--
Well-known
Hello everybody!
I am considering buying an R-D1s and I think I have read most if not all postings from the archive here and a lot of stuff elsewhere. There is one thing left, however, that I am a little concerned about. Having been raised on a diet of AF (my first SLR was a Minolta 7000 back in 1987) I embraced manual focusing with some caution and had, for instance, huge troubles with a Minolta XG-1. But on my Xpan it just snaps into focus no problem.
Since there has been quite some talk on problems with the R-D1's rangefinder I came to think if some of this was due to problems with actually matching up the double images in the viewfinder?
Further I would like to pair it with a Voigtländer 35mm Color Skopar PII f:2.5 - mostly for its small size and as far as I can judge very decent output.
Cheers
Karspoul
I am considering buying an R-D1s and I think I have read most if not all postings from the archive here and a lot of stuff elsewhere. There is one thing left, however, that I am a little concerned about. Having been raised on a diet of AF (my first SLR was a Minolta 7000 back in 1987) I embraced manual focusing with some caution and had, for instance, huge troubles with a Minolta XG-1. But on my Xpan it just snaps into focus no problem.
Since there has been quite some talk on problems with the R-D1's rangefinder I came to think if some of this was due to problems with actually matching up the double images in the viewfinder?
I) Has anybody tried an R-D1/s as well as an Xpan/Fuji and can comment on the ease of manual focusing on the R-D1?
I use glasses but understand that people have very different experiences with that and the R-D1/s. There are no more R-D1/s in my country so I will have to buy via the net from abroad with, unfortunately, a no return policy so it is a potential deal breaker if I cannot get the hang of focusing.
Further I would like to pair it with a Voigtländer 35mm Color Skopar PII f:2.5 - mostly for its small size and as far as I can judge very decent output.
II) Does anybody use this lens with gloves on and can tell me if it is possible to adjust aperture and focusing or if it turns into a hassle?
Looking forward to hearing from you and thanks for a lot of very interesting postings in this very, if not the most, civil forum on photography
Cheers
Karspoul
William Hunter
Newbie
xpanded said:Hello everybody!
I am considering buying an R-D1s and I think I have read most if not all postings from the archive here and a lot of stuff elsewhere. There is one thing left, however, that I am a little concerned about. Having been raised on a diet of AF (my first SLR was a Minolta 7000 back in 1987) I embraced manual focusing with some caution and had, for instance, huge troubles with a Minolta XG-1. But on my Xpan it just snaps into focus no problem.
Since there has been quite some talk on problems with the R-D1's rangefinder I came to think if some of this was due to problems with actually matching up the double images in the viewfinder?I) Has anybody tried an R-D1/s as well as an Xpan/Fuji and can comment on the ease of manual focusing on the R-D1?I use glasses but understand that people have very different experiences with that and the R-D1/s. There are no more R-D1/s in my country so I will have to buy via the net from abroad with, unfortunately, a no return policy so it is a potential deal breaker if I cannot get the hang of focusing.
Further I would like to pair it with a Voigtländer 35mm Color Skopar PII f:2.5 - mostly for its small size and as far as I can judge very decent output.
II) Does anybody use this lens with gloves on and can tell me if it is possible to adjust aperture and focusing or if it turns into a hassle?Looking forward to hearing from you and thanks for a lot of very interesting postings in this very, if not the most, civil forum on photography
Cheers
Karspoul
Hi, I have owned both the X-pan II and Epson R-D1s and they both focus well.
The X-pan II took incredible pictures, I just was not in the mood for the long wait times processing, the high fees scanning and additional labor cutting every picture apart from the next one.
So I looked into digital. The Epson R-D1s is far less money than the Leica M8 and Leica lenses so I bought a Zeiss ZM series lens for my Epson. It works great now. I get to see what I'm doing right now and fine tune the results.
The difference was the number of frames, by the dozen with the X-pan and by the hundred with the Epson. Much more productive.
The only problem I encountered was the Zeiss lens I bought was loose and at first I thought the rangefinder was out of calibration and almost sent it in. Turns out the last element was unscrewed a little making it impossible to focus. Check that your new lenses are tightened down!
Happy shooting,
William
jbrough
Member
I currently own an Xpan and an RD1, and find they both focus well (I wear glasses too). I love the Xpan but also have the process/scan/print impatience problem, so I bought a Voigtlander 15/4.5 Heliar for the RD and it covers about the same horizontal field of view as the Xpan 45mm lens. So, not quite up to the same resolution, but the RD1 with the Heliar is rapidly becoming my digital Xpan 'replacement' - with the added bonus of flexible vertical framing.
Anyway, I heartily encourage you to buy an RD1 - it has renewed my enthusiasm for phototography and really is a fantastic camera.
Anyway, I heartily encourage you to buy an RD1 - it has renewed my enthusiasm for phototography and really is a fantastic camera.
--
Well-known
William Hunter said:
I usually shoot transparencies, have them develop, cut them, scan one half in a dedicated film scanner, turn the slide, scan the other half, turn it 180 degrees and merge them. It is reasonably easy and gives good results - for max quality I have a print made from the slight in a pro shop so do not spend money on pro scanning.
William Hunter said:
Extremely useful advice - have never encounted such a problem but will check my Xpan lenses just to be sure!
Well, the R-D1s itch is definitely there
--
Well-known
Very reassuring - thanks!jbrough said:
Do you use an external viewfinder for framing? It really does look like an interesting lens and the wide view must be phenomenal!jbrough said:
Well, hopefully (and if I have been a good boy :angeljbrough said:
I will scoop up one on Monday.Thanks,
Karspoul
Jim Watts
Still trying to See.
I also wear glasses and I have both an XPan (45mm & 90mm) lenses and an R-D1 (various lenses from 21mm - 90mm). In general both focus easily without problems. The XPan is probably the more accurate because of the longer rangefinder base, but slightly slower to focus because of the slightly slower rotational action of the lenses. With most lenses on the R-D1 I can bring the rangefinder into alingment more quicley (particularly with tabbed lenses), but more care is needed to achieve accurate focus with apertures wider than F2.8 on the longer lenses because of the shorter rangefinder base & 1.5X crop factor.
I don't have the 35mm Colour Skopar P11 , but I doub't you would have any problems with it. I have the wider apertured 35mm Cron (f2) & 40mm Nokton (f1.4), the Cron has some front focus issues close up and wide open, specific to the collimation of that lens and R-D1 body, its not a general problem. My R-D1 rangefinder was accurate on purchase and has remained so for nearly 3 years, but others have reported alignment problems even from new. There is though a fairly easy DIY fix (see Rich C's FAQ : http://www.richcutler.co.uk/r-d1/r-d1_16.htm).
It is worth getting the seller to check for rangefinder and frameline accuracy, before shipping if possible and then carrying out a focus check on any intended lens/body combinations to see if best focus is being achived when you get the camera.
I don't have the 35mm Colour Skopar P11 , but I doub't you would have any problems with it. I have the wider apertured 35mm Cron (f2) & 40mm Nokton (f1.4), the Cron has some front focus issues close up and wide open, specific to the collimation of that lens and R-D1 body, its not a general problem. My R-D1 rangefinder was accurate on purchase and has remained so for nearly 3 years, but others have reported alignment problems even from new. There is though a fairly easy DIY fix (see Rich C's FAQ : http://www.richcutler.co.uk/r-d1/r-d1_16.htm).
It is worth getting the seller to check for rangefinder and frameline accuracy, before shipping if possible and then carrying out a focus check on any intended lens/body combinations to see if best focus is being achived when you get the camera.
Last edited:
Tuolumne
Veteran
I have both the Xpan I and the R-D1s and wear glasses (20/400 vision without, so I am very near sighted and being 60 have presbeopia, too!). I have no problem focusing either camera. As has been said, the R-D1s is easy to focus, but critical focus is sometimes hard to achieve with very fast lenses because of the relatively short rf base and 1.5x crop factor. You can use one of the 3rd party Leica 1.5x eyepiece magnifiers to improve this situation. The R-D1 comes with a rubber eye ring on the eyepeice to protect your glasses, but it sometimes falls off. Make sure you use it or you will scratch your glasses beyond belief without it. It's the same rubber eye ring that the CV cameras use, so if you loose it, it is easy to replace.
Let me second the high praise for the R-D1s others have given. It takes really lovely shots straight out of the camera, and I do mean JPGs. That and the high quality lenses available for it make it a dream digital rf to me.
/T
P.S. Let me add that I just use an Epson 4990 flat bed scanner to scan Xpan negatives. I haven't tried the process of using a 35mm scanner and flipping the negative, but the flat bed works fine for me. You also don't have to trim every negative with a flat bed, but can just slide in a strip of negs into the flat bed's film holder. If you have a problem with curling you can get the anti-newton rings glass from betterscanning.com. I have used their products but haven't seen as big a differnece with them on the Xpan negatives as with medium format negatives.
Let me second the high praise for the R-D1s others have given. It takes really lovely shots straight out of the camera, and I do mean JPGs. That and the high quality lenses available for it make it a dream digital rf to me.
/T
P.S. Let me add that I just use an Epson 4990 flat bed scanner to scan Xpan negatives. I haven't tried the process of using a 35mm scanner and flipping the negative, but the flat bed works fine for me. You also don't have to trim every negative with a flat bed, but can just slide in a strip of negs into the flat bed's film holder. If you have a problem with curling you can get the anti-newton rings glass from betterscanning.com. I have used their products but haven't seen as big a differnece with them on the Xpan negatives as with medium format negatives.
Last edited:
--
Well-known
Jim Watts said:
I have read that quite a few times now, but why is that so? As you know the Xpan are not all that fast....
Thanks for the suggestion - they volunteered that information up front being their standard procedure when I asked various questions so that is quite reassuringJim Watts said:
.--
Well-known
Thanks - you probably just saved me a pair of glassesTuolumne said:
I am sure it is much easier your wayTuolumne said:
. But I got the 35mm scanner first and have not got space for a flat bed although could really use it for medium format. Oh, and real ICE would be cool It is a chore removing dust. The scanner I have is a Minolta Dual Scan III - the transparency holders do a fairly good job.--
Well-known
Thanks to all of you who answered my thread. I am 99.9% ready to go. I have now mailed Epson and asked them to state for how long time they will guarantee repair (naturally against payment in £$€). I think (but maybe the force is stronger than me ) the balance is three years. If they will guarantee that I will buy; and maybe I will buy anyway...
Hopefully they will answer soon and I can give a little knowledge back to the forum.
Happy shooting all of you - cheers
Karspoul
) the balance is three years. If they will guarantee that I will buy; and maybe I will buy anyway...Hopefully they will answer soon and I can give a little knowledge back to the forum.
Happy shooting all of you - cheers
Karspoul
Last edited:
Jim Watts
Still trying to See.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Watts
but more care is needed to achieve accurate focus with apertures wider than F2.8
I have read that quite a few times now, but why is that so? As you know the Xpan are not all that fast.... Quote.
Longer focal length lenses (or equvalent in higher sensor multiplying factor) and wider apetures decreases depth of field for the same degree of enlargement. The accuracy with which you can focus a rangefinder camera is mainly dependant on the effective base length of the rangefinder. The longer the better (an increased magnification factor or supplementary magnifier helps). See explanation here: http://www.richcutler.co.uk/r-d1/r-d1_05.htm or search the many threads on this for further info.
I personally regard the figures for focal length and apertures for lenses on the R-D1 on this page, although possible with care, as a little optimistic as they are difficult to achieve consistently with non static subjects. Hence my perhaps too general caution of care needed below f2.8 (no specific focal lengths). If I remember correctly Epson only claim and set the rangefinder accuracy using a 35mm lens at f3.5, so it may need tweaking to better this.
I can achieve focus of my 35mm Nokton @ f1.4, my 50mm Cron at f2 and my 90mm Tele-Elmarit @ f2.8, on my R-D1, but I prefer to have a stop or two in hand if the light allows. I get greater consistancy with my Leica M4 (although one has to be cautious about memory here because of the greater time gap to see the results.
The XPan has three things in its favour;
1. Greater rangefinder base length.
2. Lenses of less critical apertures. F4 and smaller.
3. You are less likely to enlarge to the same degree (ie. because the longest length of the Xpans panoramic negative is like starting with a 6 x 7 negative).
Originally Posted by Jim Watts
but more care is needed to achieve accurate focus with apertures wider than F2.8
I have read that quite a few times now, but why is that so? As you know the Xpan are not all that fast.... Quote.
Longer focal length lenses (or equvalent in higher sensor multiplying factor) and wider apetures decreases depth of field for the same degree of enlargement. The accuracy with which you can focus a rangefinder camera is mainly dependant on the effective base length of the rangefinder. The longer the better (an increased magnification factor or supplementary magnifier helps). See explanation here: http://www.richcutler.co.uk/r-d1/r-d1_05.htm or search the many threads on this for further info.
I personally regard the figures for focal length and apertures for lenses on the R-D1 on this page, although possible with care, as a little optimistic as they are difficult to achieve consistently with non static subjects. Hence my perhaps too general caution of care needed below f2.8 (no specific focal lengths). If I remember correctly Epson only claim and set the rangefinder accuracy using a 35mm lens at f3.5, so it may need tweaking to better this.
I can achieve focus of my 35mm Nokton @ f1.4, my 50mm Cron at f2 and my 90mm Tele-Elmarit @ f2.8, on my R-D1, but I prefer to have a stop or two in hand if the light allows. I get greater consistancy with my Leica M4 (although one has to be cautious about memory here because of the greater time gap to see the results.
The XPan has three things in its favour;
1. Greater rangefinder base length.
2. Lenses of less critical apertures. F4 and smaller.
3. You are less likely to enlarge to the same degree (ie. because the longest length of the Xpans panoramic negative is like starting with a 6 x 7 negative).
Last edited:
--
Well-known
Jim Watts said:Quote:
That is indeed a great information page - even I understood it
Does anybody know a book or series of books that go into details about rangefinder construction, lens design/construction etc. (in English only). Perhaps not on ph.d. level (I did choose computing because you only had to know 10 things there...) but not too mundane either.
Thanks
Karsten