Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/11/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I think you may find that the Canon f0.95 is much more "bokeh all over" even than Howard's 35 f1.4 :-) Frank On 27 Nov, 2004, at 13:16, V.Roger wrote: > Dear Howard: > Since my entire reason for buying a Leica mount > digital wd be to use my Canon 0.95 I think I'll join > you in waiting- vroger P.S. if you speak to Joe Yao- > give him my best regards- > > Howard wrote: > On Friday, Nov 26, 2004, at 23:20 Asia/Hong_Kong, > lug-request@leica-users.org wrote: >> Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 19:39:07 +0000 >> From: Frank Dernie <Frank.Dernie@btinternet.com> >> Subject: Re: [Leica] Dodgy RD-1 focus (was Nikon's > profits tripled) >> Hii Ian, >> I suppose it could well be a duff example. Joseph > Yao said there have >> been delays in supply and Howard's R-D1 which I saw > in Hong Kong had > a >> rangefinder which was off at infinity, and I believe > he had a long > wait >> for a replacement, but the pictures from it seemed > great to me. >> Normally manufacturers check that their review items > are at the > highest >> possible standard before submitting them. >> The reviewer was really enthusiastic about the > camera up to the point >> at which he was unable to reliably focus wide open. >> Perhaps I should take the plunge but haven't really > got the heart for > a >> return saga if I am unlucky. >> Frank > > Hi Luggers, > To follow up on Frank's remarks I have received a > replacement RD 1 for > my original camera after a wait of 7 weeks. The > replacement's > rangefinder still had misalignment at infinity. I took > it because I > didn't want to wait any longer. It works quite well in > the close up > range with all my lenses especially if set at f2.0 > aperture or smaller > up to 90mm (except the 90 cron - see below). The new > RD1 focuses well > wide open with the 35 Luxes - both Asph and non - Asph > (although my non > - asph 35 summilux is so soft wide open that > determining whether an > image is accurate at 1 meter is certainly in the eye > of the beholder! - > but I love that lens for its bokeh! > :-)). My 50 Lux has its good focus moments wide open > in the close range > - and sometimes its bad moments - depending on my > operator error. > Please remember I am at the tri-focal glasses stage > so I do have some > trouble determining accurate focusing due to eye > sight. > > In terms of longer lenses my 90 Elmarit works without > a problem, but > the 90 Summicron is not accurate in the middle ranges > at all. It just > does not focus well - period. Of course, if raked over > to infinity and > ignore the rangefinder - it cuts beautifully clear > images on the CCD. I > think one of the factors that needs to be considered > about the RD 1, > and we all know about, is that the 1:1 rangefinder has > a limited > base-line (38mm) and fast longer lenses just do not > have sufficient > depth of field wide open to cover focusing errors. > Certainly I had a 75 > summilux that would not focus accurately with my M6HM > TTL - in my hands > and with my eyes - despite sending the lens to Solms > to be checked and > finally having the rangefinder replaced in the camera > - so I don't > think we should expect focusing performance from the > RD 1 which defies > the laws of optics. The other aspect about checking > focusing is that > instead of waiting several hours for film to be > developed and printed > or scanned - the instant feed back of digital makes > it so much easier > to verify at once whether a lens is in correct focus > or not - just > shoot the pictures and down load the card to your > computer and look at > the images full screen size. There is no possibility > of being confused > about your picture taking notes several hours after > the fact! > > With the help of instructions from Don Goldberg via Ed > Schwartzreich ( > of LHSA Catalogue editing fame) - thanks Ed - I popped > the hot shoe off > my new RD 1 (as I have done several times with my > Bessa R2 in order to > adjust it for perfect focusing - both close up and at > infinity) and > proceeded to see if I could adjust the rangefinder to > produce a > coincident image at infinity and maintain accuracy > also in close up > focusing. In sum, after several hours and a couple of > hundred pictures > downloaded and examined - for my camera you have a > choice: You can have > accurate close up focusing without a coincident > rangefinder image at > infinity and quite accurate close up focusing with > lenses of not more > than 50mm focal length and apertures down to f1.4. In > this adjustment - > at infinity the coincident images can be adjusted to > align horizontally > but vertically the image in the rangefinder patch > comes close to but > does not quite match the stationary image in the > finder. It stops just > right of the stationary image. Alternately you can > adjust the > rangefinder image to be perfectly coincident - > vertically and > horizontally - at infinity but then ALL my lenses > front focus by > several millimeters at 1 meter. So you have a choice, > especially if you > want to shoot wide open most of the time, of either > reasonably accurate > close up focusing and a less than perfect infinity > setting, or a > perfect infinity and an inaccurate close up > performance. For me, I > chose better close up performance, and will just have > to live with the > lack of a coincident image in the rangefinder at > infinity. This pains > me because, as you all know, I am picky about perfect > focusing. To add > insult to injury - I was playing with Singapore Lugger > Roland Tan's > recently acquired RD 1 - which is just two serial > numbers away from my > camera - and its rangefinder performs perfectly - both > in the CU range > and with perfect alignment at infinity - so I know > that the adjustment > can be done - I just don't know how to do it!! > Until I picked up Roland's camera I thought the > rangefinder had a > design limitation but now I'm not so sure. > > Another comment: the focusing patch remains stationary > in the > viewfinder and only the frame lines move to compensate > for parallax in > the close up range. This means that at one meter you > are focusing not > in the center of the image but in the upper left where > the rangefinder > patch has remained stationary while the frame lines > have moved down and > to the right. When you recompose after focusing this > may contribute to > focusing error - especially when using longer high > speed lenses with > little depth of field when wide open. > > In summary, I still think Epson got much of its first > digital > rangefinder effort right. The electronics are great, > the controls well > thought out (for me anyway) the control of ISO speed, > white balance and > B&W filtering indicates that photographers were > consulted in the design > of the camera but - the rangefinder (or quality > control) is clearly > compromised and that is too bad - because with a > better performing > rangefinder the camera would be near to perfect as a > first effort and > that would have been wonderful. Now I guess we will > have to wait for > the RD2 model or see what the competition serves up > from Zeiss and > Leica. > > In the meantime I am going to stop testing and > adjusting and going to > go out and take daytime pictures using my Panasonic LC > 1 and reserve > the RD 1 for night work with the 35 Lux Aspheric. At > ISO 1600 and f1.4 > that is a combination! And I can focus it! > > Finally - I am certain Chaussers D'Image got a bum > sample and they > should ask for another camera and run the tests again. > Bad form for > Epson not to have checked the camera before handing it > over. > > > Howard ( frustrated in Hong Kong) > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >