dannirr
Newbie
The lines on my rd1 are square to the image, but very innacurate in terms of framing what is included in the image. I always get WAY more than I frame with the lines - irrespective of lens choice. While'st my M7 and M3's all give me more, its inly slightly more - not like th rd1 which is very unreliable.
Anyone else have the same problem? Calling Epson is useless.
Danni
Anyone else have the same problem? Calling Epson is useless.
Danni
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
The spec is that they are supposed to cover 85% of the image area at infinity. That's definitely on the generous side, maybe more than most RF cameras -- but, I think, defensible considering that they have to cover a lot of different brands and types of lenses (which can vary surprisingly considerably from their marked focal lengths; Leica, for example, can be pretty confident in knowing how closely they mark their own lenses, and design their framelines accordingly, but Epson has to contend with Leica, Voigtlander, Carl Zeiss, Canon, etc., etc., all of which may have had slightly different standards.)
Do you think yours cover substantially less than 85% at infinity? I'm not sure exactly how I'd go about testing this, since infinity is such an inconveniently far-away distance: maybe find a subject with lots of recognizable details, such as maybe a cityscape or a large building, and compose (on a tripod) so that some easily distinguishable features line up exactly with the left and right side framelines; then, with the finished image open in your image editor, measure the distance between the two target objects and compare it to the total frame width.
It might be easier to get action out of Epson (if that's your goal) if you've got sample pictures to show them that the framelines are including significantly less than 85% of the final image. I don't think the frameline coverage is easily adjustable, since the frames are cut into a metal mask, but it would give you a talking point...
Do you think yours cover substantially less than 85% at infinity? I'm not sure exactly how I'd go about testing this, since infinity is such an inconveniently far-away distance: maybe find a subject with lots of recognizable details, such as maybe a cityscape or a large building, and compose (on a tripod) so that some easily distinguishable features line up exactly with the left and right side framelines; then, with the finished image open in your image editor, measure the distance between the two target objects and compare it to the total frame width.
It might be easier to get action out of Epson (if that's your goal) if you've got sample pictures to show them that the framelines are including significantly less than 85% of the final image. I don't think the frameline coverage is easily adjustable, since the frames are cut into a metal mask, but it would give you a talking point...
Last edited:
aizan
Veteran
how is it close up?
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
I guess that would depend on the lens. A 50mm lens -- the longest for which frames are provided on an R-D 1 -- extends 2.5mm to focus from infinity to 1 meter. (I didn't calculate that, I measured it with a depth gauge, so don' t be surprised if it doesn't agree exactly with the formulas in books.)
That represents only a 5% change in effective focal length, so if the actual framing is "loose" at infinity, I'd guess it would still be fairly loose at close focus. Maybe tomorrow I'll try to figure out how to run some actual tests...
That represents only a 5% change in effective focal length, so if the actual framing is "loose" at infinity, I'd guess it would still be fairly loose at close focus. Maybe tomorrow I'll try to figure out how to run some actual tests...
S
Sean Reid
Guest
This is not a defect. See my review if you're inclined; in it I've urged them to make the framelines a little looser but jlw is quite right that different RF lenses (of the same nominal focal length) can all show different fields of view. I'm not sure if you're looking at full frame contact prints from your Leicas but if you did (and did some careful tests) you might find that the Leica's framelines are similarly tight. Traditionally this system allowed for cropping by slide mounts, etc.. With the R-D1, we can compare the frameline view of the scene with the LCD view and immediately note the difference. With film rangefinders, we usually see the pictures long after the subject is seen in the finder. As such, the difference in framing isn't made obvious to us.
When I shoot with the R-D1, I plan my picture edges by placing them just outside the framelines. One had to do this with most film rangefinders as well.
Cheers,
Sean
When I shoot with the R-D1, I plan my picture edges by placing them just outside the framelines. One had to do this with most film rangefinders as well.
Cheers,
Sean
Joe Leung
Joe Leung
I just found that the 35 frame line is similar to the 40/1.4 Nokton; the 28 is a tight fit for 35/2.5 Pancake II; the full view is for 28/1.9 Ultron; and the 50 covers slight more than my Canon 50/1.2 LTM. I can safely compose the 35/2.5 PC II with 28 frame line now, bearing in mind that it is a tight fit.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Joe Leung said:
When you're using the 40/1.4 Nokton, keep in mind that when you're closer than about 8 feet, the framelines will show slightly more than you'll get in the final picture -- so, make sure you don't include anything important near the edges.
This is an unavoidable consequence of the framelines being fixed in size while the effective focal length of the lens increases ("zooms in") as you focus closer. This is true of any conventional fixed-focal-length lens.