B-9
Devin Bro
So its no secret, since I tell everyone who asks why im pinching and rubbing pennies, that I have wanted an M8 since...for me Highschool when the M8 review hit Pop Photo. I even had the full review plastered to my locker to look at everyday... heck its proly still in there (wheat paste is tough stuff)
So last fall I dove into Digital RF with an Epson, lordy lordy lordy, I felt love and well... a good amount of shame for it wasnt the Leica name I had followed so dearly. None the less, the Epson was a definitive classic, and a joy to use. I sold the camera, partly becuase I wanted to slim down for a bit of traveling and the terrible battery life i was getting with the RD. So I went with a Leica X1 compact which was just fine until I figured ide step away from these small format cameras and spend more time shooting medium format (of which ive accumulated way to much film!) So I unloaded the X1, got a beater Fuji GA and paid my property taxes.
For a guy like me, 25 with a house and family, I typically have to sell something to try something else, especially in the case of the RD and X1. So its never as simple as just buying first, ask questions later.
Fast forward to Summer, ive been saving, and pinching, and rubbing pennies.
I sold my old 4 wheeler, did a few scrap runs, and am working on listing alot of the "shelf" cameras ive accumulated over my many years of thrifting.
Im at a break point, 700$ where I could just get an RD again, or keep pushing forward for a M8 (chrome, yeah baby!)
Looking at my RD files, I really love the BW this camera gave you straight to the card. Ive never done PP digitally... so that was a real perk for me. (Not having to learn something new!)
Now im still on the fence a little, leaning towards the M8 proly becuase ive wanted it for so long and already know the Epson was a success I could fall back on if I just didnt get along with an M8.
Not trying to reinvent the wheel, or debate the fumbles of either camera. They both look great to me, but having never used the Leica, i really dont know if it will woa me the way Ide like.
Has anyone been in a similar situation? How did you justify either over the other?
Has anyone went back to the RD from a M8/9? What was the last nail in your M8 coffin?
Anyone using both, what do you consider the better camera? (Not considering price or the UV/IR debate)
Thanks for humoring me!
So last fall I dove into Digital RF with an Epson, lordy lordy lordy, I felt love and well... a good amount of shame for it wasnt the Leica name I had followed so dearly. None the less, the Epson was a definitive classic, and a joy to use. I sold the camera, partly becuase I wanted to slim down for a bit of traveling and the terrible battery life i was getting with the RD. So I went with a Leica X1 compact which was just fine until I figured ide step away from these small format cameras and spend more time shooting medium format (of which ive accumulated way to much film!) So I unloaded the X1, got a beater Fuji GA and paid my property taxes.
For a guy like me, 25 with a house and family, I typically have to sell something to try something else, especially in the case of the RD and X1. So its never as simple as just buying first, ask questions later.
Fast forward to Summer, ive been saving, and pinching, and rubbing pennies.
I sold my old 4 wheeler, did a few scrap runs, and am working on listing alot of the "shelf" cameras ive accumulated over my many years of thrifting.
Im at a break point, 700$ where I could just get an RD again, or keep pushing forward for a M8 (chrome, yeah baby!)
Looking at my RD files, I really love the BW this camera gave you straight to the card. Ive never done PP digitally... so that was a real perk for me. (Not having to learn something new!)
Now im still on the fence a little, leaning towards the M8 proly becuase ive wanted it for so long and already know the Epson was a success I could fall back on if I just didnt get along with an M8.
Not trying to reinvent the wheel, or debate the fumbles of either camera. They both look great to me, but having never used the Leica, i really dont know if it will woa me the way Ide like.
Has anyone been in a similar situation? How did you justify either over the other?
Has anyone went back to the RD from a M8/9? What was the last nail in your M8 coffin?
Anyone using both, what do you consider the better camera? (Not considering price or the UV/IR debate)
Thanks for humoring me!
back alley
IMAGES
i had 3 rd1s and loved them...no digital leicas though....
as much as it pains me to say it, i would not buy either today...simply because of repairs...hard to get on the rd1 and likely too expensive on the m8 to be worthwhile.
as much as it pains me to say it, i would not buy either today...simply because of repairs...hard to get on the rd1 and likely too expensive on the m8 to be worthwhile.
rbelyell
Well-known
really well thought out question, one i can identify with because i too find the leica mystique alluring. my decision, go with leica lenses, not digital cameras. here's why i chose and am keeping my epson rd1 and not buying an m8:
1) the epson vf is 1:1 vs .65 or so for the m8. there is literally nothing else like it on the market. its big and beautiful and you can keep both eyes open.
