Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/10/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On 10/14/04 7:42 AM, "lennie falcon" <lenniefalcon@cclmgmt.com> wrote: > i neglected to mention that the focussing cam on the rd-1 was very > imprecise. > with a stiff focussing (new) helical it compounds the problem. the > electronics > of the rd-1 are good, but the rf is another story. it has the feel of the > early russian knockoffs of the III series leicas-ought to work, but not > quite! > question is: do you really want to spend $2500+ on an un-refined copy > camera? > falcon >> >> Message: 13 >> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 16:42:51 -0700 >> From: "lennie falcon" <lenniefalcon@cclmgmt.com> >> Subject: [Leica] Re: rd1 tests >> To: <lug@leica-users.org> >> Message-ID: <200410131642.AA2352414772@cclmgmt.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >> >> i tested the rd1 for a day with the new m 50 1.4 in germany at photokina. >> the raw files exhibited limited dynamic range as tiffs. although when the >> light is well balanced the files are very sharp, the colours are extremely >> accurate and the dynamic range seems less of a problem. you have to be a >> photoshop wizz with very low or extremely contrasted lighting. you can >> get an >> excellent 12x18 with minimum effort utilizing 200 asa and tiff files. the >> camera focus with the new summilux was very stiff and slow, so one can not >> assume leica lenses will work as well with real m's. >> i'll try it again next week with a 28mm summicron and put the files out >> for >> comment. the properties of the new 50 summilux are almost essential in low >> light. >> t.t.f.n., >> falcon >> >> >> > >> >> Message: 28 >> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 17:34:39 -0700 >> From: "Frank Filippone" <red735i@earthlink.net> >> Subject: RE: [Leica] Re: rd1 tests >> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug@leica-users.org> >> Message-ID: <NEBBJDFBIKOBILIKPPBNIEGDAGAB.red735i@earthlink.net> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" >> >> The body has nothing to do with the focusing helix..... why would the >> choice >> of a Leica or an Epson body present a different resistance to focusing? >> Do >> I misunderstand the statement? Is this a RF/VF issue of ease of focus? >> >> Frank Filippone >> red735i@earthlink.net >> >> the camera focus with the new summilux was very stiff and slow, so one can >> not assume leica lenses will work as well with real m's. >> >> ------------------------------ > > > > ___________________________________________________________ > $0 Web Hosting with up to 120MB web space, 1000 MB Transfer > 10 Personalized POP and Web E-mail Accounts, and much more. > Signup at www.doteasy.com > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information Lenny I'm sitting here with an R-D1 with several lenses (24 Elmarit, 75 Summilyx, 3E, VC 28 etc.) and have to admit you are correct. There seems to be a problem with the RF focusing. What I've been doing is getting as close as I can as far a focusing is concerned and taking the shot. The images I've gotten have been tack sharp. If absolute certainty in focusing is required I'll stop the lens down as far as I can. The only reason the R-D1 has provoked any interest at all, including my own, is that it is the ONLY digital camera that M-Lenses can be used on without resorting to Rube Goldberg type adapters. It isn't perfect, but it certainly is good enough. Is it worth $3000, of course not. Would a Leica digital M be worth this much? Maybe, but I'm really not interested in waiting until the glaciers return to hold on in my hands. I'll post some more images after the weekend. I'm going to run the camera through it's paces and see how it performs. Right now my impressions are that it's a pretty good piece of hardware and images from it have been excellent. More later. MC