Another review, and some thoughts.

vincentbenoit said:
Same here. Having to use an auxiliary viewfinder for any field-of-view wider than that of a 53mm lens on 24x36 film is the primary reason why the R-D1 is not for me.
Vincent
Click to expand...


Why 53mm Vincent?
We don't need external VFs for 28mm lenses fortunately i.e. 42mm roughly.
Best,
LCT
 
vincentbenoit said:
Same here. Having to use an auxiliary viewfinder for any field-of-view wider than that of a 53mm lens on 24x36 film is the primary reason why the R-D1 is not for me.
Vincent
Click to expand...

Hi Vincent,

Do you wear glasses? If not, you can see the equivalent of a 42mm FOV in the R-D1 finder. Of course, the FOV limits of that finder have nothing (directly) to do with sensor size; it's the 1:1 finder mag that creates the limitation (although I happen to love the 1:1 finder). If Epson offers a version of the R-D1 (same sensor, etc.) with a .72X finder then a 32mm FOV (from a 21mm lens) should be visible in the widest finder frame lines.

If you do wear glasses I can see why you wouldn't like a 1:1 finder.

Cheers,

Sean
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wear glasses as well but i use an eyepiece correction lens.
It's a Nikon model made for FA, FM2 and FE2 bodies.
It fits perfectly on the R-D1 and is available at B&H AFAIK.
FWIW
Best,
LCT
 
Hi Sean,
I do wear glasses. I once handled a Bessa R3A (whose viewfinder is similar to that of the R-D1, if I'm not mistaken) and I really couldn't see the outer framelines. Now if Epson were to offer a version of the R-D1 with a lower mag finder I would buy one immediately.
Cheers
Vincent
 
The viewfinder and "crop factor" on any digital RF (or DSLR) concern me, too. I like wide angle shooting, so it's problematic. Since I don't have an accurate crystal ball, I'll just have to buy the lenses that that work for the film body and hope for the best. For me, 25mm & 35mm would probably be my choices, and maybe a 50.
 
The QC issue isn't unheard of with Leica M6.

But it is almost unheard of with midpriced+ Nikon and Canon...and always has been.

IMO the ultimate has nothing to do with Leitz, it's a $1500 Canon G body (eg G6) with 12MP, Canon L glass (like Pro1) and 100% zooming tube finder (since bright frame seems undreamable).

2006?
 
I dont know about Canon L glass. When I had $7k in L glass I was disapointed greatly in it. I was VERY impressed with the digital Zuiko glass for the E1/E300, and of course I am VERY happy with my Lecia 50 Summilix Asph. But Canon L glass is overrated or I had three bad copies.

Steve

I am hoping Leica releases the DM with 10MP as they hinted at, along with the solid MP or M7 body and keep is sort of like the Rd1 where there is no digital display anywhere. I LOVE the manual analog controls of the RD1. The more Leica keeps the DM like and M the better IMO.

I actually want to buy an M, but feel I would never use it with the Rd1 around.
 
As I can see from a number of postings, there are more than couple of people who are "on the fence."

Won't it be great if we heard something from CZ, or Leica about a digital RF??

The endless speculation is delaying any decision on my part.

CZ, and Leica could benefit from newer sensor designs that might include improved micro lenses, and lower noise on chip amplifiers.

Time will tell.

Martin
 
SteveRD1 said:
I dont know about Canon L glass. When I had $7k in L glass I was disapointed greatly in it. I was VERY impressed with the digital Zuiko glass for the E1/E300, and of course I am VERY happy with my Lecia 50 Summilix Asph. But Canon L glass is overrated or I had three bad copies.

Steve

I am hoping Leica releases the DM with 10MP as they hinted at, along with the solid MP or M7 body and keep is sort of like the Rd1 where there is no digital display anywhere. I LOVE the manual analog controls of the RD1. The more Leica keeps the DM like and M the better IMO.

I actually want to buy an M, but feel I would never use it with the Rd1 around.
Click to expand...
Steve: I'm an OM guy, and the one thing that attracts me to an E-1 or E-300 or its successor(s) is the glass. While both bodies give good results, they do not have the image quality of the R-D1, IMO. I like the handling of the E-300 better than the E-1, but that is after only very casual comparison. If Olympus could produce a digital OM (incuding viewfinder!) that used the new ZD glass, and with the kind of image quality from an R-D1, I'd be there. Sadly, Maitani is retired from design. 🙁

Trius
 
As I have posted before, large CCD, or CMOS sensors are expensive, and at this time only available from Canon, and Kodak, and Dalsa. Kodak just halted production on their full frame DSLR. A full frame sensor would definitely assist the wide angle lenses by preserving the actual fov.

But, we all discuss the cost of the RD-1. Could we not complain about the cost of a full frame DRF ???

A rule of thumb was told to me about the true retail cost of a digital body excluding the elctronics. Divide the retail by one-third to calculate a value for the "camera portion."

This would make the RD-1's camera portion about $1000. That seems a bit high since the Voigtlander film bodies cost a lot less. So there is a significant premium for this camera. (As if we didn't already know!!!)

The only reason I discuss this is the talk of a full frame, or APS-H sized sensor. While technically these sensor-camera combinations are possible, the cost would be even more prohibitive than the RD-1. There is also the edge effects which already pronounced on some wide angle lenses and the APS-C sensor, would be even more pronounced on a larger sensor which would include those pesky pixels at the edges of the sensor.

BTW - there is considerable rumor that Canon may discontinue their APS-H sensor (1D mk II) in the future, and concentrate on APS-C, and full frame sensors.

Would we be willing to pay $5000+ for such a body?? Canon's 1Ds Mk II is about $ 8000. It is now the only full frame camera is commercial production. I assume that the market for a ff DRF would be a lot smaller than the Canon ff.

What kind of price would a manufacturer charge???

Martin
 
How about vignetting on a full frame RF sensor Martin?
Have you heard of a sensor able to cope with this issue?
Best,
LCT
 
The vignetting is a result of the previously mentioned anatomy of an RF. The rear element of most lenses (especially w.a.'s) protrude closer to the sensor in RF's than in SLR's (due to mirror clearance requirements). This forces the light rays fom the lens to strike the peripheral sensor elements (ie. pixels) at a steep angle. This causes a decrease in intensity of the peripheral light striking the sensor and produces the vignetting effect.

The same is true in film cameras. Just look at the photos taken with 12, 15, 16, 21 mm lenses, or in the Xpan 30, and 45 mm lens. Indeed, the panoramic users will use a filter which tries to equate the amount of light striking the "film" by having a central area of darkening "to ensure correct edge-edge exposure." This tries to equate the light striking the film plane in both the center, and edge areas.

So the problem is one of physics, and the sensor is not the problem. Epson uses some software manipulation to try to reduce the effect.

This problem has probably caused the late arrival of digital RF's, and is really a shame since the closer proximity of the rear lens element to the sensor plane has made RF's produce sharper, and higher contrast images than SLR's due to the reduction of internal reflections, and other aberrations.

Hope that this explains the problem. Newer sensors have micro lenses to help focus the incoming light rays on the sensor elements. Perhaps some newer designs will help reduce the problem. Also, edge of sensor increased amplification may help.

Martin
 
martin, re your comment on the sensor micro-lenses - I think this makes the problem of vignetting worse for digital cameras, as the micro lenses focus the incoming light on the junction of the pixel element, and oblique rays are focused in the wrong place.

The problem isn't easy, because correcting for w/a will cause vignetting with long focus and vice versa. Or maybe you could design a compromise (cylindrical) lens, but I guess that would lower the efficiency, so you'd get a constant, smaller fall-off at all focal lengths.

Problems with sensors such as vignetting and color fringing arise partly because the sensor isn't 2-D, as film is roughly, but is a 3-D structure.

Phil
 
LCT said:
I wear glasses as well but i use an eyepiece correction lens.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the advice. I've considered this option in the past but I'm so short-sighted that walking around without my glasses on is not something I want to do.
Cheers
Vincent
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom