Carolyn-IL
Member
I've been waffling on this for months, so hoping just for some imput. I can afford an RD-1 now (used - I know they are discontinued); and maybe could get a used M8 in a few months ...
I've read both forums to exhaustion. I have viewed images from both cameras. I keep coming back to all the M8 ones for their beauty and not sure I can quantify it, but something just grabs me. That said, the RD-1 images are really good too. I know a lot depends on the human operating the camera, but still, that is what I've noticed overall.
I am looking for pure artistry and letting the picture tell the story. I have a Canon 20D and every imaginable useful lens. I love the camera and will keep it (and most of the lenses) for long range stuff, quick moving subjects, or just when I want the flexibility of changing lenses that much. That said, I find myself just grabbing it and the 50mm prime and most of my "keeper" images are coming out of that.
I'm not a professional but some of my photos are starting to sell at a couple local stores (not photo stores), so image quality and print quality is a large factor.
I guess I'm asking those who have had experience with both cameras ... is the M8 worth the extra money? Where did most of your "keeper" shots come from? Also, as far as the photographic experience, was one or the other superior? Also, does the 10MP have that much noticable print difference from the 6MP sensor?
Thanks in advance,
Carolyn
I've read both forums to exhaustion. I have viewed images from both cameras. I keep coming back to all the M8 ones for their beauty and not sure I can quantify it, but something just grabs me. That said, the RD-1 images are really good too. I know a lot depends on the human operating the camera, but still, that is what I've noticed overall.
I am looking for pure artistry and letting the picture tell the story. I have a Canon 20D and every imaginable useful lens. I love the camera and will keep it (and most of the lenses) for long range stuff, quick moving subjects, or just when I want the flexibility of changing lenses that much. That said, I find myself just grabbing it and the 50mm prime and most of my "keeper" images are coming out of that.
I'm not a professional but some of my photos are starting to sell at a couple local stores (not photo stores), so image quality and print quality is a large factor.
I guess I'm asking those who have had experience with both cameras ... is the M8 worth the extra money? Where did most of your "keeper" shots come from? Also, as far as the photographic experience, was one or the other superior? Also, does the 10MP have that much noticable print difference from the 6MP sensor?
Thanks in advance,
Carolyn
stefan_dinu
Established
If you want a absolutely subjectiv opinion, I had the money for an M8 and use them to buy 2 Epsons. 
One of them brand new, from Luigi with 1500Euro.
What was the decisive points:
1. The controls. I hate menu cotrols like M8.
2. The looks. Needles dial is fantastic and also is the winder.
3. Ergonomics. I hate the way of changing the battery/card with Leica.
4. Stealth. With Epson at neck nobody minds me. Even the numerous SLR photographers that I encounter. I look like a budget turist with no money for a proper phone with a decent camera on. With a Leica is not the same thing. I have a Digilux 2 and everybody is talking about it when it is with me.
I don't mind about pixelcount or the vigneting. The only big plus for Leica is its quietness. Big difference here, IMHO.
PS: About the looks. A photo-friend (as I call them) ask me about my concern for looks. He says that this "feature" does not help you get better picture.
But I believe it does help me. When I have a nice camera with me, my mood is changing, and the way that I take picture is changig for the better. I know that my Canon 5D is a better tool than my Epson RD1 in general. But with Epson I have the urge to take picture. Is somehow different. (end of off-topic)
One of them brand new, from Luigi with 1500Euro. What was the decisive points:
1. The controls. I hate menu cotrols like M8.
2. The looks. Needles dial is fantastic and also is the winder.
3. Ergonomics. I hate the way of changing the battery/card with Leica.
4. Stealth. With Epson at neck nobody minds me. Even the numerous SLR photographers that I encounter. I look like a budget turist with no money for a proper phone with a decent camera on. With a Leica is not the same thing. I have a Digilux 2 and everybody is talking about it when it is with me.
I don't mind about pixelcount or the vigneting. The only big plus for Leica is its quietness. Big difference here, IMHO.
PS: About the looks. A photo-friend (as I call them) ask me about my concern for looks. He says that this "feature" does not help you get better picture.
But I believe it does help me. When I have a nice camera with me, my mood is changing, and the way that I take picture is changig for the better. I know that my Canon 5D is a better tool than my Epson RD1 in general. But with Epson I have the urge to take picture. Is somehow different. (end of off-topic)
0bli0
still developing...
if graham welland doesn't respond, send him a pm - he has both. he sold his rd1 (to me ) after getting the m8, but bought another one.
) after getting the m8, but bought another one.
Alex Shishin
Member
I have the RD-1s and the M8. I like them both. I would go with the M8. Two important reasons. Durability and service are superior. Take something basic like a spare battery. Hard to get for the RD-1s but easy for the M8. The M8 is also built better. Leica is experienced in servicing its cameras and you can get the M8 serviced world wide. Epson service is problematic, though they will replace parts and fix things for at least another 6 years.
You can also use telephoto lenses without an external finder with the M8.
I love my RD-1s but I fear maybe an expensive hamstert--a creature with a very short life. Hoping, of course, that I am wrong.
You can also use telephoto lenses without an external finder with the M8.
I love my RD-1s but I fear maybe an expensive hamstert--a creature with a very short life. Hoping, of course, that I am wrong.
David Noble
Established
I don't own both but I will second stefan: the R-D1 is a joy to use. I also have a Nikon D200 (an excellent camera) and you print A3 or smaller the Epson holds its own against it. I see very little difference in image quality (and what differences I do see sometimes favor the Epson).
The Epson meters well (I find the AE mode and metering on it are more reliable than the Nikon) and the egronomics are great. If you want to shoot multiple images in a short span of time, forget it with the manual shutter cocking. But that is also an idiosyncracy of the camera I have come to enjoy. I am not an action shooter anyway—that is what DSLRs are for (along with macro and telephoto).
Which all goes to say I think the Epson is a great camera and I don't think the M8 is worth twice the money, even if it is better in some respects. One of the two big Japanese camera magazines did a head to head comparison of the Epson and the M8 a few months back, and the Epson fought the Leica to a draw....
The Epson meters well (I find the AE mode and metering on it are more reliable than the Nikon) and the egronomics are great. If you want to shoot multiple images in a short span of time, forget it with the manual shutter cocking. But that is also an idiosyncracy of the camera I have come to enjoy. I am not an action shooter anyway—that is what DSLRs are for (along with macro and telephoto).
Which all goes to say I think the Epson is a great camera and I don't think the M8 is worth twice the money, even if it is better in some respects. One of the two big Japanese camera magazines did a head to head comparison of the Epson and the M8 a few months back, and the Epson fought the Leica to a draw....
Last edited:
jjcha
Established
Hi Carolyn,
I got my R-D1 about three months ago and the M8 about a month ago. I'm still putting the M8 through its paces, but I'm really not convinced its worth the money over the R-D1 if money is a consideration for you. Obviously the best approach is to own both.
First and foremost, the viewfinder on the M8 is clearly superior to the R-D1. The longer rangefinder base makes focusing just easier and more accurate. You also get framelines so can use lenses from 25 through 90, while the R-D1 is limited to just 28, 35 and 50. 25 on the M8 is also fairly significantly wider than 28 on the R-D1 due to the difference in crop. But other than that, I don't find there's that big of a difference between 1.3x and 1.5x crop.
The R-D1 rangefinder has its strengths -- it does the job and I find I can focus just fine with the shallow depth of field of the 35mm f/1.2 wide open. It also is nice and bright (brighter than the M8's) and has the 1x magnification, if that's important to you. But when it comes down to it, in my opinion the M8's rangefinder is just clearly a class ahead.
The M8 also has a much deeper buffer if you're shooting in RAW. The R-D1 can shoot 3 shots in quick succession before you have to wait for the buffer to clear. The M8 can do more. I don't know the exact number as I don't often hit the limit on the M8 while it's quite easy to do so on the R-D1.
Also while the R-D1 produces extremely excellent images, the M8 once in a while (it's not always every shot) just gives you an image that is stunning in its "3d" feeling. It's like I can feel the texture on someone's skin on some images. I think the R-D1 fails to get this in part because it has a fairly aggressive anti-aliasing filter on it, as well as the higher resolution on the M8. You can get a lot of sharpness back with proper sharpening on the R-D1 to overcome that filter, and it does sharpen up very well, but you do lose real detail because of the filter.
But honestly this isn't a deciding factor for me. I guess it's because it only happens once in a while, under certain conditions. I think in the hands of a good photographer, they would be getting this impact from the M8 more often. But I guess for me getting uber sharp photos isn't the point for me. It is nice when it happens, though.
The other factors are less clear.
10 megapixels versus 6 megapixels -- really that for me just depends on whether you crop (I don't much) or print large. To my eyes, the Epson is most excellent up to 8 x 12 and I think it enlarges quite nicely at 13 x 17. I don't print larger than that. At 13 x 17 the resolution advantage of the M8 is there but in my mind marginal. If you print larger, I would presume the M8 does pull ahead. Maybe, depending on how demanding you or your clients are.
But this is assuming you're at low ISO on the M8. The noise on the M8 is interesting to me. I actually like grainy images, but from a pure resolution standpoint, I'm not sure where I stand on which I like better between the R-D1 and M8. When I upgraded my Canon 300D to 400D, I found the 400D had more noise at higher ISO, but it also had more detail, and overall I found high ISO on the 400D to be more workable. But I can't say the same for a R-D1 and M8 comparison.
The M8 just has more noise such that I'd rather have images at lower resolution on the ISO800 on the R-D1 than the higher resolution ISO640 on the M8. For me it's a fairly even trade-off so far, but right now I prefer the R-D1 (I shoot a lot at ISO800) but it's also early for me to really say.
Where the R-D1 is superior for me is in its ergonomics. The M8 does not feel good in my hands without its protective case. With it's protective case it's a bit clunky, but grippable. The R-D1 fits my hands perfectly.
I hate having to turn on the LCD to see what my ISO is at. It's nice to have it on the shutter speed dial and having everything at a glance due to the dials. The shutter speed indicator on the R-D1 is better. The M8 you have to read the number. The R-D1 tells you its metering because if the red number is on the leftside of the viewfinder it's slow, if it's on the right, it's fast. You intuitively see the position, not read the number.
Having said that though, the M8 is well-thought out with its shooting menu system.
I really like the winder on the R-D1. I don't like it when I feel I'm waiting for the shutter to recock. The motor in the M8 is faster than my thumb, but it's still a disconnect with the process of shooting photos. On the R-D1, it's just me, controlling the machine, to take the image. On the M8, I'm relying on the machine instead of it being an extension of me.
I think the one thing that's really kept me from bonding with the M8 as I have with the R-D1 is that I know how expensive it is. I don't feel comfortable just tossing it over my shoulder when going out. I worry about dropping it or banging it in a way I don't about the R-D1. If I bring the M8 out to say a restaurant with friends, I worry about having it on the table (spills), but don't quite want to just put it under my chair. Not because it can't take a beating, but because the M8 is a luxury item while the R-D1 is just a camera (a camera I happen to love) to me. The R-D1 just goes under my chair and if I happen to bang it about, it can take it and I don't worry about it.
Anyhow, this is getting pretty long, and I'm still kind of feeling my way about... guess I've been thinking a lot about the R-D1 versus M8 recently.
Best regards,
-Jason
I got my R-D1 about three months ago and the M8 about a month ago. I'm still putting the M8 through its paces, but I'm really not convinced its worth the money over the R-D1 if money is a consideration for you. Obviously the best approach is to own both.
First and foremost, the viewfinder on the M8 is clearly superior to the R-D1. The longer rangefinder base makes focusing just easier and more accurate. You also get framelines so can use lenses from 25 through 90, while the R-D1 is limited to just 28, 35 and 50. 25 on the M8 is also fairly significantly wider than 28 on the R-D1 due to the difference in crop. But other than that, I don't find there's that big of a difference between 1.3x and 1.5x crop.
The R-D1 rangefinder has its strengths -- it does the job and I find I can focus just fine with the shallow depth of field of the 35mm f/1.2 wide open. It also is nice and bright (brighter than the M8's) and has the 1x magnification, if that's important to you. But when it comes down to it, in my opinion the M8's rangefinder is just clearly a class ahead.
The M8 also has a much deeper buffer if you're shooting in RAW. The R-D1 can shoot 3 shots in quick succession before you have to wait for the buffer to clear. The M8 can do more. I don't know the exact number as I don't often hit the limit on the M8 while it's quite easy to do so on the R-D1.
Also while the R-D1 produces extremely excellent images, the M8 once in a while (it's not always every shot) just gives you an image that is stunning in its "3d" feeling. It's like I can feel the texture on someone's skin on some images. I think the R-D1 fails to get this in part because it has a fairly aggressive anti-aliasing filter on it, as well as the higher resolution on the M8. You can get a lot of sharpness back with proper sharpening on the R-D1 to overcome that filter, and it does sharpen up very well, but you do lose real detail because of the filter.
But honestly this isn't a deciding factor for me. I guess it's because it only happens once in a while, under certain conditions. I think in the hands of a good photographer, they would be getting this impact from the M8 more often. But I guess for me getting uber sharp photos isn't the point for me. It is nice when it happens, though.
The other factors are less clear.
10 megapixels versus 6 megapixels -- really that for me just depends on whether you crop (I don't much) or print large. To my eyes, the Epson is most excellent up to 8 x 12 and I think it enlarges quite nicely at 13 x 17. I don't print larger than that. At 13 x 17 the resolution advantage of the M8 is there but in my mind marginal. If you print larger, I would presume the M8 does pull ahead. Maybe, depending on how demanding you or your clients are.
But this is assuming you're at low ISO on the M8. The noise on the M8 is interesting to me. I actually like grainy images, but from a pure resolution standpoint, I'm not sure where I stand on which I like better between the R-D1 and M8. When I upgraded my Canon 300D to 400D, I found the 400D had more noise at higher ISO, but it also had more detail, and overall I found high ISO on the 400D to be more workable. But I can't say the same for a R-D1 and M8 comparison.
The M8 just has more noise such that I'd rather have images at lower resolution on the ISO800 on the R-D1 than the higher resolution ISO640 on the M8. For me it's a fairly even trade-off so far, but right now I prefer the R-D1 (I shoot a lot at ISO800) but it's also early for me to really say.
Where the R-D1 is superior for me is in its ergonomics. The M8 does not feel good in my hands without its protective case. With it's protective case it's a bit clunky, but grippable. The R-D1 fits my hands perfectly.
I hate having to turn on the LCD to see what my ISO is at. It's nice to have it on the shutter speed dial and having everything at a glance due to the dials. The shutter speed indicator on the R-D1 is better. The M8 you have to read the number. The R-D1 tells you its metering because if the red number is on the leftside of the viewfinder it's slow, if it's on the right, it's fast. You intuitively see the position, not read the number.
Having said that though, the M8 is well-thought out with its shooting menu system.
I really like the winder on the R-D1. I don't like it when I feel I'm waiting for the shutter to recock. The motor in the M8 is faster than my thumb, but it's still a disconnect with the process of shooting photos. On the R-D1, it's just me, controlling the machine, to take the image. On the M8, I'm relying on the machine instead of it being an extension of me.
I think the one thing that's really kept me from bonding with the M8 as I have with the R-D1 is that I know how expensive it is. I don't feel comfortable just tossing it over my shoulder when going out. I worry about dropping it or banging it in a way I don't about the R-D1. If I bring the M8 out to say a restaurant with friends, I worry about having it on the table (spills), but don't quite want to just put it under my chair. Not because it can't take a beating, but because the M8 is a luxury item while the R-D1 is just a camera (a camera I happen to love) to me. The R-D1 just goes under my chair and if I happen to bang it about, it can take it and I don't worry about it.
Anyhow, this is getting pretty long, and I'm still kind of feeling my way about... guess I've been thinking a lot about the R-D1 versus M8 recently.
Best regards,
-Jason
Last edited:
jjcha
Established
Original R-D1 batteries aren't that hard to get, though it's a lot easier if you can get them in Japan (you probably can find them on eBay.)Alex Shishin said:
As for durability and service... I don't know. I've shot 1000 frames with the M8 and have experienced the usual M8 occasional failure to power on or freezing. Easily fixed by removing or swapping the battery, but I have lost shots because of this. I have never lost a shot in 4000 shots on the R-D1. M8 may have better physical build quality, but R-D1 has better software reliability, in my recent experience. M8 hopefully will catch up though as Leica goes through its firmware updates, and it's not like the R-D1 didn't have its issues here either when Epson first released it.
Best regards,
-Jason
johnastovall
Light Hunter - RIP 2010
I'm in a simular mode. I have an RD-1 but need a second body and will go with the M8. I got the R-D1 after I canceled an order for an M8 last November due to the IR problems. But Leica is going to be here in the long haul. I'll most likely look for a used M8 in November.
I do wish the M8 had more external controls and didn't require menus for so much. Maybe the M9 will address this.
I do wish the M8 had more external controls and didn't require menus for so much. Maybe the M9 will address this.
gavinlg
Veteran
I handled an m8 on my trip to new york almost directly against an m6/mp/r-d1.
I found that the m6 handled better than the m8, and the mp handled better again against the m6.
m8 vs r-d1 - I much preferred the r-d1s ergonomics... it's just quirky enough to be interesting and feels really quite great in the hand.
The r-d1 shoots way beyond the 6mp resolution suggests, however I'm a believer of quality of pixels over quantity of pixels, and the noise control is excellent.
The m8 is definitely higher quality and sharper but does lack something the r-d1 has in it's images.
Overall, if money was no object and I was only allowed one, I'd have the m8. It may be slightly clumsy, and I dont like that it doesn't have the film advance/shutter trigger, but in the end I can take it places knowing its very strong, and even if I did have problems with it I could get it repaired easily.
The epson on the other hand is quite finicky.
I have the epson, because money is of importance to me. For the price, its a better camera than the leica. Disregarding price, the m8 is a better camera.
Thanks,
Gavin
I found that the m6 handled better than the m8, and the mp handled better again against the m6.
m8 vs r-d1 - I much preferred the r-d1s ergonomics... it's just quirky enough to be interesting and feels really quite great in the hand.
The r-d1 shoots way beyond the 6mp resolution suggests, however I'm a believer of quality of pixels over quantity of pixels, and the noise control is excellent.
The m8 is definitely higher quality and sharper but does lack something the r-d1 has in it's images.
Overall, if money was no object and I was only allowed one, I'd have the m8. It may be slightly clumsy, and I dont like that it doesn't have the film advance/shutter trigger, but in the end I can take it places knowing its very strong, and even if I did have problems with it I could get it repaired easily.
The epson on the other hand is quite finicky.
I have the epson, because money is of importance to me. For the price, its a better camera than the leica. Disregarding price, the m8 is a better camera.
Thanks,
Gavin
Uwe_Nds
Chief Assistant Driver
Carolyn,
RFF tempted me to get an RD-1.
I managed to get a used one from a dealer offering return policy. It arrived on a Friday and after some test shots during the weekend, I returned it on Monday. Unfortunately, it wasn't for me.
Technically, there wasn't anything wrong with the camera, but it and me just didn't match.
First of all, I am left-eyed, so I couldn't see the 28mm framelines. Second I didn't like the shutter release. From my other cameras, I am used to half pressing the shutter release to meter and then further pressing to release the shutter. On "my" RD-1, there was no definition between these two stages meaning that in real conditions I would have lost some shots due to manually re-cocking the shutter.
The most important argument against the RD-1 was however comparing it to our Pentax *istDL2 with the FA 50/1.4. IQ-wise, the Pentax won hands down compared to the RD-1 with M-Hexanon 50/2.0 both @ f=5.6 and distances of around 15 metres to exclude any possible focussing errors.
I can't tell you anything about the M8, though.
Best regards,
Uwe
RFF tempted me to get an RD-1.
I managed to get a used one from a dealer offering return policy. It arrived on a Friday and after some test shots during the weekend, I returned it on Monday. Unfortunately, it wasn't for me.
Technically, there wasn't anything wrong with the camera, but it and me just didn't match.
First of all, I am left-eyed, so I couldn't see the 28mm framelines. Second I didn't like the shutter release. From my other cameras, I am used to half pressing the shutter release to meter and then further pressing to release the shutter. On "my" RD-1, there was no definition between these two stages meaning that in real conditions I would have lost some shots due to manually re-cocking the shutter.
The most important argument against the RD-1 was however comparing it to our Pentax *istDL2 with the FA 50/1.4. IQ-wise, the Pentax won hands down compared to the RD-1 with M-Hexanon 50/2.0 both @ f=5.6 and distances of around 15 metres to exclude any possible focussing errors.
I can't tell you anything about the M8, though.
Best regards,
Uwe
SteveM(PA)
Poser
The pretty amazing croppability (word?) of M8 files seems to be adding new possibilities to rangefinder photography. Looking at any of Furrukh's interesting photos, it's pretty clear. Not that they wouldn't be good to begin with, but it permits you to stretch a little more, which would be nice. Another "issue"...R-D1 alignment is fixable at home, is the M8's (or does it even get knocked out as much?)?
johnastovall
Light Hunter - RIP 2010
SteveM(PA)
Poser
johnastovall said:
That looks pretty cool, I hadn't seen that...thanks!
Carolyn-IL
Member
Oh my goodness, what thorough, thoughtful answers. Thank you so much to those of you who took the time. I reall appreciate it. It was just the kind of input I had hoped for! I read them all in depth and will ponder the issue for a little longer, but I'm leaning towards the RD-1 ... because "for the money" and what you all have commented on, seems more geared towards my concerns. I'm encouraged by the quality of that 6MP being better than I might think. I don't believe I'll go much beyond 8x10 in most cases.
If money was not an object, I would likely go with the M8 (I agree with the comment that there is "something" about those images that I have not seen captured anywhere else) ... but to me, $4600 is an enormous sum and it is a culmination of saving, extremely hard work and sacrifice as well.
I think the RD-1 is a good way to get in there and see if I really enjoy RF shooting.
Still interested in hearing what anyone else might add ...
Kind regards,
Carolyn
If money was not an object, I would likely go with the M8 (I agree with the comment that there is "something" about those images that I have not seen captured anywhere else) ... but to me, $4600 is an enormous sum and it is a culmination of saving, extremely hard work and sacrifice as well.
I think the RD-1 is a good way to get in there and see if I really enjoy RF shooting.
Still interested in hearing what anyone else might add ...
Kind regards,
Carolyn
Tuolumne
Veteran
Looks like we've gotten to the point of hair splitting on this one. You would be very well served by either camera, with your subjective reaction being the main determinant. Can you go to a camera store to try out the M8 to see how you like its "feel"?
/T
/T
furcafe
Veteran
I have both the R-D1 & the M8, w/the R-D1 now serving as the backup for the M8. Other posters have dealt w/most of the ergonomic & build quality issues, but my summary is: the M8 has far better physical build quality & a much better RF/VF & screen, but is a "higher maintenance" machine, meaning it's not as straightforward to use out of the box, the auto white balance sucks, & the ergonomics are not as intuitive for the analog-minded. Also, the M8's initial product quality issues, most of which have to do w/electronics & firmware, can be a big headache until Leica gets their act together (if ever) on the production side & on the customer service side, e.g., it's not as easy to get repairs done/obtain replacement bodies, etc. because they're such a small company. Then again, Epson's support for the R-D1 was never that great to begin with (though expectations were lower on account of the less stratospheric price) & the camera is now discontinued.
Re: print quality, IMHO, the extra 4 megapixels provided by the M8 make a significant difference when making prints, particularly if you want to be able to go beyond 11x14". If prints in those sizes (or if the capability of significant cropping for small prints) are an important consideration in your photography, then I would say, yes the M8 is worth the money, but I don't know the state of your personal finances. $4900 was (& is) a whole lot of money to me, but pales in comparison to my investment in Leica-mount lenses & annual film/development costs! ).
Re: print quality, IMHO, the extra 4 megapixels provided by the M8 make a significant difference when making prints, particularly if you want to be able to go beyond 11x14". If prints in those sizes (or if the capability of significant cropping for small prints) are an important consideration in your photography, then I would say, yes the M8 is worth the money, but I don't know the state of your personal finances. $4900 was (& is) a whole lot of money to me, but pales in comparison to my investment in Leica-mount lenses & annual film/development costs!
).Carolyn-IL said:
furcafe
Veteran
On ergonomics, I completely agree. Unfortunately, stores that carry both cameras, or even just the M8, aren't always conveniently located.
Tuolumne said:
Uwe_Nds
Chief Assistant Driver
Carolyn-IL said:
Carolyn,
Well, to see whether you really enjoy RF shooting, both cameras are over the top moneywise - unless film would be an absolute no-go for you.
Why not trying out RF shooting with a Bessa R or even a compact RF for a few $$?
