Switching from R-D1 to M8

[hon910]

I know this question would have been asked many times.
Hope I could get more opinions here as well on an M8.

Well I am currently using an R-D1, I have been always wanted to have an M8.
I am also keeping M6 on film.
So as usual, many M8 users are going for the M9 & I have an offer of M8 (with 2 IR filter & a grip) for US$2400. Unfortunately I guess the warranty is over.
Is there a risk on it?

Is selling off my R-D1 & upgrading to M8 would be a good choice?
Or how about letting go my M6 as well as I could just concentrate one camera?
Definitely I would love to go for M9 but u know, as usual budget...

By the way, how much would one be able to fetch for a used R-D1?


Thanks

 

[victoriapio]

I've had both, in fact I've had both and tested one against the other. I prefer the M8.

I loved the handling of the Rd1s, but the M8 has better image quality and slightly better crop factor. All M8s are reliable now, can be CLA by Leica who add a year warranty to their work, and bascially the M8 is the smaller crop version of the M9.

Don't know what the Epson is selling for these days, but it should be enough to cover more than 1/2 the cost of a nice M8.

 

[Rob-F]

Well, I would not let that M6 go! I've been watching M8 prices on eBay. They seem to go fairly consistently for about $2500 to $2550. So I would say $2400 sounds good. Risk in switching to the M8? Well, what if you don't like it as well as the R-D1? One person posted here that he switched to the M8, then went back to the R-D1. So that is a possibility. Negative comments we've seen on the M8: loud shutter; undersized framelines. Having to remove the baseplate. Negative comments on the R-D1: shutter failures; tilted framelines; disappearing framelines; rangefinder alignment problems; hot pixels; dead cameras. Inability to see the 28mm framelines if you wear glasses.

These are the issues that keep me going back and forth, thinking of buying one or the other, then changing my mind for the other; and then back again. So far I have not bought either one. I just pick up my D200 and use it. Not that it's perfect: I've had some focus problems with it. But they are solved now. Better yet, I load some film in my MP or my Nikon FA, forget all my worries about which digital to get, and go shoot pictures. What ever made me think I needed digital?

 

[Zoeica]

While I do like the R-D1 and I have taken many great images with it, the M8 image quality surpasses the "older" Sony sensor. Yes both have faults and you can get bad ones for sure, but after shooting with my own M8(was always able to borrow one) for a little while now, the R-D1 is gathering dust. Maybe it will serve as a good backup, the battery just lasts forever in the R-D1 over the M8!

 

[Ben Z]

I sold my RD1 soon after getting the M8. I never had a problem with the RD1 crop factor, but the lack of viewfinder framelines wider than (effective) 42mm was a deal-killer for me. As for reliability, the RD1 isn't exactly known for it either, and Epson's service was dismal even before the camera was discontinued. I would check any used M8 serial # and buy one that starts with 32 or higher. (I know some people claim the #'s are random but I don't believe it.) The later in the game, the more little unspecified internal improvements were made, just like any camera. If you could find an upgraded M8 (shutter at least) for not much more than a non-upgraded one, that would be even better.

 

[JNewell]

I owned and enjoyed using an R-D1 for a couple of years. I replaced it with an M8 after renting one for short dollars. I have to say that the files that come out of the M8 are head and shoulders better in every way, even allowing for the IR matter. Plus, although it is slightly different in size, it just feels right - like an M.

 

[crusius]

Two reasons to get an M8: if you print big or if you crop sizeable amounts often. Otherwise, the R-D1 is arguably better. I have excellent 13x19" prints from my R-D1.

I have both cameras now, will sell one, and will probably be the R-D1 because (a) I print big, and (b) I crop without feeling guilty.

The big drawback of the M8 is the unexcuseable, dumb, 8-bit-depth "RAW" file. I have had the M8 for about a month and have run into situations where it matters much more often than I'd like. If it weren't for this issue, the R-D1 would have been sold already.

In other words: the M8 is better if you print big (13x19 and above) or crop before printing reasonably big (11x17 and above). Otherwise the R-D1 is arguably better.

 

[Rob-F]

"Otherwise the R-D1 is arguably better." Maybe, but what about the lack of framelines for lenses wider than 28mm, with their 42mm equivalent? And the 28mm framelines are not visible if you wear glasses, so the only framelines you can use are 35mm and 50mm: 52 and 75mm equivalents.

You can use external finders in the hot shoe. A 35mm finder would work with a 24 or 25mm lens. Not bad. I don't mind using an aux finder on my IIIc, so I doubt I'd mind on the R-D1. But since I wear glasses, I would have to come up with a 40mm finder so I could use the 28mm lens. And I'd need a 31.5mm finder to use my 21mm lens.

So my answer, as of this moment, is to use my D200, D-Lux 3, and D-Lux 4. But the D200 is so heavy. Not much of a walkabout camera.

A really satisfying digital camera? I think it would be the M9. But I don't have one . . . yet.

 

[back alley]

these are rangefinders...you guys seem to be getting all in a knot over rf issues...like framelines. i don't care about the 28 fl, i can guesstimate easy enough. and i have a 15 and a 21 d finder for those lenses. pretty much makes it a p&s affair, especially with the 15, great combo.

 

[snausages]

Two reasons to get an M8: if you print big or if you crop sizeable amounts often. Otherwise, the R-D1 is arguably better. I have excellent 13x19" prints from my R-D1.

I have both cameras now, will sell one, and will probably be the R-D1 because (a) I print big, and (b) I crop without feeling guilty.

The big drawback of the M8 is the unexcuseable, dumb, 8-bit-depth "RAW" file. I have had the M8 for about a month and have run into situations where it matters much more often than I'd like. If it weren't for this issue, the R-D1 would have been sold already.

In other words: the M8 is better if you print big (13x19 and above) or crop before printing reasonably big (11x17 and above). Otherwise the R-D1 is arguably better.

Crusius, this definitely jives with my impression of M8 images based on what I've seen on-line. If I see blown highlights in a thumbnail I immediately think M8. I guess that's a challenge with all digital shooting, but, as you're saying, every extra bit of latitude helps...

 

[kalex]

I have an R-D1 and so far enjoying it a lot since i switched from DSLRs. one thing i have to say is practice, practice, practice. when I first got it 95% of my shots were out of focus. as I put around 500 pics through the camera, my out of focus shots got drastically reduced, number of keepers went up. I'm slowly getting use to the camera and biggest improvement I see is my ability to focus has improved drastically. Before it use to take me about 5 seconds to focus properly, now it takes me about 2 and its getting faster and faster every day. I also kept forgetting to recock my shutter and ended up missing pictures because of it. now its becomming second nature to me after taking the shot to recock it . M8 has certain advantages over R-D1 but for me price is an issue. I was able to get my R-D1 and my lenses for the same price as used M8, not even M8.2. One feature that I love on my R-D1 is the foldable screen. I force my self not to chimp by folding it inside and using it like a film camera. Thats another thing that improved a lot. with my DSLR I use to chimp like crazy. even when I got R-D1 I use to do, now I rarely do.
Slowly I'm going through and deciding what my favorite lens is. I started out shooing with Nokton 40mm but find it to tele for street stuff. its perfect for low light shooting though. Currently I'm shooting with Jupiter 12 and finding that it gives a unique look to my pictures. Next up will be my 28mm M-Rokkor. I tried it before and it seems to be a best fit for me, until i get something wider. My least used lens is VC 75mm as I find it hard to focus and too tele for my style of shooting now. I would love to try 21mm or even 15mm to see if I like it. so if I see something come up used, i'll grab it and test it to see how i like it.

 

[f16sunshine]

I have both and will keep both. My RD1 now stays in Jpg mode B+W 800-1600 full time. I like to tell myself I'm shooting Tri-x with it. The M8 I shoot in raw as it should be shot and convert for color or B+W later. They are different cameras. The RD1 does really shoot more like a film camera without a doubt. If you don't plan to use produce color images I don't see much reason to upgrade (move sideways?).

 

[johannielscom]

Crusius, this definitely jives with my impression of M8 images based on what I've seen on-line. If I see blown highlights in a thumbnail I immediately think M8. I guess that's a challenge with all digital shooting, but, as you're saying, every extra bit of latitude helps...

When trusting the Aperture Priority on the M8 and subsequently not developing your files, you will have blown highlights.

But consider this: When shooting 200 ASA film, I rate it at 160 and over-expose by 1/3 stop. When correcting this later in pre-print (either in software or the darkroom), I have saturated colours and less grain.

When shooting the M8 at 160, it mimicks that process. All files are overexposed 1/3 of a stop. And correcting that in software gets you nicely saturated colour and less noise.

With the M8, ISO 160= ISO 200, rated at 160. ISO 320 = ISO 400, rated at 320.

You need this to get good shots from any RAW file. When dividing the histogram in four columns, the peak should be on three fourths from the left, not in the middle! The M8 does just that at Auto Exposure. People who do not understand that, complain about the noise in the shots, because they pull those underexposed pixels up when increasing brightness in their shots.


The M8 is a very well thought out camera. I feel Leica have not nearly had enough credit for the M8 from the community. The Aperture Priority exposure and the 1.33 crop factor are in fact great decisions.

 

[MCTuomey]

When shooting the M8 at 160, it mimicks that process. All files are overexposed 1/3 of a stop. And correcting that in software gets you nicely saturated colour and less noise.

With the M8, ISO 160= ISO 200, rated at 160. ISO 320 = ISO 400, rated at 320.

You need this to get good shots from any RAW file. When dividing the histogram in four columns, the peak should be on three fourths from the left, not in the middle! The M8 does just that at Auto Exposure. People who do not understand that, complain about the noise in the shots, because they pull those underexposed pixels up when increasing brightness in their shots.


The M8 is a very well thought out camera. I feel Leica have not nearly had enough credit for the M8 from the community. The Aperture Priority exposure and the 1.33 crop factor are in fact great decisions.

+1 well put - my experience as well when i use AE on the M8

 

[snausages]

When trusting the Aperture Priority on the M8 and subsequently not developing your files, you will have blown highlights.

But consider this: When shooting 200 ASA film, I rate it at 160 and over-expose by 1/3 stop. When correcting this later in pre-print (either in software or the darkroom), I have saturated colours and less grain.

When shooting the M8 at 160, it mimicks that process. All files are overexposed 1/3 of a stop. And correcting that in software gets you nicely saturated colour and less noise.

With the M8, ISO 160= ISO 200, rated at 160. ISO 320 = ISO 400, rated at 320.

You need this to get good shots from any RAW file. When dividing the histogram in four columns, the peak should be on three fourths from the left, not in the middle! The M8 does just that at Auto Exposure. People who do not understand that, complain about the noise in the shots, because they pull those underexposed pixels up when increasing brightness in their shots.


The M8 is a very well thought out camera. I feel Leica have not nearly had enough credit for the M8 from the community. The Aperture Priority exposure and the 1.33 crop factor are in fact great decisions.

Nice explanation, Johan, and the process you describe is how I would approach digital shooting. Truth be told, I don't know squat about the M8. I'm relying on my impressions from photos on the web, but I can see how many users aren't getting as much from their files as they could.

 

[johannielscom]

Thanks guys. One tries, and occasionally gets it right.

I truly feel the concept on the M8 was very good indeed! But quality control failed.

Error #1. Regarding the IR-cut filter issue: whenever I use my M8 to shoot pictures from my M3 or M5 and I forget to stick a filter on the lens, I am amazed. The M3 or M5 body almost always is pitch black, never any purple cast. Anything else shot has some form of purple glow, but almost never the Leica bodies. I'm guessing they shot the M8 in a lab environment only to test it. I cannot recall anyone admitting they shot the M8 in real life before release. To me, this explains why the M9 was given to photographers like Chris Weeks to test.

Error #2. Even today, a thread by a fellow Dutchman, new M8 owner, was launched containing a shot with the worst banding I have ever seen. Even the 0.3 MP key chain camera I once owned never displayed that kind of banding. Some cameras display a vertical green line in shots. Similar problem.

These are major flies in the soup. And they put a sense of Russian rangfinderness into the M8: either you get lucky or you don't.

I'm trading my M8 for an M6 with extra cash tomorrow, since I need to pay college tuition. I'll regret not shooting it for a long time. I'll get another M8 in the future for sure.

 

[Flinor]

I'm not sure if you guys helped me or not. I just sold a bunch of DSLR gear to come home to RF and originally thought that I'd just replace my lamented RD-1. But I got lucky with the sale and can now squeeze in an M8. Really wrestling with this decision, mostly the dichotomy that I truly loved the RD-1 but the lack of support scares me. It's mostly street with some travel and either black and white or converted to b&w.

 

[crusius]

I'm not sure if you guys helped me or not. I just sold a bunch of DSLR gear to come home to RF and originally thought that I'd just replace my lamented RD-1. But I got lucky with the sale and can now squeeze in an M8. Really wrestling with this decision, mostly the dichotomy that I truly loved the RD-1 but the lack of support scares me. It's mostly street with some travel and either black and white or converted to b&w.

I hear you.

I guess I could sum it up like this: All in all, the R-D1 is "better" than the M8 is. It is just too bad that what it is perfect at can in some situations be bettered by what the M8 is imperfect at.

It this sort of thing that is driving me nuts: I got an M8 expecting to test it for a week and "throw the R-D1 out of the window," so to speak. Instead I'm finding out just how good the R-D1 is: At 6MP with an AA filter it manages to, when compared to the 10MP M8, make me want to keep it. It is just too darn good.

But, alas, the M8 has 10MP and no AA filter. Even with the image issues (noise, IR, 8-bit idiocy) and terrible --- yes, after a few weeks of testing I can safely say, *absolutely terrible* --- ergonomics compared to the R-D1, it manages to outdo the 6MP R-D1 rather easily *for medium/big prints*.

After making it difficult, let me make it easier then: If you don't print big/crop, any will suit you: get the one you like shooting with most. Otherwise get the M8. If the lack of support scares you --- in other words, if relying on Steve's camera in LA is not your idea of "support", --- get the M8. Don't sweat it too much.

But, from personal experience, do *not* end up with both hoping to end up with one. Or you'll be :bang: like I am since you'll know the M8 will produce "better images," but you will at the same time realize just how good the R-D1 is.

 

[crusius]

+1 well put - my experience as well when i use AE on the M8

Both the M8 and the R-D1 produce similar exposures in AE (with the R-D1 I shoot with +1EV compensation). I am careful with both not to overexpose, and to expose to the right.

What I can't fully explain is the feeling I have, when manipulating the RAW files, that the R-D1 files give me more room for corrections. Sure, the 8-bit issue must (by definition) play a part, but I have a feeling that's not the whole story. The M8 files just seem much more "rigid" to me.

 

[yanidel]

The M8 is way better in image quality. Point.
Since the Auto-Iso were introduced through firmware update, ergonomics of the M8 are on par with the R-D1.
One big practical advantage remains for the R-D1, the 1:1 finder which allows you to shoot two eyes wide open and really feel that the camera is indeed "an extention of your eye".
For that reason, I keep it though the M8 gets 95% of my time. A M8 + 24mm Elmarit is definitely in another league image quality wise versus the R-D1.