RD-1 VS. Leica M8, and the winner is........

Ladies and Gentlemen, boys, and gargoyles! Step right up, for the match of the century, the Slug Out of

the Millenium! In the left corner, weighing in at a hefty 800 lbs, from Germany, we have the

"Mextermin8tor." In the right corner, weighing it at 235 lbs, and from Japan, the "Arty One." He might look

like a pansy, with his underdeveloped signal processor, and strange looking winder lever, but he can still

throw a few surprising punches out of left field, not mix and match my metaphors or anything...

 

Ding Ding! <a href="http://www.majid.info/mylos/weblog/2006/11/23.html">Let the fight begin! </a>

Just 1 dude's opinion.

Pllllease!

What I'd like to see are tons of postings of shots done with RD-1s and M8s. I'll bet the results will prove that at the sizes posted here, camera choice doesn't matter. In a gallery exhibition with print blowups, it's hard to believe a 10mp machine won't blow away a 6mp machine.

People might be pissed that the M8 is a flawed in many situations. Some would even say that it is 50% un-usable without IR filters, and the high Iso shots have way too much noise. The only reason people are paying the 5k for a pro digital camera (with no dust or weather sealing) is because they need a nice digital body to put their M lenses on. If you compare a nice shot from the M8 vs the Rd-1, I am sure there is no comparison that Leica would win. Give them at least some credit.

 

On a very exciting note, I think the next generation digital M will be just awsome. I am already saving my money for it.

Oh, so this is what an unbiased comparison looks like.

<I>Oh, so this is what an unbiased comparison looks like.</I><P>

 

Where's the bias? He's a long-time leica shooter - and experienced at that.<P>

 

Knowing that, I thought the review was refreshing in it's honesty and telling-it-like-it-is

attitude. And void of all the typical excuses and rationalizations found elsewhere.

I don't want to get into the middle of an argument when I don't have a dog in the fight, but I have one observation and one question.

 

First the observation: Unfortunately with electronics, there is such a thing as infant mortality and it has nothing to do with quality control. Some electronics just die early.

 

Now the question: I don't have the cash for an M8 but was thinking about an RD-1 but not the RD-1s. Where did you get your RD-1 and what did it cost?

 

Thanks

"... I think the next generation digital M will be just awsome. I am already saving my money for it". Stephen.

 

I think in the same way. I wonder how many people move backwards from buying the awaited M8 an ended with a top DSLR or awaiting for the next M8s or M9...

 

If I were Leica I would be running to have an unblemished new model soon* (please note that I don`t want to offend M8 users or the M8 product, but accept that it doesn`t arrived as expected... ).

 

*(If so, please be FF).

yes, i have had several people ask me the same question: where can you buy an RD-1s in the

USA. not pop photo.

its called ebay! :)

RE: where to buy...

 

Epson has R-D1 refurbs on their site every once in a while for $1550, and usually there's a

10% discount coupon of some sort. I bought a 2nd body recently from there and it's

essentially brand new. Whenever they pop up they sell out again within hours as they seem

to be popular at this price.

 

Just watch the R-D1 forum at RFF as someone always posts a message when they're

available.

 

j

We have only ONE RD1 on sale in Singapore but sadly the $#$$ rf alignment is out. Still looking for one.

Nothing wrong with anyone expressing their opinions. These may even be "honest" ones -

but they are often inaccurate, and heavily "spun". One doesn't have to be a Leica user to

end up kidding oneself after one makes a purchase.

 

>>"The body feels much thicker than the MP, and is just as thick as the R-D1, in fact,

despite not having a flippable LCD like the R-D1."

 

So being identical is a reason to pick one over the other?

 

>>"The lightweight magnesium body does not have the same level of robustness as the

R-D1, let alone a MP, and feels more like a CM. It's not even to the same grade as the

original Digilux."

 

Yeah, and the lightweight shutter in my R-D1 blew up after 3500 exposures, whereas the

M8 has gone 3800 in 1.5 months without a hiccup. As to the exterior, my R-D1 was

shedding paint and the rubber gripping surface within 3 months (and see below regarding

the LCD) - so much for "robustness". But to be fair, it's too early to say the M8 will not

have similar cosmetic foobahs.

 

>>"The lens mount lock does not snap positively and reassuringly as it should, and the

release button feels cheap compared to my MP or M6TTL."

 

1. No true with MY M8 - and 2) sounds like fondler-fodder anyway. At least I can mount

my 90 Tele-Elmarit on the M8 - the R-D1 mount was so out-of-spec that that lens

wouldn't even go on it.

 

>>"The shutter release is mushy and unpleasant. The shutter sound itself is a loud thunk

followed by a noisy motorized re-cocking.

Setting ISO is buried in a menu and you need even more keystrokes to change it than on a

Rebel XT (the R-D1, in comparison, has a genuine knob to set it quickly with direct

feedback)."

 

Mostly fair criticisms. The M8 release is not the quite the same as film Ms (nor is the R-

D1's). Noise is less of an issue than the shock of all those blades coming to a sudden stop,

with either camera. Reduces the hand-holdability a bit.

 

>>"The rangefinder on mine was slightly misaligned vertically, something one can tolerate

in a $300 Bessa, but certainly not in a M (to be fair, rangefinder patch vertical alignment is

an endemic problem with the R-D1 as well)."

 

Semi-fair criticism - My M8 is out both vertically and horizontally (I'll get it fixed when I

send it in for the circuitry replacement) - but STILL focuses a 90 f/2 or my 135 far more

reliably than the R-D1 ever did.

 

>>"In another sign of sloppiness and poor quality control, the copy of Capture One LE

included in the box was missing the serial number required to activate the program."

 

Did happen with some apparently. Not with mine. Not that it mattered much anyway - C1

LE is so clunky compared with Adobe Camera RAW that I used it once - Gawd what a

kludge. I will agree "What was Leica thinking" on this one, though.

 

>>"After using the R-D1 for a few hours, the superiority of the design over the M8 is

readily apparent (with the sole exception of the taller body and short rangefinder base

length):"

 

Yes, indeedy. Inability to reliably focus or frame lenses longer than 50mm; inability to use

lenses wider than 21mm (effective 32mm) without severe vignetting; a 5-year-old 1.5x

crop 6.1 Mpixel retread of a DLSR image sensor (that showed as much troublesome IR

problems as the M8, albeit in a different way, and far more hot pixels); a shutter borrowed

from bargain-basement film SLRs (Nikon FM10, Vivitar 2000, etc.) These are the hallmarks

of "superior design ".

 

>>"The R-D1 has perfectly acceptable ISO 800 and 1600, unlike the M8, making suitable

for available light shooting."

 

If you like 20 or so hot red pixels per image, the R-D1 did OK at 800 and 1600. Assuming

you did no sharpening, and lived with the mush induced by the strong anti-moire filtering.

Pixel for pixel the M8 is noisier at 1250/1600 - in final prints of the same size the pixels

are smaller, though, and less noticeable. No hot pixels in the M8 yet - just the repairable

banding.

 

>>"The LCD screen pivots and can be turned around to protect it from scratches (or resist

the temptation of chimping)."

 

And a good thing, too, because Epson used the cheapest possible coating on the RD-1

screen - It showed more scratches in the first month than my Digilux 2 does after almost

3 years (or my Sony R1 after 15 months). My M8 is scratch-free after 2 months, but that's

not long enough to compare one way or another.

 

I have a wonderful device to keep me from chimping - it's called "will-power". Comes free

with every digital camera I buy.

 

>>"The viewfinder has an honest to goodness magnification of 1.0x like the original M3,

not one that panders to jaded wide-angle junkies (I never shoot wider than 50mm and my

MP is a 0.85x mag, so yes, I am biased)"

 

So if he never shoots wider than 50mm, and the RD-1 never frames longer than 50mm

(which it doesn't) - that's a fairly limited range of lenses. Me - I like having an f/2

equivalent to 35mm (rather than 42mm), and using the Cosina 15mm without vignetting.

Pays the bills better than the dark orange corners of the R-D1.

 

BUT - I did like the 1:1 sometimes. Just not enough.

 

>>"The power supply is a manageable size and even has a cord, unlike the bloated wall-

wart type Leica supplies with the M8."

 

And this affects the images - how? Personally, I much prefer the "wall-wart" chargers -

much more compact for travel and less waste of tabletop space.

 

>>"The shutter speed dial goes in the traditional direction, not the M6TTL/M7 direction..."

 

Oh, dear...

 

Anyway - we'll see how he's doing after a year or so...

<I>One doesn't have to be a Leica user to end up kidding oneself after one makes a

purchase.</I><P>

 

No, but he's one of the few who returned the cam <b>after purchase</b>, rather than going

for the Koolaid and offering up a bunch od excuses and rationalizations on why the

shortcomings and manufacturer's behavior were OK.

Thanks for the link, Darius. That guy has an interesting site.

 

Anyway, it is a shame about the problems and I hope the first revision will fix them. What baffles me is that Leica didn't put an IR filter internally. I totally understand why they don't have a low-pass filter but they should have installed an IR filter from the beginning.

 

This makes me really interested to see how Huw's digital M2 turns out.

He's one of THE FEW who returned the cam after purchase...?

 

Geez, last time I looked in here at P.net, the claim was that EVERYONE was returning their

M8s and it was a disaster for Leica and so on. What happened?

 

Just joshin' ya, Brad. Of course he should have returned it if it didn't suit his needs - or at

least did not suit them any better than the less expensive R-D1.

 

Heck, I've returned quite a few items of photo equipment over the years - some of them

even Leica - because they didn't suit my needs.

 

I don't drink anyone's "Koolaid" (not that cute an expression when one actually watched

the Jonestown tragedy happen more or less "live"). Not Leica's. Not Epson's.

My R-D1 has attempted to shed its' rubber gripping several times (and I've tamped it down with glue). The rangefinder was slightly off vertically and eventually it must have shifted downward because now it's not bad.

 

However, the R-D1 rangefinder was never as accurate or had much of a snap to it, so it was difficult to verify focus. The M8 rangefinder patch is a bit brighter to me, and seems more positive in confirmation.

 

I did like the 100% viewfinder in concept, but then in implementation the framelines moved but the rangefinder patch did not, and the framelines weren't all that accurate closer in range. I find the M8 framelines to be better calibrated for closer focusing.

 

My R-D1 also has a bit of paint loss as well. It's not severe, but it's noticeable. I've sent mine in to Solms for the banding fix, and wanted to use the R-D1 for some shooting, but after using it for a few things, I'm falling back to my DSLR.

 

For all of the faults people mention, the M8 does a very good job in all but high ISO indoor light (streaking and color cast are the big culprits). Unlike the original poster, I've used a IR filter with mine and it seems to work well, so I can take that as a compromise, and removing the streaking gives me back available dark shooting, so I'll take it.

 

Being one who shot with the R-D1 since December of 2004, I can say that while the R-D1 has lower noise, the noise reduction does some things to the image quality--I've gotten various artifacts and patterns from RAW converters (Capture One, Epson, Adobe) that essentially led to less overall resolution in the final image. I'm not sure I have a good M8 result at ISO 2500 to share at all, but I find ISO 1250 to have great resolution, if it is a bit noisier than the R-D1 at 1600.

 

I also have shot the Canon DSLRs at ISO 3200, and found the noise to be better than either the M8 or R-D1, as is born out in the reviews. However, you can't handhold a DSLR at 1/15th shooting on a 50mm lens without mirror slap (and the IS lenses are not very fast), unless you're a boy wonder and can use mirror lockup AND get the right timing for the shot. With my 50mm Nokton at f/1.5, I can do this on either the R-D1 OR the M8, and shoot at either the pleasing ISO 800 on the R-D1 or 640 on the M8 and usually it works out ok.

 

So I don't think any camera is a panacea. I've never got the same overall sharpness out of a DSLR or the Epson that I'm getting out of the M8, and after shooting with it for a month, I'm starting to figure out where it is good and where it's not so good. It took me the same amount of time with the R-D1.

 

I can't keep both cameras, so once the M8 is back the R-D1 is going to be sold as a 'user' one on ebay. Although you mention the charger, you don't mention the difference in battery life--I had to carry several R-D1 batteries so that I had enough charge to fill two 1GB cards. I only have to carry one M8 battery for a day of shooting, and then I can fill the 2GB card at least two or three times with DNG images. I have not yet truly depleted my first battery on a shoot, even though I sprang for the (expensive) second one.

 

Are you sure your bias isn't being affected by the defects shown in your particular unit? I would have returned mine immediately if it had problems with the lens mount, and dead pixels like yours. My R-D1 had several hot pixels, and they showed up more often at higher ISO. I have to say I really like the R-D1 as a manual operations digital camera, but the vignetting on my 15mm lens (Heliar), and lower battery life, among other things, are weighing on my decision. I enjoyed the manual feel, but the tradeoff in overall image quality (at 1250 and below) and workflow are winning me over to the M8.

 

Ken

If you have a slew of Leica lenses and a hankering to shoot digital there are only two possibilities, and it's not surprising or odd to me that the one that costs more and is the newest product has the higher set of specifications. Leica had 2 choices: release the M8 now with all its defects, or keep working on it and release one in a year or 2 or whenever. Either way was bound to alienate a large number of people. But right now they do have a loyal following who will accept and excuse and apologize and dive into denial like it was a chocolate sundae. That group is aging and they might not have as many in 2 or 3 years, so they took what was probably the more prudent path, bring out the M8 now with all its flaws and sell it to the loyals. They can't be faulted for their logic. Personally I'm glad to be a Leica collector and happy to do whatever little shooting I do with a DSLR that cost far less than the M8 and has none of its quirks. To each his own. I do find it amusingly funny though, reading some people's passionate fantasies that the M8 is technologically superior to some other camera that has more megapixels, a full-sized frame, and no problems with banding, streaking, moire or IR sensitivity...and costs less than half.

"But right now they do have a loyal following who will accept and excuse and apologize and dive into denial like it was a chocolate sundae."

 

What a load. Or, they have a following because they make kick-a$$ film rangefinders and lenses and the M8 is the closest digital to it.

Funny that when even experienced leica shooters offer an honest assessment that turns out

not to be favorable, the circling of wagons still occurs from the faithful.

 

That Koolaid must be pretty tasty...

Vinay,

 

I love to shoot rangefinders, and I love to shoot digitally. The R-D1 is not a product that seems to have a company fully behind it any more. So, to continue shooting on the R-D1 long term exposes me to a risk similar to shooting on a Mamiya 6 medium format rangefinder -- there is a strong possibility that relatively soon, I will not be able to get it fixed once it breaks. And I well past the warranty period.

 

I'd rather put my stock in a Leica digital rangefinder as the company is committed to moving forward with some rangefinder product of some kind. Therefore I can assume that I can always send the camera to be repaired somewhere.

 

That was the majority of my reasoning to move from the R-D1 to the M8, along with the higher resolution and the better rangefinder. I'm still pretty satisfied with it, and would rather shoot with the M8 than my DSLR for most work.

 

Ken

"the circling of wagons still occurs from the faithful. "

 

What does that make you, an Indian?

 

I think its funny that 6 months prior to release you could have written a list of the forumers who would be complaining about the camera, the real funny thing is that most of the "concern" comes from people who don't shoot leica, don't shoot rangefinders and make it apparent they don't have any plans to do so.

 

The fact is that the Epson is not competition for the M8, mostly because it is discontinued. The best digital camera for a rangefinder user right now seems to be the M8, especially if you are a leica film m user. Now, if you have an updated model from Epson, a new model from Zeiss or Cosina you could have some real competition, possibly a better system, but right now the M8 is it for current production rangefinders.

RJ: Right on! I completely agree.

"I do find it amusingly funny though, reading some people's passionate fantasies that the

M8 is technologically superior to some other camera that has more megapixels, a full-

sized frame, and no problems with banding, streaking, moire or IR sensitivity...and costs

less than half."

 

Vinay, I assume you mean the Canon 5D, since you mention full-frame and more Mpixels:

 

"no problems with banding, streaking..."

 

Ri-ight!

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page25.asp

 

"cost less than half"

 

5D - $2999 with rebate, M8 - $4800. 4,800/2=2,400. Therefore 2,999 <= 2,400?

Interesting math.

 

Also, Vinay, weren't you one of those who claimed the M8 was being returned (or orders

cancelled) en masse? While Brad is referring to this guy as "one of the few" who returned

his. You two might want to get together off-line and get your stories straight before

continuing the anti-M8 "swift-boat" campaign.

 

There are plenty of rational arguments for buying or not buying an M8, which can be

rationally discussed. But the more one reveals one's "bozo" factor, the more one's opinions

become irrelevant.

 

BTW: Everytime Brad smarts off about "Koolaid" -THIS is what he considers a suitable

subject for giggles and grins:

 

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19781204,00.html

 

Sure looks like a cute joke to me...not.