Best regards,
Uwe
Ben Z
Veteran
Carolyn, I have an RD1 and a 20D. I have used an M8 on three different occasions now. For the time being I am sticking with what I have. The M8 is great but $5000+ (with enough IR filters to cover my lenses) is a lot more money than the $1400 I spent on the refurbished RD1 or $900 on the refurbished 20D. The most I've spent previously on Leicas was $2000 for a demo MP which has been since sold for 2 M6 classics and a lens for the same money. I have had some hairy experiences with TSA manhandling my camera bag going through airports, and I would have a stroke if it had been a $5000 M8. My only option for insuring it would be a rider to my homeowner's policy that would run me almost $500/yr. I have enough trouble holding a camera steady without nerves from knowing it would be $5000 down the drain if something happened to it.
Then on to the fact that every time I think "what the heck" and have my finger on the trigger, lo and behold there comes another story someone posts of something going wrong with their M8. My problem isn't that I expect it to be guaranteed problem-free, it's that having paid $5000 for it I would be steaming from my ears paying the monthly Visa bill all the while the camera is sitting in Germany being fixed.
There are things I don't like about the RD1, and never even gave it a serious thought at the $3000 it originally sold for, but at the refurb price I think it's a doable way to get my Leica lenses onto a digital body. The 20D continues to grow on me. I originally used it with my old Pentax screwmount lenses and have since gotten a couple of Canon lenses too. I also bought an Olympus eyepiece magnifier and so the viewfinder no longer looks like a postage stamp inside a tunnel, in fact I compared it to someone's full frame 5D and it's the same. I can't say the weight and size bother me anymore either, I'm used to it. The 20D is the last prosumer Canon that represented a quantum leap over its predecessor and remains pretty up to date in terms of resolution, noise and image quality. I have the DxO-Optics software that corrects a lot of lens aberrations automatically with amazing quality, and the Fred Miranda plug-ins for sharpening and upsizing which also work extremely well and easily (in fact I use their plug-ins for the Nikon D100 for the RD1 files). Once processed, the RAW files from my 20D do not lag far behind the M8. Coming from years of 35mm I am used to composing with the idea of using the entire negative, so the ability to crop and enlarge small sections is not essential to me. Also my primary use is screen display (wide HDTV), not prints, so take that into account when applying my opinions to your own needs. Bottom-line is that at this juncture, if someone handed me $5000 to do with as I wish, I would take a week long trip to Europe with my wife and bring the 20D, vs buying an M8.
Then on to the fact that every time I think "what the heck" and have my finger on the trigger, lo and behold there comes another story someone posts of something going wrong with their M8. My problem isn't that I expect it to be guaranteed problem-free, it's that having paid $5000 for it I would be steaming from my ears paying the monthly Visa bill all the while the camera is sitting in Germany being fixed.
There are things I don't like about the RD1, and never even gave it a serious thought at the $3000 it originally sold for, but at the refurb price I think it's a doable way to get my Leica lenses onto a digital body. The 20D continues to grow on me. I originally used it with my old Pentax screwmount lenses and have since gotten a couple of Canon lenses too. I also bought an Olympus eyepiece magnifier and so the viewfinder no longer looks like a postage stamp inside a tunnel, in fact I compared it to someone's full frame 5D and it's the same. I can't say the weight and size bother me anymore either, I'm used to it. The 20D is the last prosumer Canon that represented a quantum leap over its predecessor and remains pretty up to date in terms of resolution, noise and image quality. I have the DxO-Optics software that corrects a lot of lens aberrations automatically with amazing quality, and the Fred Miranda plug-ins for sharpening and upsizing which also work extremely well and easily (in fact I use their plug-ins for the Nikon D100 for the RD1 files). Once processed, the RAW files from my 20D do not lag far behind the M8. Coming from years of 35mm I am used to composing with the idea of using the entire negative, so the ability to crop and enlarge small sections is not essential to me. Also my primary use is screen display (wide HDTV), not prints, so take that into account when applying my opinions to your own needs. Bottom-line is that at this juncture, if someone handed me $5000 to do with as I wish, I would take a week long trip to Europe with my wife and bring the 20D, vs buying an M8.
Tuolumne
Veteran
furcafe said:
Yes, to lay your hands on a new R-D1 you might have to go to Japan or Robert White in the UK. However, if a friendly RFFer lives nearby, perhaps you could meet up and try the R-D1 that way.
/T