Epson R-D1s vs Nikon D200/D300

[Parchiao]

What's the better option, using ZM lenses with the R-D1s or using the ZF lenses with the Nikon bodies? R-D1s is more than $3K, D200 is $1.9K while the D300 is $2.7K. Which would you rather get?

Another option would be to use the Pentax K20D, but I am not considering that at the moment as I would like to go Nikon if I were to get a DSLR, and I am not considering Canons or any other lesser Nikons.

 

[azzurri]

Well, they are essentially very different cameras as in one is a rangefinder and the other is a DSLR. So you got to ask yourself what are you intending to shoot and what do you really want. If you do lots of street photography and all, a rangefinder would always be a better bet.

If you do studio and all that sort of things, the DSLR is better. Of course, it would be very much easier to find lenses and accessories for the DSLR.

For me, the camera to bring around to snap would be the rangefinder. Saves me lots of sore shoulders lugging around a DSLR.

 

[chiif]

2 different machines....

Can't really compare side by side which is better. Like azzurri have said, all depends on your needs.

R-D1s is really sweet when u have the time to compose, frame, focus your pictures. Not really ideal for young kids & snap snap snap snap snap snap snap....

As for lens, with R-D1s, you are open to all the wonderful & exciting Leica M mount (naughtylux... somi-cron, somi-lux, elmar-it), Leica screw mount, Voigtlander, Zeiss ZM, Hexar, Russian screw mounts... RF lenses. As in the Nikon SLR world, lenses are er... little mundane... Well, you can still go for the old Nikkor lenses...

If you are using for professional work, image quality is important, and you have the time to frame and compose, then, the M8 is probably a good machine to invest in.

But if you do birdy or macro... then RF is totally not suitable for it at all.

 

[ilario]

Correct me if i'm wrong, i've read that Rangefinders can't do very far telephoto. DSLRs are more flexible and easier, cost-effective. However bulky that i want a rangefinder to play with too, unfortunately in my opinion not too practical Alternatively if you are a hobbyist, rangefinders are more fun i guess

 

[Cactus jACK]

What's the better option, using ZM lenses with the R-D1s or using the ZF lenses with the Nikon bodies? R-D1s is more than $3K, D200 is $1.9K while the D300 is $2.7K. Which would you rather get?

the lens lineups for the 2 are a little different, but both enough to satisfy your wide, normal, and tele focal ranges. ZM range extends to the super-wide, while the ZF has the additional macro lenses.

ZM range
Distagon T* 2.8/15
Distagon T* 4/18
Biogon T* 2.8/21
C Biogon T* 4,5/21
Biogon T* 2.8/25
Biogon T* 2.8/28
Biogon T* 2/35
C Sonnar T* 1.5/50
Planar T* 2/50
Sonnar T* 2/85

ZF range
Distagon T* 2.8/25
Distagon T* 2/28
Distagon T* 2/35
Planar T* 1.4/50
Planar T* 1.4/85
Makro-Planar T* 2/50
Makro-Planar T* 2/100

some others have spoken about the differences in the cameras (digital rangefinder vs DSLR), and i concur with their comments. but i would like to draw up and come from a different perspective, the zeiss range available to either system. if i read into your question correctly, it's like you have fallen in love with zeiss lenses, and are wondering which system would help you best appreciate zeiss more...

my personal choice would be the zeiss on the rangefinder system :heart:

 

[Parchiao]

if i read into your question correctly, it's like you have fallen in love with zeiss lenses, and are wondering which system would help you best appreciate zeiss more...

You are in-the-money bro.

Why rangefinder and not DLSR option for you?

 

[Parchiao]

Okay, before we proceed further, this is really not a thread about DLSRs vs rangefinders, it's really all about the R-D1s over something as good as the D300 (or even the D200 at the current prices) WITH zeiss glass.

I have more or less decided on the R-D1s without considering the cost element. When I started to take the cost element into the picture, I noticed that for the same amount of money, I could possibly get something equally good in a different way.

 

[azzurri]

Okay, before we proceed further, this is really not a thread about DLSRs vs rangefinders, it's really all about the R-D1s over something as good as the D300 (or even the D200 at the current prices) WITH zeiss glass.

I have more or less decided on the R-D1s without considering the cost element. When I started to take the cost element into the picture, I noticed that for the same amount of money, I could possibly get something equally good in a different way.

Ar, now I see where you're coming from ;p Well, I have always thought that the lens (and of course the photographer) is really the one that matters more than the the camera itself when it comes to the picture quality.

Though I have yet to try the R-D1s, I am pretty sure that it will be at least on par with the D200/300. But I am not that sure about the aftersales service that you might face with the R-D1s, afterall, it is less common in Singapore.

That being said, if cost and aftersales is not a big issue, I will lean towards the R-D1s.

 

[Parchiao]

Was just going through reidreviews, saw the CA on the K10D and D200 with the ZF glass at wide open apertures. I'll stick to the R-D1s option for now.

 

[Cactus jACK]

Why rangefinder and not DLSR option for you?

as the others have said, they are different tools... can't remember where i read it, something along the lines of choosing between a rangefinders and a DSLRs, is like a painter choosing oils or pastels.

both bodies and lenses have different signatures. i have not seen official shoot-offs, but would also expect differences in signatures and performance between the ZM and ZF lenses, based on their different construction and backfocus space available.

i appreciate them both, rangefinder and DSLR. but for me, all else being equal, to best appreciate zeiss optics... it's the rangefinder :heart: