R-D1 vs M8

K

kschultz

Newbie
Local time
9:13 AM
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Messages
2
I am new to RFF. I have an old Bessa and am looking to jump into the digital rangefinder. I have read up on these two camera's and am interested in purchasing 1. I know some of the simple differences and acknowledge this is in the R-D1 forum, but why does everyone uprade to M8 or sell the Epson to buy the Leica other than the support aspect? Is the Epson worth starting with or suck it up and spend $1,200 more for M8, which I would buy from Adorama or B&H for 2,600 rather than try eBay for not much less. Any help out there would be great. I have a Voigt 35mm 1.7 and am looking to get the Nokton 50mm 1.1. Not selling my Canon set up.
Thanks, Kevin
20D, 17-55mm 2.8, 85mm 1.8, 70-200mm 4, canon G10 and old BessaR
 
I have owned an Epson RD-1 for about 6 months, and am very pleased. I use a Voight 28mm f2 and a Summicron DR 50mm lens for portraits. The RD-1 produces very usable images at ASA 1600, and the Leica M8 does not. The RD-1 is quieter to shoot, due the fact that you manually cock the camera. I also find the RD-1 faster to use thanks to the fact that I do not have to wade through menus to change settings. I was at B&H holing a used M8, and while a great camera, chose to buy the RD-1, and have no regrets.
 
Opinion:

Output
M8 is more like slide film. Clean clear Raw files to work with at low ISO. High ISO noise looks like noise not grain.

RD1 is has a look more like C 41 negative film Low ISO RAW files are clean High ISO looks grainy up to a point and then noisy.

Use:
M8 is a bit clumsy with it's menus but more or less like an M.

RD1 is more "analog" and intuitive like a film M

Both have a full charge battery life that will fill a 2G card with RAW files

The resolution question is for you to answer. The RD! is great for Web viewing and prints up to 8x10. The M8 can print much larger I did a poster with an Image that looks fantastic.
 
Hi, owned an epson and now i have an m8.

The Rd1s handles very well so does the M8 (M8 has up to 1/4000 speed)
Files are better on the M8, also 1.33 crop gives you "more" than 1.5 crop.
When i purchased my biogon 35/2 the difference between both files was huge in favor of the M8!!!

What i couldn´t bear on the epson was the framelines being so inaccurate, always lost info, never got used to it.
Framelines are only for three lenses.
Memory card up to 2 gb!

It´s a beautiful camera very reliable all info is on the spot to be changed, low noise.

but at last sticked to the m8!

Bye!
 
Hello,

I've an rd1 and thinking to upgrade to a m8 (too). I like the epson and the ergonomics. But I've read somewhere (I can't remeber where) that the m8 should focus easier than the epson because of the larger base enlignement (or something like that) of the m8? Is that right, because for me that would be a big pro for the m8. I know it can focus 75 mm better than the epson but at 35 or 40 mm?

john
 
I've owned and used both. I prefer the M8 for its higher resolution. (10 mpx is a kind of sweet spot for how I process and print.) Also the M8's lower crop factor allows me to use most of my favored lenses somewhat more interchangeably w/ my film M than the RD1. I really liked shooting with the Epson though. And its files are very nice.
 
It really sounds like I will like whichever I chose, to be honest. There doesn't seem to be many or any dissatisfied shooters. Now comes the hard part, of actually purchasing. Well my birthday is in 3 months and I think I know what to tell everyone to chip in for. I'll let their generosity dictate which I get :)
Hope to post pics here soon enough.
Thanks all, Kevin
 
28mm or 35mm shouldn't be a big problem on either to focus. I mean look at the ERFBL of an XA, and you can focus that too :D.

edit: ERFBL is a weird word. I meant effective rangefinder base length.
 
Last edited:
I'm another one that has an R-D1 and loves it but I keep considering getting an M8. What I think:

M8 Pros
- wider viewfinder allows using lens as wide as 21mm (full vf area) without external vf (which is a hassle)
- longer rf baselength makes focusing more precise
- framelines are parallel to the viewfinder, not skewed...
- lower crop factor allows closer to original fov
- 1/8000 allows shooting wide open on daylight, interesting with very fast lenses
- bigger LCD and zoom wheel allow slightly more accurate focus check
- LR3 processes high iso files much better, making them more useable
- feels more like an M
- speed wheel is softer, shooting manual gets easier
- lightmeter in the viewfinder is more intuitive for those used to an M6/7
- reads SD cards bigger than 2GB
- shutter sound is less metalic than the R-D1's

M8 cons
- strong IR issue, need to invest on IR filters for each lens if shooting color
- some lenses just won't fit, like the DR Summicron
- noisier high iso than the R-D1's
- almost 2x the price of an R-D1
- SD card and battery loading is a bit clumsy

R-D1 pros
- since it's a rare and odd camera, nobody thinks it's a digital, so it can attract less attention sometimes
- folding LCD helps prevent chimping (but a halfcase on an M8 would do so too)
- manual shutter cock makes it slightly more silent than the M8
- side door for loading the SD card is faster than the M8's bottom plate method
- 1:1 viewfinder allows shooting with both eyes open, a very interesting way to frame
- completely analog feel, none of the basic settings require the LCD to be adjusted, which is great
- if something simple malfunctions, it might be possible to fix at home, although a bit risky

R-D1 cons
- 35mm lines are not so good to see for glasses wearers, lack of bottom line for 35mm doesn't help on that
- skewed framelines
- 45mm is the widest equivalent focal length on the viewfinder
- max 2gb cards
- shooting wide open at 1/2000 and iso200 on daylight will overexpose and get highlight clipping (but you can always add an ND filter) ps: yes, it might be a silly con, but still..
- heavier than the M8 but doesn't feel as robuts/solid
- not so much more silent than the M8 and the shutter has a metallic sound
- won't need an IR filter for most of the shots, but some synthetic blacks will come out purple-ish, as well as ember and orange heating lights
- crop factor tightens the fov of lenses: not so nice for wide angle lovers
- if something malfunctions, it's harder to find a technician that will fix it depending on where you live

i think both have strong pros as well as strong cons. it's more a matter of which will please you or annoy you more.
 
I have used the M8 and M9 and they don't really appeal to me in terms of handling, built quality and image quality. If they are worth next to nothing, I might still considering getting them as paperweights. I got the R-D1 initially, and when I thought I'll add another camera, I bought another R-D1s instead of the Leica M8/M9. I am now considering adding another R-D1x for fun even though the M8 is cheaper. Despite the fact that it's old technology, it is no less capable in fulfilling my requirements and the fact is that the Epson R-D1 is a camera that I actually enjoy using, unlike the M8/M9.

Cheers,
 
I find this debate very interesting. After checking completed listings on ebay, the Epson RD-1 is around £940 and the M8 about £1100, in other words, pretty similar. I've heard it mentioned on here about the M8 being twice the price of the epson. Are these old figures and if not, has the M8 lost value quickly or the epson just retained it's price better.
I'm really interested in finding out.
 
RD-1 (in its various forms) generally goes for about $1000 - $1500 US. The M8 usually goes for $2000-2500 US.
 
Buy a R-D1x (more recent than an old-third-hand R-D1)… or a M9!
IMO R-D1 it's more collectable than M8 : it's the only digital camera in the world with a lever…
But for the 10 years to come, M9 is a more useful photo tool : FF, IQ…
that's why IMO M8 is a No-way option.
 
gekopaca said:
Buy a R-D1x (more recent than an old-third-hand R-D1)… or a M9!
IMO R-D1 it's more collectable than M8 : it's the only digital camera in the world with a lever…
But for the 10 years to come, M9 is a more useful photo tool : FF, IQ…
that's why IMO M8 is a No-way option.
Click to expand...

Hm. So you recommend the Epson for collectors and the M9 for photographers? What if the TO wants to take photos and sticks with the options Epson or M8?
 
M8 is a nice camera. For me the files look much better with Lightroom 3 than with older Lightroom version. Before Lightroom 3 I didn't like ISO1250 at all. With Lightroom 3 I think 1250 is good usable.
I should be easier to get a used M8. The market is full of used ones in contrast to Epsons.
 
Buy an M10, ah sorry we did not come to that point yet :)

I am happy with my analog set. I might try Sony NEX instead. Anyone compared NEX to RD1 with respect to IQ?
 
gekopaca said:
IMO R-D1 it's more collectable than M8 : it's the only digital camera in the world with a lever…
Click to expand...

Time will tell... but Leica has a history of their cameras being collectable. Epson, not really. However, the Epson was the first, so...
 
tom.w.bn said:
Hm. So you recommend the Epson for collectors and the M9 for photographers? What if the TO wants to take photos and sticks with the options Epson or M8?
Click to expand...

No, I'm an happy R-D1 owner and I think I'm a photographer ;-)
I said : if you have a lot of money IMO M9 is currently the best choice; if you are a poor man (like me) the R-D1 is less expensive AND currently the most mythical RF digital camera (so easy to sell, easy to keep, etc…)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom