eyes open enable you to compose better? Will carrying a camera with a $5000 price tag prevent you from going to certain locations or make you leave the camera at home?

To me it's all about the usability of a camera specifically towards composition. Whatever camera you use, you'll get over the little things like an extra button press or two. Having to wind between photos or not. Having to take off the bottom plate to put in an SD card. Having to double/halve exposure due to your camera's individual quirkiness. These, to me, are trivial matters which, with time, will become second nature to anyone and, at best, a bit annoying. The important thing is that, in the time where you're not annoyed by those little things, you're out making pictures exactly where you want to make pictures, and exactly how you want to make them.

Again, this is what I think people like myself should be focusing on given you could buy both. You pros out there, I'm sure, have a quite different angle, but then you stopped reading this post far before here anyway so this disclaimer is lost. 🙂 And, btw, I'm so guilty of not doing what I suggest above it's not funny. Call it the engineer in me. But oh the bliss to finally let it all go and just get out and work on your PICTURES! : )

Speaking of which...