why did you M8 (Epson RD users ONLY)

Lss said:
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.
Click to expand...

yes certainly personal ergonimc preferences may differ. i'm not sure how a 1:1 vf is limiting, but maybe you refer to the lack of 90mm framelines. i like the big visually accurate view, the uncluttered vf and the ability to control the framelines. its natural that those may not be important to others, but to me, they make a huge difference. also re wide lenses, i use the rd1 with a 21mm elmarit and a 28mm voigtlander with no issue. am i missing some problem i should be having?

its also interesting that, given these very real differences, and given the m8s need for ir filters and that it cannot compete at iso1600, so many here automatically view the m8 as an 'upgrade'. that i just dont get. it is certainly a good 'alternative' for some, but why is it automatically an 'upgrade'? is it just the 4 extra mps? is it just the red dot? given some of the objective and subjective differences can one simply not view moving to the m8 as an 'upgrade'? or do differences not matter when the red dot is involved?
 
ray*j*gun said:
The M8 is better built with more precision and the B&W files are much better.
Click to expand...


those are opinions, correct? because in my opinion neither of those hold true. certainly i am happy to be educated by objective data and i thank you in advance for a post pointing me in the right direction.
 
I'm old school here - to me the RD1 will always remain a Bessa, and thus a cheap Leica alternative. Not bad at all, but not in the same league.
I preferred Leica for film, why shouldn't I do so for digital?
 
jaapv said:
I'm old school here - to me the RD1 will always remain a Bessa, and thus a cheap Leica alternative. Not bad at all, but not in the same league.
I preferred Leica for film, why shouldn't I do so for digital?
Click to expand...

that's not 'old school'...more like snobbery...but what the heck!
 
The Epson surely performs adequately at iso 1600. In fact, alot of the images im looking back on have been shot at 800-1600. There is no doubt the BW files from Epson are gorgeous.

A good point made above,

Even though the Epson has a 1:1 VF, its Rangefinder has a much shorter base length than the M8. So I can definitely see why somone would consider it more accurate. I myself did run into some trouble shooting wide open with a Summar, alot of the time i felt i nailed focus, ide look back at the files and see a whole series of goofs.

Never had the problem stopped down to f5.6-8 were ide typically shoot in good light. Oddly enough my 28 Elmarit coped better with this little bit of "slop" in accuracy and I consistently recieved good, in focus, results.

But Im more willing to account all this to user error ;) As I never gave it much thought, just worked around it and kept shooting, using wider apertures.

Also, I have to agree, the M8 is not really an upgrade to the RD. The two cameras, basically come out even with hefty quirks, and gorgeous potential.

In response to repair, just got a quick response from Leica Q&A, the M8 is still fully supported with the exception of the LCD, no replacements are left, and there are no alternative parts that could be used. Basicly as many of you proly know the LCD was a custom Job, that flopped horribly with the Coffee Stain issue. But... why should that scare anyone? I wish they would have just used a tiny OLED for ISO and WB... done. :)

Thanks again everyone, really enjoy reading your comments!
 
back alley said:
that's not 'old school'...more like snobbery...but what the heck!
Click to expand...

Snobbery... count me in.

His point is valid, Ive used film Leicas for a while, it feels natural to want the M8.

I also do see the RD as a Bessa, thats good and fine, but...Red Dot...Red Dot...oh...Red Dot!

It sort of feels like treason holding the RD, its definitely not a Leica. Not bad but not Leica.

;) Try not to take me seriously.
 
iirc Nikon D100 had the same sensor than RD1. those good b&w files can still be had for much less money.

M8 is only digital camera am truly regret of selling, prices are still about the same (after several years!) :eek:
 
Was it the D100 or the D70? Maybe both?

The tough part in that logic is you cant use Leica lenses (well M/LTM anyhow)

Jarski, we best get to savin! Chrome or Black ;) that is the question!
 
B-9 said:
Anyone using both, what do you consider the better camera? (Not considering price or the UV/IR debate)
Click to expand...
Depends on what you need aside from GAS.
- If you need to shoot both eyes open, the R-D1 is a must;
- Same if you need a quiet camera, as the motor noise of the M8 is painful;
- Same if you don't want to be disturbed by the LCD when you shoot;
- If you need wider FoV than 40mm, the Leica is better thanks to its microlenses and wider framelines;
- Same if you need longer FoV than 75mm due to the 75mm and 90mm framelines of the M8;
- If you need a bright VF, the Leica is better as well;
- Same if sharpness is very important for you due to the lack of AA filter of the Leica.
 
I never had a RD but I had a few Nikon's and Canon's, and I just purchased
a M8 and the Raw files do look different I think you should wait and get a
M8.

Range
 
rbelyell said:
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!
Click to expand...

Lol...we meet in ANOTHER R-D1 referenced thread! :)

Gladd to hear the good things about the R-D1.

I agree with all of your points and may I add that with a $100.00 expenditure for Alien Skin's Blow up 3, the file size issue is moot. That makes the R-D1x the winner at this point.

But I can't quite get rid of the nagging "wish I had an M8" feeling.

The good news is that an M8 is cheap enough that having both is possible.
 
I know what you mean!

When money is better, Ide like to get another RD. The VF truly is impressive compared to the low mag M8 finder.

The universal truth, gear lust evolves, you make goals for yourself and reach, it's a never ending progression.

Next for me? Goggled Summaron!!!
 
I still have my RD-1 and I love the looks and feel of it. I would be shooting with it still had I not gotten into the M240 realm... My friend who has had the RD-1, and M8 (or was it an M9...) Prefers the RD-1 over that Leica body.

Of course, the M240 is a completely different animal and the RD-1 cannot compete with it at all. But having said that, if the RD-1 had equivalent performance and technology, I would most likely choose the RD-1 form.

The RD-1 makes beautiful images albeit smaller. The low light performance cab actually be surprisingly good given the specs and I have heard that it's as good or better than the M8/M9. Either camera will take Leica lenses so that's the big advantage. Also, they are rangefinders which is very important if you want one...

I will probably (reluctantly) sell my Epson as it's basically not used since I got the M240 and I could use the $$ to help purchase more lenses.
 
I liked my RD's analogue controls: and it's shorter shutter lag.

I liked my M8's better build feel and that it has less crop, 28mm viewfinder lines, and better image quality.

I sold the RD and still have the M8 and now (again) an M9.
 
rbelyell said:
i'm not sure how a 1:1 vf is limiting, but maybe you refer to the lack of 90mm framelines.
Click to expand...
More framelines would be great, but I mean wider angles. A 1:1 viewfinder is great for what it is made for. A viewfinder with smaller magnification can be more useful for general use. Personally, I would like to have two similar cameras with different viewfinders.

also re wide lenses, i use the rd1 with a 21mm elmarit and a 28mm voigtlander with no issue. am i missing some problem i should be having?
Click to expand...
There is more vignetting on R-D1 than on M8 with equivalent field of view. A 28 is no wide on this camera. I don't have the Elmarit, but have used for example Voigtländer 15 and 21 on both.

given the m8s need for ir filters and that it cannot compete at iso1600, so many here automatically view the m8 as an 'upgrade'. that i just dont get.
Click to expand...
Well... IR cut filters are not an issue in actual use, and I find the M8 can compete at ISO 1600. I have used these cameras extensively, and I consider the M8 a clear upgrade. Of course, there is the assumption that some of the differences such as viewfinder magnification are not show stoppers and can even be positive changes for the user. If this is not true, then one does not easily consider the switch. And that's fine.

I am a big fan of the Epson. It's probably the only camera I can say that about. But the M8 is the better tool given my preferences.
 
a 28mm is equal to a 37mm on an m8 and a 42mm on an rd1. god bless those talented enough to make outstanding use of that difference. unfortunately i am not among that class of photographer.

ive used my 21elmarit more than any other lens on my rd1--it is my 'go to' street and landscape lens--and ive seen what at worst i would call 'modest' vignetting, so modest i often dont notice it at all and seldom pp for it.
 
I have both cameras, and use both regularly. The M8 is giving me better image quality for sure, and has a much more positive feel to it....but the RD-1 is more fun & in some ways a bit more usable (quieter, lighter, I like the wind-on lever, big viewfinder). I turn the tiny monitor inwards, and shoot it like a film camera. No plans to sell either, they both are fantastic image making tools
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom