antonio
Newbie
I'm considering to buy a second-hand rd-1, but I have some doubts about the use of lenses conceived for the 35mm on an APS-C camera.
In order to reach the best performance, one should always mount lenses designed for the film/sensor format actually in use. At this regard, I tried recently some wonderful Contax lenses (Zeiss) on a four-thirds camera, but I was very disappointed about the results of the test, particularly at wide apertures.
In principle, a lens designed for APS-C sensors needs much more sharpeness than an analogous lens for the full frame format. So I am wondering if a similar effect could arise on rd-1 when 35mm lenses are used. Maybe in this case the low resolution of the rd-1 sensor may be an advantage, because the photosites are larger ...but I'm not sure about that. To make it worse, we have to consider also that most of the lenses with the type M bayonette come from old optical projects.
Generally speaking, what do you think about the performance of the old type M lenses on the rd-1? Can the reduced size of the sensor affect their performances? For a given lens, will be the loss of sharpness appreciable with respect to the use of the same lens on the 35mm format? Please note that sharpness is for me the most important factor in evaluating a lens.
Thank you in advance.
In order to reach the best performance, one should always mount lenses designed for the film/sensor format actually in use. At this regard, I tried recently some wonderful Contax lenses (Zeiss) on a four-thirds camera, but I was very disappointed about the results of the test, particularly at wide apertures.
In principle, a lens designed for APS-C sensors needs much more sharpeness than an analogous lens for the full frame format. So I am wondering if a similar effect could arise on rd-1 when 35mm lenses are used. Maybe in this case the low resolution of the rd-1 sensor may be an advantage, because the photosites are larger ...but I'm not sure about that. To make it worse, we have to consider also that most of the lenses with the type M bayonette come from old optical projects.
Generally speaking, what do you think about the performance of the old type M lenses on the rd-1? Can the reduced size of the sensor affect their performances? For a given lens, will be the loss of sharpness appreciable with respect to the use of the same lens on the 35mm format? Please note that sharpness is for me the most important factor in evaluating a lens.
Thank you in advance.
abumac
Well-known
The crop makes images sharper. You will use only the central part of the lens. And it is where the lenses have there best part. I have a 1,4/35 from Leica from the 70th and it work very wellopn R-D1s and on M8. Even better then on film.
antonio
Newbie
Hi abumac, thank you for your prompt reply 
.
You are absolutely right for what concerns optical aberrations. In fact, such aberrations increase as the distance from the optic axis becomes larger, so the central part of the image is the least affected and small sensor benefits a lot from that.
But sharpness is a very different matter. Reaching an acceptable level of sharpness is by far more difficult for small sensors because they work on the lower part of the MTF curve.
This is the theory, but I asked you about the practice! It seems unbelievable to me that your Leica 1,4/35 works on APS-C better then on film. If so, I should really consider to buy the R-D1!
Thank you again!
.You are absolutely right for what concerns optical aberrations. In fact, such aberrations increase as the distance from the optic axis becomes larger, so the central part of the image is the least affected and small sensor benefits a lot from that.
But sharpness is a very different matter. Reaching an acceptable level of sharpness is by far more difficult for small sensors because they work on the lower part of the MTF curve.
This is the theory, but I asked you about the practice! It seems unbelievable to me that your Leica 1,4/35 works on APS-C better then on film. If so, I should really consider to buy the R-D1!
Thank you again!
P
polaski
Guest
Answer and question
Answer and question
1. I've been using older Pentax lenses on DSLRs and have been pleased with the results. (Of course, since I am usually at fault for poor photographs, I rarely complain about equipment.)
2. In considering the Epson R-D1, I am concerned about the long term viability of the camera body. It was limited run, with no apparent plans for additional units, and what I've read about support and repair isn't encouraging.
That said, I have a CV Bessa L and a CV Bessa R that I really like, with good LTM glass (including a nice, small 35mm f/1.7), so, the R-D1 looks like an attractive way to use a rangefinder. I like rangefinders, always have. I've gone digital in SLR, and just got a Canon G9 as a (sort of) digital "rangefinder". Yet, there's that R-D1 possibility, but I don't want to spend a couple of thousand dollars on a body that I won't be able to have serviced in the future.
Answer and question
1. I've been using older Pentax lenses on DSLRs and have been pleased with the results. (Of course, since I am usually at fault for poor photographs, I rarely complain about equipment.)
2. In considering the Epson R-D1, I am concerned about the long term viability of the camera body. It was limited run, with no apparent plans for additional units, and what I've read about support and repair isn't encouraging.
That said, I have a CV Bessa L and a CV Bessa R that I really like, with good LTM glass (including a nice, small 35mm f/1.7), so, the R-D1 looks like an attractive way to use a rangefinder. I like rangefinders, always have. I've gone digital in SLR, and just got a Canon G9 as a (sort of) digital "rangefinder". Yet, there's that R-D1 possibility, but I don't want to spend a couple of thousand dollars on a body that I won't be able to have serviced in the future.
ferider
Veteran
To fully utilize the 6 MPixel APS sized sensor of the RD-1 you need
about 50 l/mm performance from the lens. Any more is overkill.
Most high quality older lenses and newer lenses can do that in the center.
Best,
Roland.
about 50 l/mm performance from the lens. Any more is overkill.
Most high quality older lenses and newer lenses can do that in the center.
Best,
Roland.
thirteen
Established
Here's a good article on a wide number of lenses used with the RD-1 http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/fastlensreview.shtml
antonio
Newbie
Okay, Roland. Maybe this is the reason why no upgrade of the R-D1 is expected for the future. Increasing the actual sensor resolution will inevitably lead to the unusability of all the old Type-M lenses!ferider said:
Many thanks to thirteen for the very interesting link!
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
antonio said:
In practice, I've used a number of 35mm-format lenses on the R-D 1 with what I consider to be excellent results. In general the image quality is better than other 6-megapixel cameras I've tried.
It's all very well to talk about theoretical considerations, but when talking about "loss of sharpness... with respect to the use of the same lens on the 35mm format," the important question is... compared to what?
There is no digital camera that has both an M- or LTM- lens mount AND a 24x36mm sensor, so you can't compare the performance of a lens on the R-D 1 to its performance on a 35mm-format digital camera. And there are no M-mount or LTM lenses available in both 24x36 and APS-C coverages, so you can't compare two versions of a lens to see if the extra coverage has any negative effect.
Meanwhile, if you compare results from the R-D 1 to the results from a film camera, you don't know how much of the difference is attributable to the lens and how much is attributable to the differences between film and digital, and differences in how you get your film into a format that can be compared to a digital image (scan and print? scan and view on a monitor? or what?)
The upshot of all this is that it would be very difficult to devise a valid way of proving OR disproving the proposition that "Lens X performs less well on an R-D 1 because of its excess format coverage."
If you just look at results, then... yes, there are a lot of M-mount and LTM lenses that can produce very sharp-looking images on an R-D 1.
Didier
"Deed"
The crop factor is a fact and I wouldn't bother too much. If you want sharpness and contrast, go for a newer lens, if you want a more old fashioned look, go for the old glass.
Most 35mm M and LTM lenses work well on the R-D1. The Jupiter-12 shows quite some vignetting, the 35 Nokton intrudes a bit into the viewfinder (but it's still acceptable), and all others I have used (Canon 35/2, Summilux 35/1.4 asph, Color Skopar 35/2.5 P-1, Ultron 35/1.7, W-Nikkor-C 35/2.5) gave good results.
Couldn't recommend which one is best for you as only you can know it.
Didier
Most 35mm M and LTM lenses work well on the R-D1. The Jupiter-12 shows quite some vignetting, the 35 Nokton intrudes a bit into the viewfinder (but it's still acceptable), and all others I have used (Canon 35/2, Summilux 35/1.4 asph, Color Skopar 35/2.5 P-1, Ultron 35/1.7, W-Nikkor-C 35/2.5) gave good results.
Couldn't recommend which one is best for you as only you can know it.
Didier
thirteen
Established
Here's a second very interesting article (field report) on 35mm and wider lenses on the RD-1. Hope it helps http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/rd-1-lens.shtml
foto_fool
Well-known
I'm still of the opinion that the Konica UC-Hexanon 35/2 is the best lens pairing on the R-D1 I have made yet - even better than the Summilux 35 ASPH.
This shot was done at f4 with the UC-Hex. Even sampled down to 798px here it has "acceptable" sharpness IMO. The original file is wicked sharp on a 21" monitor or printed at 8x10.
- John
This shot was done at f4 with the UC-Hex. Even sampled down to 798px here it has "acceptable" sharpness IMO. The original file is wicked sharp on a 21" monitor or printed at 8x10.
- John
antonio
Newbie
Jlw, from a methodological point of view you are right and I perfectly agree with you. But sometimes the feeling of an experienced photographer can be quite enough.jlw said:
Recently I mounted some Carl Zeiss lenses on my Olympus camera with a fourthird 10 Mpix sensor, by means of a lens adapter and I can say that the results were very unsatisfactory at wide apertures. My judgement was only based on my expectation after many years passed using the same lenses on a Contax.
Of course I perfectly understand that it wasn't a reliable test based upon scientific criteria!
LCT
ex-newbie
I've used 'old types' on both film Ms and R-D1/R-D1s, i.e. the 'king of bokeh' Summicron-M 35/2 IV and a late pre-asph Summilux 35/1.4. My general feeling is that the signature of the lenses remains the same i.e. when they are smooth with fim (35/1.4 at f/1.4 for example) the results remain so with the Epson's and that i get the same feeling of sharpness at f/5.6 or f/8 for instance with both film and digital. Dito for bokeh and color rendition as well. Now i am not a sharpness maniac and i'm not interested in theories that much so take what i say with a pinch of subjective salt.antonio said:
LCT
ex-newbie
Same for non-35mm lenses. For instance my favourite (late) pre-asph 50/1.4 and 40/2 remain so with the R-D1 for the same reasons.
antonio
Newbie
Let me try to summarize below what you have told me in the previous posts of this interesting discussion:
1) Nobody considers that the use of the 35mm Type-M lenses gives rise to a perceivable degradation in the sharpness of the actual R-D1 images, despite the small sensor surface.
2) This seems mainly due to the low resolution of the R-D1 sensor. As Roland said, 50 l/mm are enough to fully utilize a 6 Mpix APS-C sensor.
3) No significant upgrade of the R-D1 is expected for the future. In fact, at greater sensor resolution the use of the old Type-M lenses would become unsatisfactory. At 10 or 12 Mpix, new lenses exclusively devoted to R-D1 should be designed and produced (as the case of the Olympus 4/3 system).
Thank you again to everybody.
1) Nobody considers that the use of the 35mm Type-M lenses gives rise to a perceivable degradation in the sharpness of the actual R-D1 images, despite the small sensor surface.
2) This seems mainly due to the low resolution of the R-D1 sensor. As Roland said, 50 l/mm are enough to fully utilize a 6 Mpix APS-C sensor.
3) No significant upgrade of the R-D1 is expected for the future. In fact, at greater sensor resolution the use of the old Type-M lenses would become unsatisfactory. At 10 or 12 Mpix, new lenses exclusively devoted to R-D1 should be designed and produced (as the case of the Olympus 4/3 system).
Thank you again to everybody.
Last edited:
LCT
ex-newbie
Who said this? What you call 'old type-M' lenses give superb results with film and with the M8 as well. Same for R lenses with the DMR or full frame DSLRs.antonio said:
JT2007
Established
Does anyone have any experience with the Flektogon 35mm lens with R-D1? Or is it strictly SLR?
Last edited:
antonio
Newbie
Maybe I was wrong, but I really think that a lens should always be used on the same film/sensor format for which it was designed. Using lenses conceived for larger format usually leads to unsatisfactory results on smaller formats (at least in terms of sharpness).LCT said:
Smaller sensors need better lenses if you want to make everything smaller with the same detail. Small sensors work on the lower part of the MTF curve so it becomes more and more difficult to reach a good level of sharpness. Moreover, digital sensors need to receive the light perpendicularly to their surface, whereas films are not sensible to light direction.
For these reasons APS-C systems have their own lenses, and using 35 mm lenses for that systems is just a stopgap. For instance, Nikon and Canon offer in their catalogues two different lens series for full frame and APS-C cameras.
Why it shouldn't be so for the R-D1 as well?
-
Last edited:
LCT
ex-newbie
No no special lenses for APS are not better than 24x36 ones in any way. They may be smaller, lighter, cheaper but certainly not sharper or with less distorsion or vignetting per se. For instance the best lenses i use with my APS Nikon DSLRs are 24x36 lenses actually.
BTW all the Leica (M & R) lenses are 'full frame' i.e. 24x36 as you know.
BTW all the Leica (M & R) lenses are 'full frame' i.e. 24x36 as you know.
Last edited:
foto_fool
Well-known
Antonio - I understand your concerns. I plumped for an adapter to use my favorite Olympus primes on my E-300 and the results were really unacceptable - especially at wide apertures. Just awful. The adapter instructions clearly stated that wide apertures won't work.
This is just a non-issue for the R-D1 (or the M8 SFAIK). I don't completely understand the differences in the optical coupling between these RF bodies and the DSLRs, but the M-mount and adapter-mounted LTM lenses produce sharp images - even at wide apertures - that are the equal of all but the most outrageously large scans of film.
I mean, there is no comparison between shots with my E-300 and OM 50/1.2 @ f4 (as recommended) and shots with my R-D1 and, say, ZM Sonnar @ f1.5. In theory you are right about the desirability of lens design being optimized for a particular sensor size. But really, reality trumps theory every time. Just look at images made with the M8 and "old" lenses. Really. Sharpness problems? I think not. Really.
- John
This is just a non-issue for the R-D1 (or the M8 SFAIK). I don't completely understand the differences in the optical coupling between these RF bodies and the DSLRs, but the M-mount and adapter-mounted LTM lenses produce sharp images - even at wide apertures - that are the equal of all but the most outrageously large scans of film.
I mean, there is no comparison between shots with my E-300 and OM 50/1.2 @ f4 (as recommended) and shots with my R-D1 and, say, ZM Sonnar @ f1.5. In theory you are right about the desirability of lens design being optimized for a particular sensor size. But really, reality trumps theory every time. Just look at images made with the M8 and "old" lenses. Really. Sharpness problems? I think not. Really.
- John