JayC
5 kids,3 dogs,only 1 wife
I currently own a Nikon D200 and several lenses. I also own a leica M6 with a 15/28/50/90 set of lenses. I also own a mamiya 7II with a 50/80/150 combo.
In my quest for the Nikon lenses I want (heavy f2.8 lenses), I am realizing that the DSLR may just be too big and heavy, yet I still feel the need for a digital camera. (digital files, 200+mm lenses, autofocus, etc)
If I can live without the telephoto and the macro capabilities of the DSLR, what draw is there to have an RD1 in addition to the Leica film camera? Why have a film and a digital camera that use the same lenses?
The reason for the DSLR is to offer things the Leica cannot. What would a RD1 offer me that my M6 cannot? (besides the extra "reach" due to crop factor)
I don't want to keep a camera (let's use the M6 for example) that would just sit on the shelf because I have the RD1 that uses the same lenses. I really don't feel the need for a "backup" camera.
Thanks for any guidance in my quest.
Jay
In my quest for the Nikon lenses I want (heavy f2.8 lenses), I am realizing that the DSLR may just be too big and heavy, yet I still feel the need for a digital camera. (digital files, 200+mm lenses, autofocus, etc)
If I can live without the telephoto and the macro capabilities of the DSLR, what draw is there to have an RD1 in addition to the Leica film camera? Why have a film and a digital camera that use the same lenses?
The reason for the DSLR is to offer things the Leica cannot. What would a RD1 offer me that my M6 cannot? (besides the extra "reach" due to crop factor)
I don't want to keep a camera (let's use the M6 for example) that would just sit on the shelf because I have the RD1 that uses the same lenses. I really don't feel the need for a "backup" camera.
Thanks for any guidance in my quest.
Jay
pizzahut88
Well-known
Here are the reasons
Here are the reasons
Upfront, the R-D1s doesn't have the highest mega pixels,
for the same price you could buy the EOS-5D with full frame.
But remember this
With the M-mount, you can use every single LTM & M mount lens all the way back to 1925. Today your modern choices are even better! You can choose from Voigtlander, Leica, & Zeiss.
The R-D1 openned the digital doorway for over 75 years of heritage good lenses. Kudos to Epson for doing it first in 2004.
Digital is about convenience.
The workflow is faster than film.
You see your results quicker.
However, the M6 using film remains unbeatable.
Even the M8 cannot beat the M6 in terms of quality.
In terms of dynamic range, tonal range, obtaining lovely non-digital real life colors,
any analog Leica M wins the M8 hands down.
(Even a lowly Bessa R2 with a Skopar 28mm F3.5.)
So my verdict,
Keep the M6, use R-D1 for not so serious stuff.
If I am on vocation, or shooting a wedding,
I will revert to film amd my M6.
For daily not so serious things, digital is the key.
For the passionate photographer, no compromise in quality should ever be made for convenience. Film is king.
Here are the reasons
JayC said:
Upfront, the R-D1s doesn't have the highest mega pixels,
for the same price you could buy the EOS-5D with full frame.
But remember this
With the M-mount, you can use every single LTM & M mount lens all the way back to 1925. Today your modern choices are even better! You can choose from Voigtlander, Leica, & Zeiss.
The R-D1 openned the digital doorway for over 75 years of heritage good lenses. Kudos to Epson for doing it first in 2004.
Digital is about convenience.
The workflow is faster than film.
You see your results quicker.
However, the M6 using film remains unbeatable.
Even the M8 cannot beat the M6 in terms of quality.
In terms of dynamic range, tonal range, obtaining lovely non-digital real life colors,
any analog Leica M wins the M8 hands down.
(Even a lowly Bessa R2 with a Skopar 28mm F3.5.)
So my verdict,
Keep the M6, use R-D1 for not so serious stuff.
If I am on vocation, or shooting a wedding,
I will revert to film amd my M6.
For daily not so serious things, digital is the key.
For the passionate photographer, no compromise in quality should ever be made for convenience. Film is king.
nrb
Nuno Borges
Also I opted for film with Leica glass for quality plus a dslr for the convenience of digital.
georgef
Well-known
pizzahut88 said:
really now.... between your M8 and now the R-D1, you've spent quite a sum for "convenience"...
emraphoto
Veteran
digital for me (the r-d1s) became a matter of priorities and $. i shoot a lot... and i mean a lot. i could often burn through 100 plus frames a day. i also run a buisiness, have three children, a wife, three dog's and so on. i flat out do not have the time to hole up in the bathroom 2 hours a day and then another 2 hours scanning. i was literally burning through the chemicals and film. besides the odd gallery sale or gov't/community art grant this is not a full time job for me. that's why i switched from an m6ttl as my regular camera to the r-d1s. i am very, very happy with the files. i am deeply commited to rangefinders and have an m mount collection i'm not in the position nor the mood to part with. the r-d1s has been extrememly reliable and a pleasure to use. i have not had a single issue with it and i have it out everyday. to work, from work... to the bank, walking the dogs... shopping at the market etc.
anyhow... yes b+w film is king. yes the m's are great machines ( i still bust one out on occasion), developing and printing is a skill (although i would be first to argue no more than the digital process) and film has a "look" BUT some folks have certain things that effect their decisions... i was one and i am completely pleased!
cheers
john
anyhow... yes b+w film is king. yes the m's are great machines ( i still bust one out on occasion), developing and printing is a skill (although i would be first to argue no more than the digital process) and film has a "look" BUT some folks have certain things that effect their decisions... i was one and i am completely pleased!
cheers
john
JNewell
Leica M Recidivist
You already know the answer
- and PH88 sketched it out above. The DSLR does things that a film SLR can't - primarily convenience-related. The R-D1 (or an M8, at greater cost) do the same.I recently bought an R-D1 because Epson was selling refurbs with a one year warranty for $1400. I find myself often grabbing the DSLR instead of the film SLRs. The Epson has the same upside. It can't replace an M, but it is a valuable supplement.
mn4367
Established
For me the most important reason for sticking with digital is the convenience to choose higher ISO whenever I want it. Just today I was at a barbecue and shot some images with ISO 200. Later I just switched to ISO 800 and then to 1600. You can do that with film too, but it would mean to change film when lights go down or leaving the rest of the film unexposed or fiddling with reloading partly exposed rolls to save some bucks. And if you shoot a lot, digital is simply cheaper than film.JayC said:
And I really like it being able to put the SD card into the computer and immedialtely see what I've shot.
cmogi10
Bodhisattva
That's why you need 3 camera bodies of course!
JonasYip
Well-known
Everyone will (and should) have their own view on whether the M6/film or RD1/digital workflow works better for them. As a user of both film and digital you should be well equipped to weigh the options.
My experience: since getting the RD1 my M6TTL gets almost no use at all, except to occasionally blow through whatever film I still have lying around. But I was coming from years and years of digital workflow and asset management and so the RD1 is a perfect fit. And the quality is more than fine for my purposes....
In any case, if I were you I wouldn't sell the M6 to buy the RD1. At the very least I'd have them both for a while to shoot side-by-side. Personally I'd keep the M6 because I always have a backup body (and the RD1 does not seem to be the most "robust" mechanism... see various threads about shutter failures, etc).
j
My experience: since getting the RD1 my M6TTL gets almost no use at all, except to occasionally blow through whatever film I still have lying around. But I was coming from years and years of digital workflow and asset management and so the RD1 is a perfect fit. And the quality is more than fine for my purposes....
In any case, if I were you I wouldn't sell the M6 to buy the RD1. At the very least I'd have them both for a while to shoot side-by-side. Personally I'd keep the M6 because I always have a backup body (and the RD1 does not seem to be the most "robust" mechanism... see various threads about shutter failures, etc).
j
victoriapio
Well-known
I'd like to add that for me, getting an R-D1s in addition to a DSLR was because of three reasons.
First, I am committed to digital photography. Not that I dislike film, quite the contrary, but like you time for any film processing is just not existant for me anymore. And I don't care how much you spend on digital equipment, it is cheaper than shooting/processing and printing/scanning film.
Second, I had Leica RF equipment early in my photography career and getting the R-D1s reminded me how rangefinders allow photographers to see and photograph differently. (For proof on this go to my Web site gallery. All the images in the galleries are from DSLRs or SLRs (and scanned) except the new R-D1s gallery, which are images from my week old R-D1s.) There is a remarkable difference in the "kind" of images when comparing my DSLR work against the R-D1s.
Third I had no rangefinder film (or digital for that matter) equipment before buying the R-D1s. So that made my jump into RF digital much easier. As a consequence, I am paring down my DSLR equipment to one body and a wide assortment of lenses. I am also going with a bare-bones digital RF kit: 1 body (R-D1s, a 28mm fov, a 75/85 fov, a small flash and lots of SD cards.)
I think the question for you is are you ready to commit to "all digital" photography. If not, then keep the M6 and the DSLR equipment. If so, get the Epson or the Leica.
It's a tough decision...
O.C. Garza
www.ocgarzaphotography.com
First, I am committed to digital photography. Not that I dislike film, quite the contrary, but like you time for any film processing is just not existant for me anymore. And I don't care how much you spend on digital equipment, it is cheaper than shooting/processing and printing/scanning film.
Second, I had Leica RF equipment early in my photography career and getting the R-D1s reminded me how rangefinders allow photographers to see and photograph differently. (For proof on this go to my Web site gallery. All the images in the galleries are from DSLRs or SLRs (and scanned) except the new R-D1s gallery, which are images from my week old R-D1s.) There is a remarkable difference in the "kind" of images when comparing my DSLR work against the R-D1s.
Third I had no rangefinder film (or digital for that matter) equipment before buying the R-D1s. So that made my jump into RF digital much easier. As a consequence, I am paring down my DSLR equipment to one body and a wide assortment of lenses. I am also going with a bare-bones digital RF kit: 1 body (R-D1s, a 28mm fov, a 75/85 fov, a small flash and lots of SD cards.)
I think the question for you is are you ready to commit to "all digital" photography. If not, then keep the M6 and the DSLR equipment. If so, get the Epson or the Leica.
It's a tough decision...
O.C. Garza
www.ocgarzaphotography.com
JayC
5 kids,3 dogs,only 1 wife
To provide more info - I do not develop my own film. I have the bottles and stuff (and even a roll from an old XA I shot) just waiting for me to get the courage to do it. In all honestly, I doubt I will. I will continue to pay others to develop my film.
If I were to keep the D200 and the M6, what would I need an RD1 for? Or, if I were to get the RD1 and keep the D200, what would I need the M6 for?
I had boxed up my Mamiya 7II a few times, thinking that I would get the best glass I could for my D200, and use that for nearly everything (landscapes, sports, parties, bugs). But I still keep thinking I should keep it. Arrgh!
I would really like no more than 2 camera systems to cover EVERYTHING.
Jay
If I were to keep the D200 and the M6, what would I need an RD1 for? Or, if I were to get the RD1 and keep the D200, what would I need the M6 for?
I had boxed up my Mamiya 7II a few times, thinking that I would get the best glass I could for my D200, and use that for nearly everything (landscapes, sports, parties, bugs). But I still keep thinking I should keep it. Arrgh!
I would really like no more than 2 camera systems to cover EVERYTHING.
Jay
Tuolumne
Veteran
Digital is for convenience and speed. With film scanning during processing, you get all of the benefits of film with the convenience of digital display and sharing. And if you want higher quality output, you can scan a single image yourself. Digital is also about instantaneous feedback. The ability to see what I have done right and wrong immediately has taught me alot and made me a better photographer faster. I use both Leica film cameras, the R-D1 and a Nikon D200. I find I am using the D200 for macro and tele shots, ocasional theater use when I want a long lens, the R-D1 and film for everything else. The R-D1 has beautiful colors and tones with adequate detail. I use film if I want the highest quality possible, without regard to how long it might take to acheive in post-processing and in the "lightroom". I have no use for a wet dark room any more.
/T
/T
foto_fool
Well-known
JayC - grasshopper, you must meditate on this question further. Yours is not a "film vs. digital" question. It is a "digital vs. digital" question. If you like how your D200 handles more than your M6, keep the D200. If you like the M6, you will like the R-D1.
I have resolved this question for myself - I have the R-D1. Having it did not make my M6 or other film bodies redundant. The R-D1 makes images all its own - even with the same glass as the M6. Someday I will shoot a nd post a side-by-side comparison.
- John
I have resolved this question for myself - I have the R-D1. Having it did not make my M6 or other film bodies redundant. The R-D1 makes images all its own - even with the same glass as the M6. Someday I will shoot a nd post a side-by-side comparison.
- John
gavinlg
Veteran
I at one point had a leica m6ti + Olympus OM2n and a canon 30d with L lenses. I felt the need for a digital workflow but didn't like taking the canon stuff out because (like all other DSLRS) it's just huge.
I decided to buy an r-d1, sell the m6ti and only keep using the 30d for work. The r-d1 could live in my bag and be my personal pics camera.
After a few months I realised that I had a lot more fun with the film, and I really like the way film looks. The r-d1 couldn't replicate it, nor was it as tough as a film M, and I didn't want to break it or have it break and lose 2K in money. Also, I realised that the 30d does everything the r-d1 does but better in terms of image quality.
So, I sold the r-d1, bought an old m4-2 and kept the OM2n and 30d. The m4-2 is for walking around everyday and personal stuff, the OM2n is more for serious film fashion shoots etc and the 30d does well at anything digital or serious work.
It just ends up being what suits you best. They're all capable of making an excellent image.
I decided to buy an r-d1, sell the m6ti and only keep using the 30d for work. The r-d1 could live in my bag and be my personal pics camera.
After a few months I realised that I had a lot more fun with the film, and I really like the way film looks. The r-d1 couldn't replicate it, nor was it as tough as a film M, and I didn't want to break it or have it break and lose 2K in money. Also, I realised that the 30d does everything the r-d1 does but better in terms of image quality.
So, I sold the r-d1, bought an old m4-2 and kept the OM2n and 30d. The m4-2 is for walking around everyday and personal stuff, the OM2n is more for serious film fashion shoots etc and the 30d does well at anything digital or serious work.
It just ends up being what suits you best. They're all capable of making an excellent image.
PrisonersDilema
Established
Dslr
Dslr
Agree with this comment. Very logical. As I see it, yours is a "digital vs digital" issue. I can already foresee your M6 sitting in the dry cabinet.
If you buy an RD1s, your D200 will sit in the dry cabinet. Why? The RD1s is small, compact, other than the fact it cannot autofocus, has poorer hi-ISO performance than a D200. You will tend to reach out for the RD1s, although it may not give as good image quality as a DSLR system. certainly not even close to my EOS 5D for image quality at all ISOs. But, the RD1s does not have that mirror slap and hence can take shots at < 1/focal length. It is small, stealth and more welcome than a D200 with MBD200 pointing at someone's face in a street shoot.
On the other hand, the D200 also has a dedicated i-TTL flash system, bright lenses that costs the same as RF lenses but can autofocus.
My personal assessment is that for all intend and purposes, the 35mm DSLR is the system as it can shoot all kinds of stuff whilst the RF cannot shoot anything > 50mm (for RD1), if you wish to choose 1 digital system over another.
Do not buy the Rd1 if you are worried about the chance of keeping a museum piece.
Dslr
foto_fool said:
Agree with this comment. Very logical. As I see it, yours is a "digital vs digital" issue. I can already foresee your M6 sitting in the dry cabinet.
If you buy an RD1s, your D200 will sit in the dry cabinet. Why? The RD1s is small, compact, other than the fact it cannot autofocus, has poorer hi-ISO performance than a D200. You will tend to reach out for the RD1s, although it may not give as good image quality as a DSLR system. certainly not even close to my EOS 5D for image quality at all ISOs. But, the RD1s does not have that mirror slap and hence can take shots at < 1/focal length. It is small, stealth and more welcome than a D200 with MBD200 pointing at someone's face in a street shoot.
On the other hand, the D200 also has a dedicated i-TTL flash system, bright lenses that costs the same as RF lenses but can autofocus.
My personal assessment is that for all intend and purposes, the 35mm DSLR is the system as it can shoot all kinds of stuff whilst the RF cannot shoot anything > 50mm (for RD1), if you wish to choose 1 digital system over another.
Do not buy the Rd1 if you are worried about the chance of keeping a museum piece.
Last edited:
R
RML
Guest
Because it's digital...
Joe Mondello
Resu Deretsiger
I also have a D200 and lots of Nikon glass and got a refurb R-D1 last fall. I liked using it so much I got an M8 a few months ago.
I prefer using the M8 and R-D1 to the D200 for many things. I find high ISO of the R-D1 superior to the same ISO on the D200.
That said, I NEED the D200 for things the RF cameras don't do (macro, tele, fast AF) but it's heavy and I find I really enjoy RF shooting more.
You (OP) already have an M6 and I think you should pick up a used R-D1 and give it a whirl. You will know in a couple of weeks whether or not it is for you and if it isn't you should be able to resell it for what you paid for it.
I prefer using the M8 and R-D1 to the D200 for many things. I find high ISO of the R-D1 superior to the same ISO on the D200.
That said, I NEED the D200 for things the RF cameras don't do (macro, tele, fast AF) but it's heavy and I find I really enjoy RF shooting more.
You (OP) already have an M6 and I think you should pick up a used R-D1 and give it a whirl. You will know in a couple of weeks whether or not it is for you and if it isn't you should be able to resell it for what you paid for it.
JonasYip
Well-known
northernlights said:
That's been my experience... since getting the RD1 my Nikon DSLRs only get pulled out when I really need them, which isn't often (i.e. macro, telephoto, in the studio, or when I really must have 12MP). Or when I feel sorry for them and decide to use them like this weekend, but then my back regrets it...
So for most of my shooting, the RD1 has replaced both my Leicas and my Nikons....
j
R
RML
Guest
True, and not true.
My Eos 300D didn't see much use before I got my R-D1, and that remained so for 1-1.5 years or so. Then I got asked to shoot on assignment quite regularly and I use the 300D almost exclusively for those assignments.
I also (re)found an interest in B&W film, and now I'm shooting my M2 more regularly too.
The R-D1 is an addictive little camera but you can fight the habit.
jl-lb.ms
John A. Lever
Just got an R-D1, used from a member here. No problems with it except a 3d party battery. Since I got the R-D1, I haven't used my D200. I hope it's not going to be redundant for me. However, for must-have shoots, I'd probably carry the D200. It just seems more durable and reliable than the R-D1. Perhaps some time will change this opinion.
john
john