Focus technique

K

kennylovrin

Well-known
Local time
11:06 PM
Joined
May 9, 2012
Messages
494
Location
Malmö, Sweden
View My Gallery
Hey guys

I don't know if this is maybe a strange question, but I'm new to rangefinders so I figured it doesn't hurt to ask. 😉

The thing is that I have this feeling that I am not really seeing the sharpness from my R-D1 + 28mm Ultron that I should be seeing. And I'm trying to figure out why. There can be several causes for this, but one thing I am suspecting and thing is very plausible is that I am not good enough with the manual focus, so I just wanted to ask about that.

I read somewhere that with a rangefinder it's not recommended to do like I sometimes do with SLR and shift the focus back and forth just around the focal distance of the subject. What I mean is, I focus to the subject, then jiggle the focus tab a bit back and forth to kind of "find that perfect spot".

Is it true that this is bad technique with a range finder? And why is that if so? Is the tolerance of the rangefinder mechanism lower so that the small movements of the focus might not reflect in the finder?

Also, if this is indeed bad practice, what is the better way then? Is it better to take to focus far off then just focus and leave it there, and if I miss it, I start over?

Thanks! 🙂

Kenny
 
Are you sure it's focus causing the lack of sharpness, i.e. if you shoot down a brick wall, so the wall is running away from you, is any of the wall in focus, or is not any of it satisfactorily sharp?

Also, try shooting stopped down a bit, at say f/5.6 or f/8, the Ultron is a good sharp lens from what I hear, and should be very sharp indeed at f/5.6.

If it's still not sharp, is the camera properly mounted, flush with the camera, do you have the thread mount version with an adaptor, is the adaptor fitted on tight?

I don't have an R-D1, but if you post an image you're not happy with, another R-D1 owner may be able to advise if it looks OK.

My focus technique is to focus roughly to the distance, and then move slowly to where I want focus, or back, if I've over-shot focusing. Your technique sounds alright to me.

Finally, it may just be that your range finder has fallen out of alignment, and needs adjusted. This can happen from time to time, either from maybe being dropped, or maybe the range finder coupling wheel on the body has been poked/prodded, or simply over time.
 
The camera very recently came from a service at Epson Japan, and some issues I saw before the service was gone, so I'm pretty sure that the adjustment is fine. I am aware of focus shift as well, I've been considering that as an option. However, I find it to be an issue even at f8, where the DOF should hide any focus shift as I understand. I'm also finding it unsharp at f/2. I don't know if at f8 the problem could be diffraction, and at f2 softness.. I guess I have to do some more controlled tests.

I know this kind of discussions sometimes are frowned upon as being overly measurbating, but in this case I haven't been able to let it go for quite some time. I might have to come with a few examples maybe. At times I suspect I'm just asking too much of the camera, but I don't know.
 
hi,

just a suggestion, it would help to get another lens to test for sharpness as well.

i agree, at f8, things should be sharp enough. if you think handshake causing problems, then perhaps using a flash or tripod would be better.

raytoei
 
Hi, was curious and checked out your flickr. Nice pictures 🙂 The 3 or 4 recent pictures that's labelled with Epson seems fine to my eye. Plenty sharp in fact.
 
Try focusing from infinity to your point of focus, or conversely do the opposite and focus from very near to the point of focus. With my RD! I find my best result if I start the focus process from infinity. It may be all in my mind but I feel like it take some of the slop out of the mechanism. Also, look for vertical lines in your subject to focus upon.
 
Hey guys

So here's a few links to full size PNG exports from RAW files via Aperture. These are in no way any good photos, but they serve as examples here.

