R-d1 vs GXR vs NEX 5N

[ark8012]

I am trying to move from DSLR to RF system now. I got the Leica M film body and lenses, and looking for digital system that I can use my leica lenses.

No money for M8/M9... I am not a professional photographer.

Mostly, I will take pictures of my family including my 2 years old girl. and I also love to take a street photo and a landscape photo.

Which one should I pick??

Or should I wait until new fuji mirrorless comes out?

 

[BCMielke]

I looked at many options and had a similar decision. I can't speak to the Nex5N too much other than if you have an interest you will also have access to AF lenses. I went with the GXR with the M-mount. My main reason was I had a Nikon DSLR and I wanted to experience the lack of an AA filter. I already had an AF camera though.

 

[Godfrey]

An Epson R-D1 or R-D1s is a delightful 6Mpixel camera, however I am a bit wary of it since they only made a relatively small number. This makes repair information, parts and support a risk. Batteries are easily available still and there are a couple of places that advertise new ones (usually from Japan) on Ebay from time to time.

The biggest issue is that the R-D1 is often no less expensive than a used Leica M8 and the Leica you will certainly have service and support for some time to come. The Leica also has a higher resolution sensor and, while not perfect, if you want a rangefinder camera it's one of the three available.

The GXR is what I use as complement to my Leica M4-2. I find it an excellent camera in every way and like its controls significantly more than the NEX cameras.

 

[JSRockit]

You've only listed one rangefinder, so to me the choice is easy based on that.

 

[iiiNelson]

I went a similar route in constant trying to find a cheaper alternative to getting a digital rangefinder. The truth is you will just eventually end up with a digital M anyway so start saving. Mirrorless cameras are very nice and can produce very nice images. I have no experience with the RD-1 but like others say I've seen them for about the same price as a used M8 (~$2,000.) I'm not a professional photographer either and it's just a hobby for me as it is for many here but there really is not substitute for a real rangefinder when you want a rangefinder in my experience. Everything else just leads you to desiring it more.

Case in point I can't remember the last time I touched my NEX-5 but the G1 still gets used on occasion.

 

[JSRockit]

I went a similar route in constant trying to find a cheaper alternative to getting a digital rangefinder. The truth is you will just eventually end up with a digital M anyway so start saving. I'm not a professional photographer either and it's just a hobby for me as it is for many here but there really is not substitute for a real rangefinder when you want a rangefinder in my experience. Everything else just leads you to desiring it more.

I agree... if you want a mechanical rangefinder, then only a mechanical rangefinder will make you happy.

Also, Pro has nothing to do with it... there are many Pros who cannot afford Leica. It is a matter of priorities, salary, and frugality that generally makes one not buy a Leica.

 

[ark8012]

Everyone, thank you for the comments. I didn't notice that R-D1 could be as expensive as M8. I thought I could get the R-D1 about $1,200.

I think I will try to get GXR for now.

 

[JSRockit]

I thought I could get the R-D1 about $1,200.

You can sometimes.

 

[Godfrey]

Everyone, thank you for the comments. I didn't notice that R-D1 could be as expensive as M8. I thought I could get the R-D1 about $1,200.

I think I will try to get GXR for now.

Occasionally you can find the R-D1 available at around that money. At present, there's one listed on Ebay for $1400 BIN from Matsuistore in Japan ... but camera, charger, battery only, not mint. I am tempted myself, but then I think to myself, "That's money that I could keep in the bank for an M9-P next year."

Although I'm champing at the bit, the truth is that I'm horrendously busy right now and even the GXR-M is only getting light use. I think I'm just going to force myself to be patient and acquire what I really want, the M9, next year when I planned to.

BTW, I agree with the comment

... Also, Pro has nothing to do with it... there are many Pros who cannot afford Leica. It is a matter of priorities, salary, and frugality that generally makes one not buy a Leica.

I've been a working pro and not off and on since 1970. I am "not" at present: having accepted a full-time position doing something else for my living and doing photography as my avocation, not my career, again. I always weight the cost and advantages of equipment against my other priorities very carefully.

I am fortunate to say that I can easily afford the M9 now ... my new position is quite lucrative, a huge change from where the photography business was going ... but I find it better not to distract myself with too much equipment buying in too short a time. I've already been through a round of new equipment gathering this year and now will start simplifying as my photographic interests and intent has re-formed away from the pressures of making money once again.

I know, however, that I want a Leica M in my kit again ... the M4-2 proves that to me beyond the shadow of a doubt ... and as much as I still like the look and feel of film, I'm much more productive and happier with a digital camera. So an M9 will be mine when the moment is right. ;-)

--
Wanted to add that I really like using the GXR as well too. It's a different tool, a different kind of camera, with far more flexibility than a rangefinder, and tremendous lens versatility. For instance, I use it with both Ricoh's own A12 50mm and Micro-Nikkor 55 and 200mm Macro lenses, with the Micro-Nikkor 200 plus TC-300 teleconverter for an ultra-tele field of view, etc etc. The Ricoh GXR-M produces incredibly good quality images and by popping another camera unit in can be everything from an ultra zoom point and shoot to a pro-capable serious shooter, all with the same control interface. A wonderful little beast!!

 

[Paratom]

The Nex works fine with m-lenses but it is a different feel than an optical rangefinder.
I would really recommend to handle the options in a store and see if you like them from the user interface side.
The rd1 is closest to a digital M, the gxr and nex give you the option to use both-the m-lenses but also a af zoom when you need it.

 

[usayit]

Easy decision from my point of view... Epson R-D1.

Shot with one extensively until I sold it to fund the M9. Quirky, short battery, hard to find battery replacement, 3 frame lines only, a dated sensor... but boy is it a fun camera to shoot on a daily basis. The 1:1 viewfinder truly made it an extension of the eye. Pair that camera to a tri-elmar 28-35-50 and you have a very flexible single camera/single lens combination. I liked the images it produced.

Future repairs may be a concern. As someone mentioned. I recall www.stevecamera.com accepting repair requests.

I miss it.. wouldn't hesitate buying one if funds were available. I sold mine for more than what I paid for it (refurbished from Epson, Japan)

 

[Shashin]

And then there is the Nex 7...

 

[jonoslack]

There is, indeed, the NEX7 - but If you're happy contemplating 6mp on the RD-1 (lovely, but such old tech, and not totally reliable). Then a NEX 5n with a viewfinder is definitely a thought.
of course the Ricoh also has focus peaking - but by all accounts the viewfinder is nothing like as good as the Sony one.

Still - I can't really comment on the Ricoh,

What I can say is that the NEX 5n is the only non-leica camera I've ever thought it worth shooting M glass on - and it's rather a joy with focus peaking (read MR on the NEX7 at luminous landscape which has the same viewfinder).- but you do need the plug in EVF (IMHO). The image quality is fantastic - added to which there are some decent kit zoom lenses, and certainly more NEX AF lenses coming.

no-brainer I'd say

 

[Godfrey]

There is, indeed, the NEX7 - but If you're happy contemplating 6mp on the RD-1 (lovely, but such old tech, and not totally reliable). Then a NEX 5n with a viewfinder is definitely a thought.
of course the Ricoh also has focus peaking - but by all accounts the viewfinder is nothing like as good as the Sony one.

Still - I can't really comment on the Ricoh,

What I can say is that the NEX 5n is the only non-leica camera I've ever thought it worth shooting M glass on - and it's rather a joy with focus peaking (read MR on the NEX7 at luminous landscape which has the same viewfinder).- but you do need the plug in EVF (IMHO). The image quality is fantastic - added to which there are some decent kit zoom lenses, and certainly more NEX AF lenses coming.

no-brainer I'd say

I don't know what the no-brainer here is. I've only seen some NEX 7 results with M-bayonet lenses and the color shifting/edge smearing problems were immediately apparent (nowhere near as good as the NEX 5n images I've seen or the Ricoh GXR-M). While the NEX 7 body looks to be very nice indeed, I suspect it is going to be a fine performer with NEX and adapted SLR lenses only.

