Ponsoldt
Established
I just got the R-d1. Previously I have been shooting with the MP. I have not yet been able to reproduce the wonderful bokeh that I had on the MP. I have also noticed that I do not see as many shots with bokeh from the r-d1. I was thinking it might have something to do with the crop factor of 1.5. But, I am using a 35mm summicron 4th edition in the attached shot at f2. So I would think it would give me similar bokeh to a50mm. Anyone know why, have similar experience?
Bill
ps I tried to post a shot but I am in a hotel and apparently they limit my uploading ability
Bill
ps I tried to post a shot but I am in a hotel and apparently they limit my uploading ability
pfogle
Well-known
I would have to say that trying to work out the effect of the crop factor is a thorny, and subjective issue.
However, a simple way to assess the bokeh, is to shoot the identical scene with the same lens on both bodies at the same aperture.
Then enlarge the central 2/3 of the image from the MP and compare same size prints. You'll immediately see if there's any real difference in quality.
However, a simple way to assess the bokeh, is to shoot the identical scene with the same lens on both bodies at the same aperture.
Then enlarge the central 2/3 of the image from the MP and compare same size prints. You'll immediately see if there's any real difference in quality.
mountainrivera
Established
Not sure how this stacks-up to your bokeh expectations. I used a 35 lux, I think at 2.0. Can't recall.
http://www.pbase.com/mountainrivera/image/72423294
http://www.pbase.com/mountainrivera/image/72423294
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
I've likewise noticed that the out-of-focus effects produced by my R-D 1 are somewhat different from those of the same lens on a film camera... not necessarily worse, just different.
I don't think the "crop factor" has anything to do with it, since that's just analogous to printing a slightly smaller area out of the center of a 35mm negative. If you took a 35mm negative you liked and trimmed it down to 13x19mm, you'd expect the remaining area still to have the same "bokeh," right?
I suspect the real reasons the images look different are some combination of:
-- The effect of the microlenses over the sensor; these actually constitute a separate optical system in your image chain, and have to be expected to have some effect.
-- The effect of the fact that a digital sensor isn't continuously sensitive across its surface, the way film it, but only samples the image cast by the lens in discrete "pits" spaced a definite distance apart. "Bokeh" effects are caused in part by the effects of out-of-focus light rays being scattered across the image, and you can't expect these rays to have the same effect if some of them fall into non-sensitive areas.
It just takes experimentation to see what effects your lenses will produce. The upside is that you may find some of your lenses produce images you like better when used on the R-D 1.
I don't think the "crop factor" has anything to do with it, since that's just analogous to printing a slightly smaller area out of the center of a 35mm negative. If you took a 35mm negative you liked and trimmed it down to 13x19mm, you'd expect the remaining area still to have the same "bokeh," right?
I suspect the real reasons the images look different are some combination of:
-- The effect of the microlenses over the sensor; these actually constitute a separate optical system in your image chain, and have to be expected to have some effect.
-- The effect of the fact that a digital sensor isn't continuously sensitive across its surface, the way film it, but only samples the image cast by the lens in discrete "pits" spaced a definite distance apart. "Bokeh" effects are caused in part by the effects of out-of-focus light rays being scattered across the image, and you can't expect these rays to have the same effect if some of them fall into non-sensitive areas.
It just takes experimentation to see what effects your lenses will produce. The upside is that you may find some of your lenses produce images you like better when used on the R-D 1.
LCT
ex-newbie
Each lens has its own out of focus rendition of course.Ponsoldt said:
Your 35/2 IV might be compared to a Summicron 50/2 # 11819 or a pre-asph Summilux 50/1.4 as far as bokeh but not a CV 40/1.4 or a 'lux 50/1.4asph for instance.
Also there is a difference coming from the depth of field of those lenses on film and digital cameras.
For example your 35/2 at f/2 on a R-D1 will not have the same DoF as that of a 50/2 at f/2 but at f/2.8 on a Leica M.
Now all in all a smooth bokeh with film remains smooth with digital and you will still be happy with your 'king of bokeh' lens on the R-D1 you can trust me.
geoabbott
Member
Ponsoldt
Established
LCT
ex-newbie
Because of formulas likePonsoldt said:
You might also try a DoF calculator like this one:
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
barjohn
Established
Both of those images appear to be slightly out of focus, even on the subject matter, to me. Or is it supposed to be that soft?
Gid
Well-known
geoabbott
Member
The people shot I took was at 1/7 handheld and a quick one at that; it could very well be slightly ot of focus.
barjohn
Established
I have been having a hard time getting really sharp focused images and I was wondering if it was me, my lense (Minolta 40/2), or the camera/rangefinder. I was hoping to see some examples that were tack sharp of the subject with the background/foreground out of focus. The pictures by GID above show one that is soft (the first) and one that appears better (the second) but given the small size it is hard to tell how good it really is.
LCT
ex-newbie
You're not alone, we must be 2 or 3 like you on this forum.barjohn said:
Comes from the lens as far as my copy is concerned (CLE version).
No problem with the Summicron-C 40/2 though.
LCT
ex-newbie
R-D1, Summicron 35/2 IV, full frame and 100% crop at f/2.8 (raw, 200 iso).
rvaubel
Well-known
Ponsoldt said:
This is a real hard concept to get your head around. I have succeeded at times but then lost it. But practically speaking, on a reduced frame camera (1.5x in this case) use one F stop larger to get the same bokeh effect. Don't ask why or you will lose your mind.
Rex
geoabbott
Member
Ponsoldt
Established
barjohn
Established
LCT and geoabbott have shown what I expected but not what I am getting. I am going to try and run some precise tests to verify exactly what my problem is. If it is the lense, then I will try and get the seller to take it back. I have a second lense on its way and can see if it is a lense issue for sure once it arrives (hopefully tomorrow).
barjohn
Established
After more reading and finding some great test ideas here is what I have found.
The vertical alignment was off just enough to make focusing difficult. The simple but very effective test for infinity and vertical alignment is to focus on a star. As you bring the images into coincidence you can readily see if they overlap and whether one is high or low. Works better than any of the other methods mentioned here including the cross and plus separated by 38.2mm. Then I found removing the hotshoe is pretty easy if you take your time and see what is happening with the cover plate. Adjusting the screw is the next tricky part. Unfortunately, Epson/Cosina did not use a micrometer threaded adjustment screw but instead use what is a relatively coarse threaded screw. This means a very tiny change, almost imperceptible will move the vertical alignment up or down. It takes several iterations to get it spot on. Once you do, it really helps the focusing effort.
I then used the cans in a diagonal row and focused on the center can using the 40/2 wide open. I also took a test shot focusing on the can in front and the can behind. Everyone of them came out sharp as a tack on the focused can and the others were out of focus as would be expected with a DOF of .72 inches in front and .84 inches behind or a total DOF of 1.56 inches for this lens on this camera.
Finally, I did the print head on shot to test for reading print in focus and again it is right on.
Lesson learned: These fast lenses have such a shallow DOF that the RF has to be right on and your focus must be accurate or the image will be blurred. Now to test DOF at various f stops. I will now know if the lense is ok because I know everything else is fine.
The vertical alignment was off just enough to make focusing difficult. The simple but very effective test for infinity and vertical alignment is to focus on a star. As you bring the images into coincidence you can readily see if they overlap and whether one is high or low. Works better than any of the other methods mentioned here including the cross and plus separated by 38.2mm. Then I found removing the hotshoe is pretty easy if you take your time and see what is happening with the cover plate. Adjusting the screw is the next tricky part. Unfortunately, Epson/Cosina did not use a micrometer threaded adjustment screw but instead use what is a relatively coarse threaded screw. This means a very tiny change, almost imperceptible will move the vertical alignment up or down. It takes several iterations to get it spot on. Once you do, it really helps the focusing effort.
I then used the cans in a diagonal row and focused on the center can using the 40/2 wide open. I also took a test shot focusing on the can in front and the can behind. Everyone of them came out sharp as a tack on the focused can and the others were out of focus as would be expected with a DOF of .72 inches in front and .84 inches behind or a total DOF of 1.56 inches for this lens on this camera.
Finally, I did the print head on shot to test for reading print in focus and again it is right on.
Lesson learned: These fast lenses have such a shallow DOF that the RF has to be right on and your focus must be accurate or the image will be blurred. Now to test DOF at various f stops. I will now know if the lense is ok because I know everything else is fine.
R
RML
Guest
You will only get tack sharp images when you shoot on a tripod, with a properly calibrated lens for the camera at hand, and with short shutter times (to avoid motion blur).
IMO it's a fallacy to be looking for this perfect setup.
No doubt the bokeh of a lens is different when used on the R-D1 or the M8. Does it matter? To some, yes. To others, no. And since bokeh is largely a subjective quality at best, I see little use in trying to "determine" the bokeh of a lens for sure. Either you like it, or you don't. If you don't, you'll have to look around for a different lens or use your lens on a camera that will give you the wished for bokeh. Choose the right tool (camera body and medium) for the job at hand (the creation of the wanted bokeh).
IMO it's a fallacy to be looking for this perfect setup.
No doubt the bokeh of a lens is different when used on the R-D1 or the M8. Does it matter? To some, yes. To others, no. And since bokeh is largely a subjective quality at best, I see little use in trying to "determine" the bokeh of a lens for sure. Either you like it, or you don't. If you don't, you'll have to look around for a different lens or use your lens on a camera that will give you the wished for bokeh. Choose the right tool (camera body and medium) for the job at hand (the creation of the wanted bokeh).