ark8012
Established
Ok.. I know there are many thread for this... but let me try one more time. 
First, I shot over 80% with JPG, not RAW. I am lazy for the converting work.
Second, I shot about 70% inside, mainly home for my kids.
R-D1x is a lot cheaper than M9, but M9 is a full frame.
Which one do you recommend for me?
Third option might be keep money for a while and get new M. :bang:
I think I will get new M eventually, but it will be much later.
First, I shot over 80% with JPG, not RAW. I am lazy for the converting work.
Second, I shot about 70% inside, mainly home for my kids.
R-D1x is a lot cheaper than M9, but M9 is a full frame.
Which one do you recommend for me?
Third option might be keep money for a while and get new M. :bang:
I think I will get new M eventually, but it will be much later.
froyd
Veteran
Do you have a preference over VF magnification? Since on mainly shoot indoor, I assume you'll use wide lenses, which require external VF on the Epson.
But yours is a bit of a strange question. Usually people try to decide between an M8 and a R-D1 as two sub $2k cameras. If you can comfortably stretch to an M9, then go for that, it can do all the R-D1 can, minus the ergonomics.
But yours is a bit of a strange question. Usually people try to decide between an M8 and a R-D1 as two sub $2k cameras. If you can comfortably stretch to an M9, then go for that, it can do all the R-D1 can, minus the ergonomics.
kxl
Social Documentary
If they cost the same, which one would you get?
noimmunity
scratch my niche
If you want to shoot jpeg, get a Fuji.
If you want to shoot a rangefinder yet not do post, shoot film and have someone else develop it for you.
The M9 and the R-D1 are, in general, soooo much better when you convert yourself. Yes there are some exceptions (the vintage B&W jpegs on the M9 are nice). But generally speaking...
If you want to shoot fast moving kids, you might be better off with an E-M1.
If you want to shoot a rangefinder yet not do post, shoot film and have someone else develop it for you.
The M9 and the R-D1 are, in general, soooo much better when you convert yourself. Yes there are some exceptions (the vintage B&W jpegs on the M9 are nice). But generally speaking...
If you want to shoot fast moving kids, you might be better off with an E-M1.
kennylovrin
Well-known
I've owned the R-D1, and while I like the idea of it, I just don't find it good enough when it comes to image quality. I know such a statement always releases the flood gates of opinions what is good enough and what isn't. All I can say is that I owned it in 2012 after I had been owning other more modern cameras, and going to the R-D1 just doesn't cut it for me personally then. I had simply gotten used to better quality, wether I needed it or not.
In use though it's a very cool camera, if there was a brand new one released I might consider it to be honest, but it needs a modernized sensor.
In any case, I finally ended up with an M9 that I purchased used. My opinion on the M9 is that it is a lovely camera, if you can afford it and if you really want a rangefinder. However, my opinion is also that no matter how you twist and turn it, it is severely overpriced. Yes, it is great build quality, but I still don't consider a $7000 price point appropriate. Again, perhaps also an opinion that many people don't like.
Anyway, I purchased it anyway because I did have the money and I really wanted it - I love that camera. Do I think it is worth the money? No. Do I think the alternatives offer good enough quality? No. So - I don't really have a choice, for me the M9 is still the best option no matter the price. I might get the M one day when the prices have dropped on the used market, maybe I won't.
In any case, when it comes to your original question, I don't think it is a comparison that can be made realistically. There is only one single common thing between the cameras in my opinion, and it is that they are both rangefinders.
If you are happy with the 6mp sensor in the R-D1 and all that it means, then that is the better camera. If you aren't, then the M9 is the next cheapest option in my opinion (someone would probably say the M8 is the next option, perhaps it is, it wasn't for me for other reasons).
Other than that, to be honest, I find it a pointless comparison. The two cameras just differ more than they have in common in reality. I could go into details on what I like and dislike with both of them, but it still doesn't change the fact that I think they aren't really comparable..
In use though it's a very cool camera, if there was a brand new one released I might consider it to be honest, but it needs a modernized sensor.
In any case, I finally ended up with an M9 that I purchased used. My opinion on the M9 is that it is a lovely camera, if you can afford it and if you really want a rangefinder. However, my opinion is also that no matter how you twist and turn it, it is severely overpriced. Yes, it is great build quality, but I still don't consider a $7000 price point appropriate. Again, perhaps also an opinion that many people don't like.
Anyway, I purchased it anyway because I did have the money and I really wanted it - I love that camera. Do I think it is worth the money? No. Do I think the alternatives offer good enough quality? No. So - I don't really have a choice, for me the M9 is still the best option no matter the price. I might get the M one day when the prices have dropped on the used market, maybe I won't.
In any case, when it comes to your original question, I don't think it is a comparison that can be made realistically. There is only one single common thing between the cameras in my opinion, and it is that they are both rangefinders.
If you are happy with the 6mp sensor in the R-D1 and all that it means, then that is the better camera. If you aren't, then the M9 is the next cheapest option in my opinion (someone would probably say the M8 is the next option, perhaps it is, it wasn't for me for other reasons).
Other than that, to be honest, I find it a pointless comparison. The two cameras just differ more than they have in common in reality. I could go into details on what I like and dislike with both of them, but it still doesn't change the fact that I think they aren't really comparable..
ark8012
Established
35mm is fine with me. so no external VF on both.
Yep. I know it is a bit of a strange.
I have used R-D1 and M8 before, but only regret to sell R-D1, not M8. M9, right? then why am I torn between two? because I could get a R-D1 without selling my current equips.
Also, I like the JPG from a R-D1, but I only heard that M9 images must be RAW, not JPG (I am sure how JPG from M9 are bad).
I have no idea about M9 JPG quality, but for R-D1's JPG, I think it is actually very good.
I never used Fuji before even though I heard a lot of good comment about it. I might try one day.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. R-D1 with a modernized sensor will be super if they keep their image processing.