This first one, I remember the first time I loaded it up I expected the faces of the people to be somewhat sharper. This one was taken with the 35mm 1.4 Nokton @ f8.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/436484/epson/EPSN0530.png

This next one is focused on the wooden pole to the left, I think I was at f2 - 2.8 with the 28mm Ultron. Same thing here, I just find it lacks that certain "crispness". To me it doesn't even look like it's just soft wide open, it just looks smudged to my eye.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/436484/epson/EPSN0816 - Version 2.png

This last one I actually find to be ok for being f2. Could have been 2.8.. Still, even though this is sharp enough, it also seem to lack that edge. I'm not sure how to describe it better.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/436484/epson/EPSN0844 - Version 2.png

Here's one with the Ultron, and I'm pretty sure I was at f8, and definitely at least f5.6. I just find this unsharp in several ways.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/436484/epson/EPSN0572 - Version 2.png

So, I might be just expecting too good of a performance becase I tend to compare it to my 5dmkii. But I'd just love it to be a bit crispier, slightly better defined in a sense. I was hoping it can be traced back to the lens, because then I can at least change that. If it turns out it's an effect of the low resolution it's a bit worse as then I would have to resort to a Leica. And pay for that. 😉

Any input is appreciated, even input that concludes I am the problem here and not the lens/camera. 😉

Kenny
 
Last edited:
Most of those were shot in overcast lighting. I can't say forsure but I know that will reduce contrast which reduces "apparent sharpness".

things will look sharper with some side lighting. Other than that I haven't used a RD-1 or the ultron enough to comment on what you're seeing
 
Looks like a little more post processing is the key. Epson files need it, or at least mine did.
Here are your images with some color adjustments and sharpening.
7754777852_0964d38333_z.jpg


7754776798_4fdafec69a_z.jpg


7754775724_d9a68ea06d_z.jpg


Larger images can be seen here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7352673@N07/sets/72157631006609648/
 
Thanks guys!

The point with the overcast sky is interesting, I never reflected on that before but it makes sense I guess.

I also understand these images need post processing, I always do that but in this case I wanted people to see the raw material which is what I expected to be slightly sharper. Still it will be interesting to compare these processed ones to my own versions more in detail after I get my beauty sleep.

Anyway, so far it seems none of you are seeing any obvious problems with the sharpness? If so that kind of points to me expecting more than I can have, which is fine I guess.

However, do you guys think I'd be able to squeeze a bit more sharpness out of the images with let's say a zeiss or Leica lens? The reason I ask is that even though the results we see here are expected, I'd like to see more sharpness. And if that means spending some more on a better lens I might be willing to do that within reason. But I'm not sure if i will see the difference with the sensor in the r-d1.

I've seem one comparison between the 35 1.4 norton and the 35/2 biogon I think it was, and there seemed to be a significant difference. I've also been in contact with one guy who claimed the difference when he swapped voigtlander for zeiss was "night and day". At the same time the way people prefer their sharpness can be very subjective so I still think more input from you guys is of value.

Here's the comparison I've seen before: http://www.myrightasset.com/35mm challenge part 1/index.htm

The center sharpness test there, up to 5.6 the difference is "huge" to my eyes, and if that is the expected difference I might be willing to pay the double cost of the zeiss to be honest.

Also, I want to add that I am in no way trying to bash the lenses or the camera. In fact I love the camera and I barely use my 5d since I got the r-d1. The reason I'm asking all this is because I might consider selling the slr kit if I could just get slightly better sharpness out of the epson. As it is now, I'm on the fence..
 
First of all just wanted to say I have always enjoyed your images - you have a certain style I enjoy.

I also came from a few years shooting a 5D (MkII) with nice L glass and I absolutely know what you're talking about with the perceived lack of sharpness.

I have the Zeiss ZM 35/2 and 21/2.8 but mostly use the 35/2. I had been shooting with a Ricoh GXR M-Mount prior to the Epson and that thing is razor sharp with its lack of AA filter.

When I took my first shots with the Epson about 6 weeks ago I was slightly let down with the "sharpness" but was blown away by the character of the images. It has such a different flavour to how it renders digital images IMHO.

I shot more and more images and in the end I accepted that the look of the sharpness was just what this camera produces. You don't get that immediacy, where it feels like the object is right there on the screen. To me it is more film like. You know it is sharp,perfectly in focus but it isn't right there in your face - it's a weird feeling.

I'm happy to upload a few RAW files if you want to compare but looking at your images they are sharp. I had a 28mm Ultron on a Sony NEX 5N a while ago and I didn't particularly like its sharpness - it was okay but not great.

I've found that a very slight kick in Aperture to the sharpness gives it enough to satisfy my taste. You might also want to try RAW Photo Processor (RPP) as that has a nice sharpness method to it too if you're on a mac.

BTW png isn't the best file format for images - stick to jpeg for photos.
 
I personally found my zeiss 35 f2.8 to be scary sharp on the RD1, even more so than the files from my x100. But that's pretty much the only 35mm I have, the other lenses I have tried so far consists of a 15mm Heliar (decent, but so much more post processing is involved) and 2 50mm(s) that was never known for its sharpness than its character.

Imo zeiss lenses are way ahead on sharpness (and often great performers for the price), however, the raws must still be processed to achieve a good result with the Epson.
 
rollbahn said:
First of all just wanted to say I have always enjoyed your images - you have a certain style I enjoy.

I also came from a few years shooting a 5D (MkII) with nice L glass and I absolutely know what you're talking about with the perceived lack of sharpness.

I have the Zeiss ZM 35/2 and 21/2.8 but mostly use the 35/2. I had been shooting with a Ricoh GXR M-Mount prior to the Epson and that thing is razor sharp with its lack of AA filter.

When I took my first shots with the Epson about 6 weeks ago I was slightly let down with the "sharpness" but was blown away by the character of the images. It has such a different flavour to how it renders digital images IMHO.

I shot more and more images and in the end I accepted that the look of the sharpness was just what this camera produces. You don't get that immediacy, where it feels like the object is right there on the screen. To me it is more film like. You know it is sharp,perfectly in focus but it isn't right there in your face - it's a weird feeling.

I'm happy to upload a few RAW files if you want to compare but looking at your images they are sharp. I had a 28mm Ultron on a Sony NEX 5N a while ago and I didn't particularly like its sharpness - it was okay but not great.

I've found that a very slight kick in Aperture to the sharpness gives it enough to satisfy my taste. You might also want to try RAW Photo Processor (RPP) as that has a nice sharpness method to it too if you're on a mac.

BTW png isn't the best file format for images - stick to jpeg for photos.
Click to expand...

Thank you, it's very nice of you to say you like my shots! 🙂

It would definitely be interesting to see a few full size shots from the Zeiss 35/2 if you have the time!

Regarding the PNG I don't normally use it, I just did now because it doesn't compress the data, as this was a thing that needed the full data but TIFF is just too huge. 😉

Thanks!
 
Larken said:
I personally found my zeiss 35 f2.8 to be scary sharp on the RD1, even more so than the files from my x100. But that's pretty much the only 35mm I have, the other lenses I have tried so far consists of a 15mm Heliar (decent, but so much more post processing is involved) and 2 50mm(s) that was never known for its sharpness than its character.

Imo zeiss lenses are way ahead on sharpness (and often great performers for the price), however, the raws must still be processed to achieve a good result with the Epson.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that is the info I was after. I really like sharp lenses, I am not so fond of that glow and softness that some people like. I think I'll get a Zeiss lens going forward, unless I can find a reasonable priced Leica of some sort - I would imagine that is a feasible option as well.

Thanks!
 
In my experience with that lens, I would say it's not as sharp as it must be considering the DOF factor maybe due to lower contrast. I also didn't like it with the RD1. I would suggest to try the VC 28 3.5 instead if you can find it. Here are some samples with the Ultron and CLE already sharpened in PP

701926272_Tb2iK-L.jpg


701929480_kPhrH-L.jpg


With the VC 28 3.5 on an RD1

SB1-L.jpg
 
gilpen123 said:
In my experience with that lens, I would say it's not as sharp as it must be considering the DOF factor maybe due to lower contrast. I also didn't like it with the RD1.[/IMG]
Click to expand...

When you say "that lens" are you referring to the 28mm f/2 Ultron then, or the Zeiss 35m f/2 (as both have been recently discussed here 🙂).

Thanks for the sample shots!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Voigtlander 25mm on a Canon 7s
Replies
5
Views
470
Coldkennels
Coldkennels
T
Infinity focus not accurate
Replies
6
Views
538
Godfrey
Godfrey
T
Stupid question about the Canon 35mm f2.8 M39 lens
Replies
5
Views
375
raid
raid
P
Which camera for 28 and 50mm?
3 4 5
Replies
95
Views
5K
Beemermark
Beemermark
S
DIY: Calibrating/checking infinity focus
Replies
5
Views
1K
Nassimo
N
Back
Top Bottom