2) epson has only one set of framelines at a time in the vf, the m8 has two and is thus more cluttered. epson lets you choose the framelines, the m8 chooses them for you.
3) the m8 requires you to add uv filters to all your lenses because it cannot natively render black properly.
4) the rd1 produces very pleasing images up to iso1600, the m8 only to 640.
5) the epson produces no color shift, focus shift or soft corners with any lens i know of. not true for the m8. and the epson requires no lens coding, just 'plug and play' as it were.
6) imo, in viewing countless images from both camers, i cannot discern an IQ gain by using the m8, even though its got a few more mps.
my thought, save a few hundred bucks on the camera and use it to buy one really nice leica lens at your favorite fl. good luck!
1) the epson vf is 1:1 vs .65 or so for the m8. there is literally nothing else like it on the market. its big and beautiful and you can keep both eyes open.
2) epson has only one set of framelines at a time in the vf, the m8 has two and is thus more cluttered. epson lets you choose the framelines, the m8 chooses them for you.
3) the m8 requires you to add uv filters to all your lenses because it cannot natively render black properly.
4) the rd1 produces very pleasing images up to iso1600, the m8 only to 640.
5) the epson produces no color shift, focus shift or soft corners with any lens i know of. not true for the m8. and the epson requires no lens coding, just 'plug and play' as it were.
6) imo, in viewing countless images from both camers, i cannot discern an IQ gain by using the m8, even though its got a few more mps.
my thought, save a few hundred bucks on the camera and use it to buy one really nice leica lens at your favorite fl. good luck!
Lss
Well-known
I used both the Epson and the Leica M8 for quite some time. I still use the M8, and it has been my main camera since purchase.
The Epson RD-1 was the first rangefinder camera I owned and really even used. That camera is a thing of beauty, and fun to use. It is however quite limited due to the crop factor, the 1:1 viewfinder, and the wide-angle lens performance (vignetting). The pixel count is low, but looking back that was never a real issue for me while I used it. With the availability of super cheap batteries, battery life was not a problem either. I wish there was a truly new version of this camera with a modern, larger sensor, and more choice in viewfinders.
Timmyjoe
Veteran
I just stumbled across a folder of M8 images I shot three or four years ago (sold my M8.2 shortly there after), and I'm blown away by how good that sensor is. I shoot Nikon for work and am quite used to the image quality from the D4 as I look at images from that camera all day. What a difference looking at images from the Leica M8.2 (I had a chrome one by the way, and it was beautiful).
Don't know the Epson, so I can't compare. But if you already have some Leica glass, I would seriously consider picking up an M8 if you can find a way in your budget. They must be pretty inexpensive by this time as I sold mine a few years ago (and it was practically mint) for something like $2500.
Best,
-Tim
Don't know the Epson, so I can't compare. But if you already have some Leica glass, I would seriously consider picking up an M8 if you can find a way in your budget. They must be pretty inexpensive by this time as I sold mine a few years ago (and it was practically mint) for something like $2500.
Best,
-Tim
Please don't tell me the M8 files look better than the D4... different sure, but the D4 sensor is pretty damn nice.
Timmyjoe
Veteran
I do think they look better, in that the colors of the M8 files are truer and more vibrant than the colors on the D4 files, and they don't have that greenish Nikon digital cast.
Now the M8 can't do what I need to do for work, shoot in VERY LOW LIGHT conditions, without flash, at high shutter speeds, with long telephoto lenses. But pulling a random D4 image out of a folder from work, and an M8 image out of a folder of M8 images, yes I think the M8 image does hold up to the D4 images. It's just that the two cameras were made to do very different things.
Best,
-Tim
Now the M8 can't do what I need to do for work, shoot in VERY LOW LIGHT conditions, without flash, at high shutter speeds, with long telephoto lenses. But pulling a random D4 image out of a folder from work, and an M8 image out of a folder of M8 images, yes I think the M8 image does hold up to the D4 images. It's just that the two cameras were made to do very different things.
Best,
-Tim
B-9
Devin Bro
Im sure he just meant that the M8 files are still viable and appealing even in todays rapidly evolving standards.
Thanks everyone, I really agree with all the good points made for the Epson.
The Leica lens I really want...I already own! The classic Summar. Which btw, performed flawlessly on the Epson! I actually really liked the crop factor making my 50 a 75, but I think the 1.33 crop of the M8 would get me close enough.
I realize both cameras are reaching a point where neither is easily serviced, but this is where the M8 pulls slightly ahead. An M8 can be repaired still, minus the LCD. R-D1/s are no longer supported by Epson Japan, and thats sad as hell. I hear there are still a handful of 3rd party repairmen willing to try, but have no clue who.
My dream camera was (and still could be) a Chrome M8, Olive Green Leatherette, a Summar, and my initials engraved by Leica with green fill
I feel this is pretty obtainable for me... except maybe the price tag on the engraving service!Keep the comments rolling! Much appreciated.
mani
Well-known
I had both cameras (before switching to film) and certainly loved the RD1s, and even thought occasionally of picking one up as a spare digital again, but if you put both in front of me now, and I was free to choose one - then I'd take the M8 again. There's something really special and beautiful about it, and when the light was right, it took spectacularly lovely images.
My advice is don't get another RD1. Even though it's a great and unique camera, buying one now will take you further away from your dream - which is to own an M8. So stick with your plan, and keep saving till you can afford a good and hopefully reliable example.
Good luck!
My advice is don't get another RD1. Even though it's a great and unique camera, buying one now will take you further away from your dream - which is to own an M8. So stick with your plan, and keep saving till you can afford a good and hopefully reliable example.
Good luck!
B-9
Devin Bro
Mani, thats what Im thinking.
If I never get the M8, Ill always wonder.. and want. If I ultimately come to my senses and want a RD, I could easily trade down and pocket the extra cash for taxes or a family vacation.
Suprisingly, this dream has NOT evolved into any other Digital M. Actually, I dont even want a 8.2!
I may also be one of the few who actually like the crop factor, I keep thinking of how versatile the compromise of FF and APS-C was/is in Canon's APS-H. I loved getting the slightly longer reach, all the while my wides were still wide enough. I still dont see why other manufacturers did not go this way, you get the best of your old lenses! Not that I really understand all the techy babble.
If I never get the M8, Ill always wonder.. and want. If I ultimately come to my senses and want a RD, I could easily trade down and pocket the extra cash for taxes or a family vacation.
Suprisingly, this dream has NOT evolved into any other Digital M. Actually, I dont even want a 8.2!
I may also be one of the few who actually like the crop factor, I keep thinking of how versatile the compromise of FF and APS-C was/is in Canon's APS-H. I loved getting the slightly longer reach, all the while my wides were still wide enough. I still dont see why other manufacturers did not go this way, you get the best of your old lenses! Not that I really understand all the techy babble.
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
Considering all you've told us (the "dream", the appreciation of APS-H) I think your choice is set. Prices for used M8's have dropped but seem a bit stable now. I see pretty nice ones at ~$1300 rather consistently. I see RD-1's offered at prices I consider too high (and not much less than a M8). Probably because I don't think they're a viable camera for me -- not even when they were contemporary.
I do like my M8. Much like you, I had to do some selling before I could get that camera. I don't regret it, but I do wish I had sold a few more "whatevers" and reached for an M9. Actually, a lot more whatevers. Why? I dislike the crop factor because I concurrently use my film Ms and prefer my 50 act like a 50 all the time. The other "deficiencies" with the M8 are bearable (8-bit instead of 16-bit files, and the lack of manual lens "coding"). Aside from the crop factor, the camera is wonderful to use, just like my film M's. Handling and focusing and everything is familiar and obvious, just great. If you've used film M's (and liked it), you'll like the M8.
I do like my M8. Much like you, I had to do some selling before I could get that camera. I don't regret it, but I do wish I had sold a few more "whatevers" and reached for an M9. Actually, a lot more whatevers. Why? I dislike the crop factor because I concurrently use my film Ms and prefer my 50 act like a 50 all the time. The other "deficiencies" with the M8 are bearable (8-bit instead of 16-bit files, and the lack of manual lens "coding"). Aside from the crop factor, the camera is wonderful to use, just like my film M's. Handling and focusing and everything is familiar and obvious, just great. If you've used film M's (and liked it), you'll like the M8.
OP...I didn't. Went from RD to M240 with lots of Fuji X in between.
ascherjim
Member
I'm a recent convert to the RD-1 from a Ricoh GXR with the M-mount, thus I can use my five M-mount lenses with both cameras. I'm a black-and-white photographer and love the special quality of B&W the RD-1 gives me. But the GXR is no slouch either. I've hungered a bit for an M8 (which I suppose I could afford to move up to) but I don't see what the M8 would give me that the GXR doesn't/can't already provide. So, I guess, no M8 for me at this time.
rbelyell
Well-known
in reply to your post jim, as i noted sbove, while a fine camera, it literally gives you nothing over an rd1. it actually gives you less: a cluttered, smaller vf, the need to buy ir filters for all your lenses, 11/2 stops less low light ability, color and focus shift on some lenses. in return you get a red dot and a good bit less cash. not saying the results from the m8 arent lovely, they are. but so are the rd1s, and theyre way better at 8-1600. not saying the m8 is not good ergonomically, but so is the rd1, with a bigger better vf.
Leica0Series
Well-known
I went from an RD-1 to an M8 some years ago. One main reason was that I shoot an M4 also and the shutter advance lever just has a different throw between the two cameras. So, I was always overcranking the RD-1 and undercranking the M4. It does not sound like a big deal but it became a distraction so I got an M8 and liked it better. I then sold it and got an A7 and then an X Vario and now am back to an M8.2.
The biggest advantages of the RD-1 are the foldable screen in the back and the 1:1 viewfinder, but I obviously prefer the M8 line.
The biggest advantages of the RD-1 are the foldable screen in the back and the 1:1 viewfinder, but I obviously prefer the M8 line.
Lss
Well-known
The need of IR cut filters is real, of course, and it's also true you need to fix colors on some lenses (especially if uncoded). On the other hand, the Epson has its share of trouble with wides and that's with a bigger crop.
I used these cameras side-by-side for a long time. What you lose going away from the Epson are the different ergonomics and a cool design. And then there's the nice viewfinder, which however may be limiting to some users. The M8 viewfinder is also excellent, but personal preferences are naturally important with these things.
kermaier
Well-known
About 8 years ago, I was moving from manual film cameras (Canon F-1N SLRs) to digital, and was reluctantly about to pull the trigger on a Canon 5D, when I discovered the existence of the Epson R-D1s. It promised a digital photographic experience as close to using a film camera as I could imagine -- so I closed my eyes and leaped, and the R-D1s fulfilled that promise.
For about 6 years, the R-D1s was all I could ask for (other than sports photography), and I was extremely happy with the picture quality -- particularly black & white at ISO 1600. And the 1:1 viewfinder, the ergonomics and the no-menu-needed controls still make me smile. For a while I owned 2 of them, occasionally using both together with different lenses mounted.
However, I started to want a few things that the Epson doesn't deliver: More resolution; real wide-angle lenses, and better edge performance with them; brighter viewfinder; more accurate RF focusing with fast lenses; quieter shutter and more robust RF mechanism construction. But an M8 wouldn't deliver on all of those items, so I didn't really feel switching would be an upgrade.
Finally, though, a couple of weeks ago -- after spending almost 2 years cutting my lens collection down from 36 to 17 lenses -- I was able to buy an M9-P. Although the high-ISO results don't match the film-like charm of the R-D1's files, and the viewfinder magnification is only 0.68x, the M9-P is superior in nearly every other way. If sensor corrosion doesn't kill the magic, I think I may last a long time with this camera.
I haven't sold my R-D1s yet, but I'm not using it anymore, and it will go on the block shortly. That will be a bittersweet day, as the R-D1s essentially rescued for me the joy of the physical practice of photography from film's deathbed.