I find the NEX 5n control layout pretty miserable, but the EVF and articulated screen are very nice. The GXR's EVF is good if not great, the screen is excellent if not articulated, and the control ergonomics are superb. The GXR's image quality with CV, Leica and Zeiss RF lenses, particularly short focal lengths, is more pleasing to me than what I've seen of the NEX 5n although they're close. The NEX 5n has about a 1-1.5 stop sensitivity advantage over the GXR on the noise front, if ultra-high-ISO shooting is essential to you.

The GXR's ability to do personality changes by switching camera units is not achieved by any other camera on the market.

Nothing "no brainer" about choosing which of these cameras is going to do the best job ... There are a lot of considerations and none of them are easy to determine without some study by the person who's going to use the camera.

 

[JSRockit]

I know, however, that I want a Leica M in my kit again ... the M4-2 proves that to me beyond the shadow of a doubt ... and as much as I still like the look and feel of film, I'm much more productive and happier with a digital camera. So an M9 will be mine when the moment is right. ;-)!!

Yes, I bought the M9 last year because I wanted the camera I truly wanted to use... mechanical rangefinder, full frame, m mount, digital, etc. However, I live in NYC and don't own a house, don't have a car, and don't have a kid. If I did have any of these, I wouldn't have bought the M9 most likely (due to the funds being used elsewhere). I love the M9, but I cannot see myself buying the M10... which I think will be around $10,000. Luckily, Leica will be making a APS-C camera that may be good enough and the Fuji LX10 looks good too.

 

[Ocean]

I have no experience on Epson so I won't comment on it.

I have been using NEX-5N with Contax G lenses (28/35/45/90) and Leica R (50/60/90/100APO/180APO/400) lenses for a while and I am very happy with the IQ. The performance in high ISO is excellent. The native Sony lenses I have (24/18-75) were good but not great. Just recently, I started using Ricoh GXR with 28/2.5 and 50/2.5 lens modules as a travel set. I really like the IQ from Ricoh. These Ricoh lenses are top notch performers. Personally, I prefer the images from Ricoh (but that's just me and it's very subjective). To my eyes, Ricoh images have deeper and richer colors with beautiful rendering signatures. But as stated by others, you won't go wrong with either NEX 5N and Ricoh GXR.

 

[djonesii]

As some one else said, you have listed only one digital rangefinder, the Epson.

If you like that exact method of focusing, the coupled range finder as implemented by Leica, then it is the only choice on your list. As you have a M, you know all about this.

I have an RD-1, and I go through the angst about selling it often. Mint, in box, they go for 1200-1400 on RFF classifieds. ( If they ever come back on line )

In addition, I have shoot pretty extensively with a G1/G3, and while good, mirror less is not CRF. It is different, may or may not suit your needs.

An RD-1 is a great machine to use!

Dave

 

[jonoslack]

I don't know what the no-brainer here is. I've only seen some NEX 7 results with M-bayonet lenses and the color shifting/edge smearing problems were immediately apparent (nowhere near as good as the NEX 5n images I've seen or the Ricoh GXR-M). While the NEX 7 body looks to be very nice indeed, I suspect it is going to be a fine performer with NEX and adapted SLR lenses only.

Hi Godfrey - you could be right . . . certainly with expect to M mount wide angle lenses

I find the NEX 5n control layout pretty miserable,

I think they're so left field that you really do need to spend a week or so to get to grips - but I don't need to use the menus anymore, having configured the relevant buttons - it's certainly not as intuitive as the Ricoh, but fine when you get used to it.

but the EVF and articulated screen are very nice. The GXR's EVF is good if not great,

Yes - but EVFs are really at the edge of usability - IMHO neither the much vaunted Olymps VF2 nor the Ricoh are in the same ball park as the A77/NEX5n/Nex7 viewfinder, and while this technology is so close to being unusable this really really matters.

the screen is excellent if not articulated, and the control ergonomics are superb. The GXR's image quality with CV, Leica and Zeiss RF lenses, particularly short focal lengths, is more pleasing to me than what I've seen of the NEX 5n although they're close. The NEX 5n has about a 1-1.5 stop sensitivity advantage over the GXR on the noise front, if ultra-high-ISO shooting is essential to you.

The GXR's ability to do personality changes by switching camera units is not achieved by any other camera on the market.

Hmmm well, my NEX does some grand personality changes . . . one minute there's the 18-200 zoom (which is big, but better than it deserves to be). The next it can have a Leica 180 f2.8 app, and the next a 70-200 f2.8 with phase detect.

I understand you can put small sensor zooms on the Ricoh, but I don't personally think that's preferable.

Nothing "no brainer" about choosing which of these cameras is going to do the best job ... There are a lot of considerations and none of them are easy to determine without some study by the person who's going to use the camera.

Well, sorry Godfrey - I think it is a bit of a no-brainer - whilst I absolutely agree that the Ricoh interface is much more elegant I think that the flexibility and image quality (and price) of the 5n knocks it into a cocked hat.

 

[Peter Klein]

I'm reading this thread with great interest. I currently use a Leica M8, an Olympus E-30, and a Panasonic G1.

The M8 is my main camera, I'm a long-time confirmed rangefinder guy. The E-30 is for times when I a DSLR is a better tool, particularly for telephoto. I wish it had better low-light performance--I live in mostly cloudy Seattle, not sunny California. But in general, I'm pretty happy with it.

The G1 is my "light, small, good enough to use in most situations" take-anywhere camera. I can use practically any lens I own on it. In practice, though, I've found non-native lenses of less than 50mm too much of a bother. I primarily use with its kit zoom and a 20/1.7. It's nice with an Oly OM 50/3.5 macro. I've taken a VC 90/3.5 for Leica with me on trips, and found that for relatively static subjects, it makes a great effective 180mm lens on the G1.

I've been thinking about extending my low-light capabilities a bit. I've considered going to either a Pentax K-5 or a Nikon D7000 or 700. But that would mean getting into a whole new system, including new lenses. So I've been thinking seriously about the NEX-5n, NEX-7, or the GXR to replace the G1 as my go-anywhere do-anything camera. So far, improvements in Micro 4/3 have been small and incremental, but the low-light and dynamic range improvements in the NEXs and GXR are enough that I might consider making the jump.

So I'm eager to know how others have fared using the NEXs and GXR with Leica-mount lenses. I'm interested in usability, how "fiddly" it is, working with non-static subjects, focusing ease, and image quality.

--Peter

 

[Paratom]

I'm reading this thread with great interest. I currently use a Leica M8, an Olympus E-30, and a Panasonic G1.

The M8 is my main camera, I'm a long-time confirmed rangefinder guy. The E-30 is for times when I a DSLR is a better tool, particularly for telephoto. I wish it had better low-light performance--I live in mostly cloudy Seattle, not sunny California. But in general, I'm pretty happy with it.

The G1 is my "light, small, good enough to use in most situations" take-anywhere camera. I can use practically any lens I own on it. In practice, though, I've found non-native lenses of less than 50mm too much of a bother. I primarily use with its kit zoom and a 20/1.7. It's nice with an Oly OM 50/3.5 macro. I've taken a VC 90/3.5 for Leica with me on trips, and found that for relatively static subjects, it makes a great effective 180mm lens on the G1.

I've been thinking about extending my low-light capabilities a bit. I've considered going to either a Pentax K-5 or a Nikon D7000 or 700. But that would mean getting into a whole new system, including new lenses. So I've been thinking seriously about the NEX-5n, NEX-7, or the GXR to replace the G1 as my go-anywhere do-anything camera. So far, improvements in Micro 4/3 have been small and incremental, but the low-light and dynamic range improvements in the NEXs and GXR are enough that I might consider making the jump.

So I'm eager to know how others have fared using the NEXs and GXR with Leica-mount lenses. I'm interested in usability, how "fiddly" it is, working with non-static subjects, focusing ease, and image quality.

--Peter

Hi Peter,
I am a long time Leica M user (M6 then rd1 later M8 and now M9), and also have owned m4/3 and now nex as small camera.
On the m4/3 I have used the M lenses only very few times and then prefered to just use Oly/Pana m4/3 lenses.
The Nex works better with M lenses IMO first because of focus peaking and second because with the nex viewfinder I sometimes forget its EVF (I dont forget when using m4/3). IQ looks pretty good to me so far, but I dont think its up to a M8 or M9 at lower ISO.