More viewfinder problems

P

pfogle

Well-known
Local time
7:47 AM
Joined
Feb 28, 2005
Messages
766
Hi all,

the new body, for those following the saga, has a viefinder whose frames are rotated by 1.5degrees clockwise, with respect to the sensor, and the rangefinder window is rotated 2.5 degrees in the other direction! It's the worst framing I've ever seen in any camera including box-brownie (I had one when I was 12)

So back it goes, hot pixels and all.

Meanwhile I found a cheap Jupiter 8 to play with... one day

cheers
Phil
 
Oh boy, seems you're as lucky as I was befor I worked in QC for some time. Up to then it was me who got all the broken items, after my stay in QC this bad fate stopped :)
 
Wow, I'm sorry to hear this. QC needs to tighten up a little.

Sean
 
I think all the 'Bessa' models with the new rangefinder are suffering from QC a bit. My new R3A had a rotated patch, which was disconcerting! Although I swapped it for a new one, it meant I no longer had one with a serial number less than 1000. At least it works though.

Presumably, with glasses, I would also find the shutter speed display on the r-d1 just as annoying as the R3a wrt visibility?
 
viewfinder alignment samples

viewfinder alignment samples

Here are some pix to show how the camera records images that appear square in the v/f

cheers
Phil
 
Well I just checked mine and the sensor is straight on compared to a bubble level but the frame lines are off. I need to correct in photoshop 1 degree ccw for a 28mm lens and 1.5 degrees ccw for a 50mm lens. I shot a picture frame where I put a carpenters level ontop of the frame to level it.

I am affraid to send it back as who knows what defects I will find in the third camera. How many of you have seen this viewfinder problem?

Thanks,
Chris
 
I checked mine against a picture frame at close up and a book case at about 12 feet. It seems pretty square in relation to frame lines to me.
 
I thought I'd been going mad recently. My frames are also off by about 1-1.5 degrees. I'm reluctant to send mine in because it focusses very well (including close-up which is where I tend to focus a lot) and I am concerned that I'll get back an RD-1 with more accurate framing but less accurate focussing. Having said this, it is an annoying problem to fix in PS. Not because of the time involved (it just takes seconds using the measure tool and the 'arbitrary rotate' option) but because of the subsequent loss of pixels. I have recently started to frame deliberately slightly 'down to the right' (by approximately the thickness of the framelines) to counteract the problem but this seems a strange thing to be doing with a £2000 camera.

Incidentally, for those of you more technically minded, is this is a problem that can develop over time or would the frames have been like this from the moment the camera left the factory? I suspect the latter but what is odd is that it is an issue that has only really come to my attention in the last month or so (I have had the camera since early November).
 
Last edited:
Hi Ian,
Good to see another Watts in the U.K. who owns an R-D1. :)
For other forum members info we are not related or even know each other.

I think it would have been like it when it left the factory unless a setting was left loose. Note Phil's post on his "factory fresh" replacement. You probably didn't notice it at first. Even at 1 - 1.5 degrees it would only be obivious (unless you were looking for it) in square on buildings etc. I think otherwise the only way it could happen is if the camera had been subject to excessive vibration. My M4 has seen some pretty rough treatment over the 30 years I have owned it including the viewfinder filling up with water once and this hasn't affected the frame lines.

It is annoying that the level of quality control on the R-D1 means we have to make a judgement as to if we will get a better sample when exchanging the camera. Some people here seem to have exchanged 3 or more times and still not found one perfect in all respects.
 
Hi all, I've now got a working R-D1 :)
I got a third body from Robert White, but that had exactly the same viewfinder problem, so I sent it straight back, and went to Calumet in the West End (London) and shelled out another 2Gs (pounds) for a body I could try out in the shop. I'm expecting a refund on the other one this week.

So, now I'm back where I started, except this body has even *more* hot pixels. However, Calumet has a no returns policy, so there's nothing I can do even if I wanted to! BUT it does have a dead straight viewfinder!

