chowpi
Member
Dear all,
I am considering to buy R-D1. There is very good reputation on R-D1 but as it has quite old sensor, some said it has the same sensor as Nikon D100. So, anyone has compare photos of these two cameras? Or does R-D1 has some secret in its processing which make it very special?
Anyone can convince me to buy R-D1?
many thanks.
I am considering to buy R-D1. There is very good reputation on R-D1 but as it has quite old sensor, some said it has the same sensor as Nikon D100. So, anyone has compare photos of these two cameras? Or does R-D1 has some secret in its processing which make it very special?
Anyone can convince me to buy R-D1?
many thanks.
Ezzie
E. D. Russell Roberts
I can't compare the two, I've no experience with the D-100. I' m not sure what a comparison will give you if you are not considering the D-100 as well.
Yes the two have the same sensor. They have completely different imaging processors. But what is more important is their difference as photographic tools. Rangefinders are a different breed to SLR's. I much prefer the process of picture taking with the former, but will use the latter when conditions dictate. Secondly, as an M-mount camera you will enter a world of optics unparallelled in photography, even putting Nikon's extensive F mount (past as present) offering to shame.
Yes the two have the same sensor. They have completely different imaging processors. But what is more important is their difference as photographic tools. Rangefinders are a different breed to SLR's. I much prefer the process of picture taking with the former, but will use the latter when conditions dictate. Secondly, as an M-mount camera you will enter a world of optics unparallelled in photography, even putting Nikon's extensive F mount (past as present) offering to shame.
chowpi
Member
Thank you Ezzie. I asked for the comparison with D100 because I used to have D70s and found the photo quality not quite acceptable. Then I upgraded to D300 and found its photo quality is really good. I saw many good photos by R-D1 and just wonder how does this "old" camera compared with current camera. (I usually don't print the photos)
Cron
Well-known
if you don't print, you don't need to hesitate.
R-D1 has enough quality even for heavy crops on the pc-monitor
R-D1 has enough quality even for heavy crops on the pc-monitor
pkreyenhop
Established
They must have used some magic dust on the RD-1: it has a much better high ISO performance than a D70 and the D70 was better than the D100...
Stefcuoz
Established
dear chowpi i have had ,and used, RD1 and D100.
philosophy of two camera is like as compare apple and cat..... no accomunation....
D100 cost 200 usd Rd1 2000
D100 are srl RD1 rangefinder.
photo of D100 printed on photo paper until A4 measurement are good, never print on A3, also RD1
so:
you have money and like rangefinder?..... best buy is RD1
you have money but are prudent? ....D100
no many money?.. nothing.. or D100
have many nikon srl lens?.... D100
you have leica lens? Rd1 obviusly..
Quality is the same, only user philosophy is completely different...
Steve.
philosophy of two camera is like as compare apple and cat..... no accomunation....
D100 cost 200 usd Rd1 2000
D100 are srl RD1 rangefinder.
photo of D100 printed on photo paper until A4 measurement are good, never print on A3, also RD1
so:
you have money and like rangefinder?..... best buy is RD1
you have money but are prudent? ....D100
no many money?.. nothing.. or D100
have many nikon srl lens?.... D100
you have leica lens? Rd1 obviusly..
Quality is the same, only user philosophy is completely different...
Steve.
Ezzie
E. D. Russell Roberts
Browse the Sharing some R-D1(s) photos thread and see for yourself:
gekopaca
French photographer
You can't compare an SLR and a rangefinder camera :
The photographic process is too much different.
Also, I think Nikon has the worst imaging processors in the world! (Canon is really better and Epson is fantastic), which makes the quality difference between pictures of D100 and those of R-D1.
If you need to buy a cheap camera in order to use your good Nikon lenses, then buy a Nikon ... or Lumix GH1 or GF1 (they are excellent cameras and with adapter rings they accept Nikon lenses) .
The photographic process is too much different.
Also, I think Nikon has the worst imaging processors in the world! (Canon is really better and Epson is fantastic), which makes the quality difference between pictures of D100 and those of R-D1.
If you need to buy a cheap camera in order to use your good Nikon lenses, then buy a Nikon ... or Lumix GH1 or GF1 (they are excellent cameras and with adapter rings they accept Nikon lenses) .
The Meaness
Well-known
Unless you own or are in love with the unique lenses of the LTM and M mount breeds, or need a very compact, high quality camera - stay away!
Rangefinders are expensive, finicky, difficult to adapt to, and when they have a problem or malfunction take a long time to repair and cost you big.
That said, I bought an R-D1 because nothing else would do. The size of the camera and lenses to quality of results ratio is mind boggling. There is almost a century's worth of lenses that are compatible (each with it's own unique and interesting characteristics), and finally there is a sense of having a personal bond with the camera that comes after you've learned and understood it's quirks.
I'm sold on RFs, but if you can be satisfied with an SLR you will save a lot of money!
Rangefinders are expensive, finicky, difficult to adapt to, and when they have a problem or malfunction take a long time to repair and cost you big.
That said, I bought an R-D1 because nothing else would do. The size of the camera and lenses to quality of results ratio is mind boggling. There is almost a century's worth of lenses that are compatible (each with it's own unique and interesting characteristics), and finally there is a sense of having a personal bond with the camera that comes after you've learned and understood it's quirks.
I'm sold on RFs, but if you can be satisfied with an SLR you will save a lot of money!
nakedcellist
Established
I would certainly choose the R-D1. The D100 sucks at high iso, certainly if you compare it with the epson. In fact, I think the D100 is worse than a D70.
kermaier
Well-known
If you're not particularly interested in a rangefinder, then you can get a really nice DSLR for the cost of an R-D1. Two years ago I was an inch away from buying a used Canon 5D, when I discovered that use R-D1 prices were comparable. I took a leap of faith and bought an R-D1, and fell in love. I may yet buy a 5D for the kinds of photograpy that Rfs aren't well suited to, but the R-D1 is just a pleasure to use.
But if you're an SLR shooter, get a Canon 5D and you'll haave some of the best digital imaging capability in the world.
Ari
But if you're an SLR shooter, get a Canon 5D and you'll haave some of the best digital imaging capability in the world.
Ari