sell rd1 - buy m8 - end result?

[ampguy]

No problems here

No problems here

I've used 2 different German 75/1.4 luxes on 2-3 different RD1 and RD1s bodies. All focus as easy and as well as on my M8 and M6 (.72).

The key is to having a proper diopter in place if needed, which is easy for RD1s since they use easily found Nikon ones. M ones are a bit harder and pricier to find.

One perspective, I want to add here, as the price point came up.
Given the usual price, even an old R-D1 beater goes still, an the respective M8 price, the R-D1 does not look so tempting TO ME anymore, as I have (and likely keep) a R-D1 and shoot mostly with an M8.2 now.

One thing, often missed in discussions about this or that DRF is really the accuracy of the focus mechanism.
The R-D1 indeed is less accurate or lets say it different: less ideal for very fast or/ and long glass (nobody can argue this, and i had my share of experience with my own sample and a wide mix of glass).
Just about every f1.4 lens + the 90 Cron and 135 APO Telyt, I use without issues is troublesome on the R-D1. You get your lucky hits, but reliable it is not.

I have screwed my 1959 35mm Summaron now on the R-D1, which makes for a wonderful snapshot combo - small, light, cute looking (is that a film camera - how cute that old thing, …) and plenty fast, even with the slow f3.5 lens.

Given this experience, I would not spring for another R-D1, if I would get a M8 for 400 − 500 EUR more.
If you plan, to use a 90 mm or longer lens or anything fast reliably, the R-D1 is a much lesser camera body, than the M8.

And, to repeat it: I still love my R-D1 - she is just unique ;-)

 

[Ben Z]

The RD1 was a nice camera and made nice images, but I could never stand having to carry and use auxiliary viewfinders for lenses with an effective focal length shorter than 42mm. That alone was a deal-breaker, and I sold mine the moment my M8 came. I'd bought it as a refurb and didn't lose a dime on it after using it more than a year. Someone got a great camera and I'm sure is still enjoying it (I'd upgraded the firmware to RD1-S).

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Well I took that route and have been happy with the results. BUT, there is also a trade-off of downsides. I did not find the RF baselength or roller-cam mechanism to be accurate enough to focus fast or long lenses reliably on the RD-1.

When I traded up, I got higher IQ, longer battery life and a slightly larger chip. The M8, had its own problems though (magenta cast needing expensive IR filters), seemingly random agreement with some lenses (50/2, 35/1.2, 75/2, 50/1) and disagreement with others (50/1.4, 75/1.4, 90/2, 135/2.8) requiring about half my lenses to be re-tweaked by Don Goldberg. When it worked, the RF was much more accurate than the RD-1 (which also had been back and forth to Don to have the RF adjusted as much as he could). The M8's Auto-WB was wonkier, sometimes changing color casts in between frames. I liked the RD-1's one-color, one-bw mode when shooting RAW+JPG. All in all, I am happy that I made the switch to the M8. If the M8 had not come along, I probably would have been able to live with the RD-1's limitations just fine.

My recent experience with an Oly digi-Pen makes me think that the right path for Leica is to ditch the RF and go with a TTL video-solution. So many of the M8's problems would be solved by approaching the problem in this way and you could continue to use all that legacy Leica glass . . .

 

[DrTebi]

I have a Leica M8, and really like it for it's sharp and detailed images. But recently I started experimenting with analog rangefinders, and am thrilled. To me, film just has more character, more depth. And what I am especially pleased with is how little, if any, color adjustments I have to make to scans from negative film.
What I didn't like about the M8 was exactly that--getting the white balance right. Unless I used manual white balance, I had to make adjustments to about ever other photo I shot, and adjusting colors is no fun. The firmware upgrade helped, but still, film gets it much better every time without having to fiddle with the menu. I also don't like the dependency of battery life. Carrying two batteries was an absolute must when going on hikes.

Another big problem with the M8 was sensor dust. It ruined a whole set of 70 pictures or so on one trip, I didn't realize the sensor was that dirty. Cleaning helped of course, but it seems that I could never get rid of every spot on there. Funny thing I noticed recently: The sample pictures of the M8 on dpreview.com have a big sensor dust spot on almost every picture!

The infamous magenta hue is another big issue. I do have the Leica filters that are supposed to fix it--but they don't. They help, but in a very recent shoot my girlfriends clothes have a magenta hue in every image. I simultaneously shot with an old Voigtlander analog camera, and guess what, perfect black on every shot.

For now the M8 will collect dust, and may end up on eBay, while I will keep shooting with the Yashica Electro 35 GSN, and a Hasselblad Xpan which is due to arrive tomorrow. Yes it is a lot of trouble (well, actually mostly a time issue) scanning negatives, but I think it's well worth it. I also realized that now I am taking much more care when taking pictures, as I don't shoot "for free" anymore--my shots have improved a lot, and I feel more connected to the photos I take.

I don't want to start a debate about digital vs. analog, but I thought my experience with the M8 would be an input worth something...

 

[MCTuomey]

my two cents

i liked my RD-1. i like my M8 for its greater resolution, file quality, better meter, milder crop factor, and longer batt life (rough order of importance). i'm sure i'd like an M9 too, but it's just too much money for the trip. the M8's nits that get mentioned - shutter sound, frameline inaccuracy, auto WB, IR sensitivity - aren't troubling to me.

i take my M8 most everywhere i can, just like i did the RD-1. so the M8 didn't change how and where i shoot. prints do look better to my eye, but nothing dramatic. i can be happy with either camera, really.