I notice the RF window is slightly skew, which some other people have also noted. And the vertical alignment of the RF, while fine at infinity, is definitely a bit out at closer than about 10 feet. Perhaps the slight tilt of the RF patch means the vertical adjustment is distance-dependent? Anyway this is all stuff I can live with, though I have to bite back a few expletives when I think of how sloppy the QC is for such an expensive camera. My suspicion (I'm sure many of you out there know more about this than I do) is that the Sony CCD is shipped as it comes of the production line, and the camera manufacturerers are supposed to fix defects in the firmware - something that N*kon seem to do OK while E*son don't seem to have got it together.

Today's a nice sunny day, so I should have a few snaps to post tonight when I get home.

By the way, since I complained to Epson here in UK, they are now admitting that other people have had this problem, and they are now prepared to raise it with Epson Japan. As for the RF, isn't this the same module as the Bessa? So what's going on there???

Anyway, cheers to everyone for your support ;)
 
I called Epson USA on Tuesday about my viewfinder problem and how this was my second camera and I did not want them to send me another lemon. I was transfered to customer relations where a reperesentive took down the information. She said that she would get back to me within two days on what can be done. I had to send a copy of my reciept to here via email. I wonder what they will do. I had asked the repair people if they were to send me another box that if they could open and make sure everything was a okay. This is when he got worried and sent me off to customer relations.
I will send updates when known.
Cheers,
Chris
 
I have a teleconference with Epson later today. I'll certainly raise the QC issues some people are having.

Sean
 
Thanks Sean. I hope that helps. Make sure you tell them that we love the camera other than the QC problems and that thier next gen camera should have frame lines for a 21mm lens and a 75 mm lens.
Thanks,
Chris
 
driggett said:
Thanks Sean. I hope that helps. Make sure you tell them that we love the camera other than the QC problems and that thier next gen camera should have frame lines for a 21mm lens and a 75 mm lens.
Thanks,
Chris
Click to expand...

It's hard to imagine how they could have both 21mm framelines and retain the 1:1 viewfinder (which is one of my favorite features.) The 28mm frameline is already basically invisible with glasses, so a 21mm would be "beyond infinity"!

Smaller finder magnification a la the R2a would make it possible to fit it in, but wouldn't make it any easier to see... and would increase the risk of focusing errors with long and/or fast lenses, since the RF base is no longer.

Gee, I'm glad I'm not a camera designer!

(I agree about the 75mm frameline, though. There's no reason not to have it -- it could share space with the semi-useless 28mm frame -- and it would increase the versatility of the camera by providing a convenient 135mm-equivalent view.)
 
Let's see...teleconference was rescheduled to next Weds. - will relay our appreciation as well as concerns.

Finder: They'd need to offer the option of different mag bodies. A 1:1 finder can barely go to 28mm (although since I don't wear glasses those 28mm framelines work well for me). They'd need to offer alternate bodies with .85 or .72 finder mags. I think it's quite doable if they want to. Cosina certainly has the needed parts. Leica has offered this option forever it seems.

Second production run question - I've heard nothing about that.

Cheers,

Sean
 
Well, I know I'm an oldie, but my fave Leica was the M3, with the life-size finder, so I like the R-D1 as it is. I find I can just use the 28mm frame with specs on, if I keep both eyes open, and sort of scan the frame a bit. Works ok for me. Otherwise I use a correction lens.

I notice the ZI RF body has a longer baseline for the RF. It'll be interesting to see how good that baby is! However, since I'm totally digital....
 
If there is a digital version of the Zeiss Ikon body at some point I'd expect it to have a lower mag. viewfinder than the film version and 25mm framelines. Due to the long physical RF baselength they'd be able to do this and still retain good focusing accuracy with an 85/90mm lens. With even lower magnification they could include 21mm framelines. But I'd expect such a camera to have less focusing accuracy with an 85/90mm than the R-D1. The former version would be the one I'd opt for.

-Dave-
 
Hmm.
Just got my r-d1 from the mail and looking through the vf the rangefinder definetly looks tipped. Now, from what I hear from you guys this maybe something that is better to accept rather then return the camera for correction?!
Suggestions?
 
Ok. I managed to correct the rangefinder alignment and focus issue myself so that the focusing worked perfekt with my Summicron 35/2. But then when I checked with my Elmarit 21/2,8 it was totally out of focus!!!
How can this be? I dont want to open the camera everytime I´m going to change lenses...
Has anyone else had this problem and solved it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom