[Leica] Dodgy focus RD-1

[Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com (Frank Dernie)]

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
>