Bottom line: I wouldn't trade my R-D1s for an M8; but I would for an M9. (And the repair situation is definitely worth considering -- if you can find one and can afford it, an R-D1x might be a good option.)
Good luck and good light,
::Ari
For about 6 years, the R-D1s was all I could ask for (other than sports photography), and I was extremely happy with the picture quality -- particularly black & white at ISO 1600. And the 1:1 viewfinder, the ergonomics and the no-menu-needed controls still make me smile. For a while I owned 2 of them, occasionally using both together with different lenses mounted.
However, I started to want a few things that the Epson doesn't deliver: More resolution; real wide-angle lenses, and better edge performance with them; brighter viewfinder; more accurate RF focusing with fast lenses; quieter shutter and more robust RF mechanism construction. But an M8 wouldn't deliver on all of those items, so I didn't really feel switching would be an upgrade.
Finally, though, a couple of weeks ago -- after spending almost 2 years cutting my lens collection down from 36 to 17 lenses
-- I was able to buy an M9-P. Although the high-ISO results don't match the film-like charm of the R-D1's files, and the viewfinder magnification is only 0.68x, the M9-P is superior in nearly every other way. If sensor corrosion doesn't kill the magic, I think I may last a long time with this camera.I haven't sold my R-D1s yet, but I'm not using it anymore, and it will go on the block shortly. That will be a bittersweet day, as the R-D1s essentially rescued for me the joy of the physical practice of photography from film's deathbed.
Bottom line: I wouldn't trade my R-D1s for an M8; but I would for an M9. (And the repair situation is definitely worth considering -- if you can find one and can afford it, an R-D1x might be a good option.)
Good luck and good light,
::Ari
RichC
Well-known
I've used both, and owned each for several years, selling the R-D1 to buy the M8. I was and am keen on the R-D1, which I think is a unique camera. In fact, I used to run the R-D1 FAQ website, the content which I gave to Cameraquest.
For innovation and design the R-D1 is streets ahead of the M8. Like certain film cameras, using it added to the enjoyment of picture making - something missing from most digital cameras, which I appreciate very little as objects in their own right, caring only that they do their job efficiently purely as a tool. The digital Leica Ms have more of this aura than most digital canera, but far less than the R-D1.
Why did I replace the R-D1 with an M8?
Mainly because of sensor performance: the image quality from the R-D1 sensor even in 2007 when I bought the M8 was outclassed by most serious digital cameras. The most obvious problems were its meagre 6 MP resolution and lack of dynamic range. The R-D1 sensor is a very basic early "off the shelf" design as used in several consumer-grade cameras, including a low-end Nikon SLR, far from cutting edge even when the R-D1 was released in 2004.
But also because the R-D1 is quite a fragile camera, and I need a camera to be robust and reliable. In particular, QA from the factory was poor - the rangefinder has been inaccurate in every one I've seen, either straight from Epson or becoming misaligned during use. The rangefinder can be adjusted by owners, but it's a pain (I wrote a detailed "how to", now on the Cameraquest website). Additionally, it was always difficult to get Epson to repair or service the camera (most offices didn't even know the camera existed, let alone what to do with it!), and today it is no longer even supported by Epson, considered an obsolete product. Spares are thus a problem. I could see the writing on the wall in 2007...
Consider carefully if the R-D1 image size and quality are sufficient for you today, and whether you're happy servicing the camera yourself (e.g. adjusting the rangefinder) and binning it if a spare part is needed or a serious fault develops.
I might consider an R-D1 again but not as my main camera.
My M8 was sold and replaced a few years back (after 5 years as my main camera), and I don't miss it in the slightest, unlike my R-D1. The M8 has nothing going for it today, being outclassed and outperformed by every serious digital camera. The M8 has serious flaws, some mechanical, some affecting image quality (all well documented, so I'm not mentioning them here), and I never enjoyed using the camera as I did the R-D1. The M9 and M 240 are vastly superior to the M8. Also, the M8 is no longer fully supported by Leica if it needs repair.
The M8 has better image quality than the R-D1, and it's still a digital rangefinder, and relatively cheap today - but they're the only positives today!
For innovation and design the R-D1 is streets ahead of the M8. Like certain film cameras, using it added to the enjoyment of picture making - something missing from most digital cameras, which I appreciate very little as objects in their own right, caring only that they do their job efficiently purely as a tool. The digital Leica Ms have more of this aura than most digital canera, but far less than the R-D1.
Why did I replace the R-D1 with an M8?
Mainly because of sensor performance: the image quality from the R-D1 sensor even in 2007 when I bought the M8 was outclassed by most serious digital cameras. The most obvious problems were its meagre 6 MP resolution and lack of dynamic range. The R-D1 sensor is a very basic early "off the shelf" design as used in several consumer-grade cameras, including a low-end Nikon SLR, far from cutting edge even when the R-D1 was released in 2004.
But also because the R-D1 is quite a fragile camera, and I need a camera to be robust and reliable. In particular, QA from the factory was poor - the rangefinder has been inaccurate in every one I've seen, either straight from Epson or becoming misaligned during use. The rangefinder can be adjusted by owners, but it's a pain (I wrote a detailed "how to", now on the Cameraquest website). Additionally, it was always difficult to get Epson to repair or service the camera (most offices didn't even know the camera existed, let alone what to do with it!), and today it is no longer even supported by Epson, considered an obsolete product. Spares are thus a problem. I could see the writing on the wall in 2007...
Consider carefully if the R-D1 image size and quality are sufficient for you today, and whether you're happy servicing the camera yourself (e.g. adjusting the rangefinder) and binning it if a spare part is needed or a serious fault develops.
I might consider an R-D1 again but not as my main camera.
My M8 was sold and replaced a few years back (after 5 years as my main camera), and I don't miss it in the slightest, unlike my R-D1. The M8 has nothing going for it today, being outclassed and outperformed by every serious digital camera. The M8 has serious flaws, some mechanical, some affecting image quality (all well documented, so I'm not mentioning them here), and I never enjoyed using the camera as I did the R-D1. The M9 and M 240 are vastly superior to the M8. Also, the M8 is no longer fully supported by Leica if it needs repair.
The M8 has better image quality than the R-D1, and it's still a digital rangefinder, and relatively cheap today - but they're the only positives today!
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Just two points -
1.The M8 is fully repairable, except for the LCD screen.
2. The M8 still has a large following -including professional photographers- and is one of the few digital cameras of its generation that is not being scrapped in large numbers - because it can still hold its own against more modern cameras, despite its first-generation limitations. Internet smoke does not make for a flawed camera.
1.The M8 is fully repairable, except for the LCD screen.
2. The M8 still has a large following -including professional photographers- and is one of the few digital cameras of its generation that is not being scrapped in large numbers - because it can still hold its own against more modern cameras, despite its first-generation limitations. Internet smoke does not make for a flawed camera.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
I had the RD-1 when it came out and took some very good pictures with it. I upgraded to the M8 because the RD-1's focus cam and arm had a little slop in it. This meant that all my lenses would not focus accurately when wide open, particularly at portrait distances, where I most often use them. I actually sent my camera and several of the problematic lenses off to be calibrated together and was told, "you can have your 75/1.4 or your 90/2 work perfectly but not both." For me it is all about the lenses, so when the chance came to trade in that problem for the IR sensitivity issue, I jumped in a heartbeat. BTW, I also made some awesome IR photos with the M8; personally, I found its IR sensitivity to be a "feature" rather than a flaw.
In terms of the RD-1 chip, I found it very "film like" in terms of how it handled noise. Not a problem at all. The M8 at its best was as good as medium format film in a digital package. Quite amazing.
My feeling is that one should always scratch the upgrade itch. That's how you get to where I am today . . . poor, and convinced that camera choice doesn't really matter all that much today. In terms of IQ, we've been "there" for over 5 years.
In terms of the RD-1 chip, I found it very "film like" in terms of how it handled noise. Not a problem at all. The M8 at its best was as good as medium format film in a digital package. Quite amazing.
My feeling is that one should always scratch the upgrade itch. That's how you get to where I am today . . .
poor, and convinced that camera choice doesn't really matter all that much today. In terms of IQ, we've been "there" for over 5 years.