75 lux @ f2 photos with RD1

That's odd, I set them as viewable externally. The shots are from a group lunch meetup from there, so I promised folks I would only post there, but the settings fb gives you allows anyone, non-fb members to view, which is what I thought I set. I'll check it over the weekend, and test, and if it's a but will have a fb developer notified asap.

btw, the lunch was at a company called Blurb, some of you might know of them, or have used them to have books made of your prints. They did the M8 user group's book, and quite a few books they have around the office are from amateur and pro photographers.
 
Thanks Carl

Thanks Carl

I'm getting pretty good with the 75 on the RD1 using just the 50 framelines and guessing or chimping for the first frame if close up. However, using F2 and slower eases things.

This lens is ideal for a film m body, or maybe an M8 if there are lines for it.


cmogi10 said:
Cool stuff

I want my 75 lux back...soon hopefully.
 
Since my lenses and cameras are perfectly calibrated, shooting at f1.4 is a non-issue.
Besides, I very much doubt you can see a great difference, as you state, from shooting at f2 (versus 1.4). What you're seeing is probably a jump in image quality and not an extended DOF. At least not in the shooting distances you're showing us.
 
Last edited:
Addl. 75 lux @ 1.4

Addl. 75 lux @ 1.4

Ned, take a look at these:

http://matsumura.smugmug.com/gallery/4353480_KxbjR#255483561

These were all at 1.4 on the RD1, don't you think a few more would be in focus if I were at f2?


NB23 said:
Since my lenses and cameras are perfectly calibrated, shooting at f1.4 is a non-issue.
Besides, I very much doubt you can see a great difference, as you state, from shooting at f2 (versus 1.4). What you're seeing is probably a jump in image quality and not an extended DOF. At least not in the shooting distances you're showing us.
 
ampguy said:
Ned, take a look at these:

http://matsumura.smugmug.com/gallery/4353480_KxbjR#255483561

These were all at 1.4 on the RD1, don't you think a few more would be in focus if I were at f2?

Strictly in focus (as opposed to sharper)? Some of them, maybe. But many are already in focus. Many others would't even be in focus at f2.8. And some others suffer from camera shake.
It also depends on the focus shift. I had my sample calibrated for sharp focus at f1.4. You have to know how behaves your personal sample.

Look, if you're focusing at 10 feet, you will get 0.3 feet dof Versus 0.42 dof if you're shooting at f2. You have to define if an additional 0.12 feet of dof would be enough for your subjects to be in focus or not.
 
Take for example numbers 32, 33, 35, and 39 (among many others): They would't be in focus even at f5.6. so what does this tell you? It tells me you have to be more careful, as a start.
 
Back
Top Bottom