mars
Member
hi everybody,
I am new to this forum and I am also a new user with the R-d1s.
I bought the camera new a month ago.
I have some questions regard to the problem of mis-alignment.
I have a serious mis-alignment with my 90f2.8Elmarit. It can't align at infinity and it can't align smooth in the close range neither. The lens seems to work fine with another camera though.
The camera works fine with my 50f1.4 and my ZM21f2.8. They align properly at infinity. As for the accuracy for the closer range, I will have to check more carefully.
Please give me any feedback or input regard to this problem. thank you.
I am new to this forum and I am also a new user with the R-d1s.
I bought the camera new a month ago.
I have some questions regard to the problem of mis-alignment.
I have a serious mis-alignment with my 90f2.8Elmarit. It can't align at infinity and it can't align smooth in the close range neither. The lens seems to work fine with another camera though.
The camera works fine with my 50f1.4 and my ZM21f2.8. They align properly at infinity. As for the accuracy for the closer range, I will have to check more carefully.
Please give me any feedback or input regard to this problem. thank you.
R
RML
Guest
Mars, try with other longer focal length lenses. It might just be with that one lens. Also, the R-D1 isn't as suited for longer focal lengths is other rf cameras with a longer rf baseline.
Depending on what you shoot most, and if that 90 is calibrated properly, you may want to adjust the rf alignment or not.
Depending on what you shoot most, and if that 90 is calibrated properly, you may want to adjust the rf alignment or not.
mars
Member
RML said:
Thanks for the reply. Thanks for the suggestion of using another longer focal length lenses. However, that's the only one that I owned right now. May be I should paid a visit to a local Leica dealer to test some long lenses.
It seems that either the combination of my 90mm and my r-d1s is not working or my r-d1s is not working at all with long lenses as you mentioned?
I will tried that out soon. thanks again
jvr
Well-known
Hi!
All my lenses focus on a consistent way on the Epson. That's the good news. The bad news is that some of them focus consistently bad...
My experience is that the Epson RF is accurate enough to focus a 50/1.5 wide-open very reliably. Shots I miss focus are probably my fault or because the subject moved an inch or two (DOF could be that small). DOF for a 50/1.5 at 1m is the same as a 90/2.8 at 1.2m (around 2cm). It's easy for someone to move 2cm back or forth. The base is shorter than a M6 but magnification is higher. I wouldn't go as far as saying the Epson is the best RF to focus a 90 'Cron wide-open, but my experience with it's accuracy is much better than I expected from theory (and I'm comparing it with a M3 - large base, high mag - recently CLA'd).
I think we face two problems:
1) Digital tolerates (IMHO) less than film a slight misfocus. Maybe because the sensor is totally flat (and film has some curvature), because it has almost no thickness (film has some) or demosaicing algorithms do strange tricks, it's a fact (for me) that I have to be more careful when focusing with a digital camera (both RF and SLR). Not to mention that DOF is actually SMALLER on the Epson for the same lens/aperture/distance than it is on the M3...
2) RF lenses are not all collimated (calibrated in terms of distance) the same way. Some are wrong because of bad construction, abuse or whatever, other because of design (some Russian lenses).
With the RD-1s you'll be more exposed to this problem, because of those 2 issues.
I decided to to like this:
1) Take a hard to focus lens (ie, long and fast) and calibrate my Epson's RF to it, if this lens works ok on my M3
2) Lens who don't focus well enough to be used on the Epson will be recollimated. I hope the film tolerance will take care of the slack on the M3, if something's gone wrong.
I never felt the need to collimate any lens on my M3 or my (gone) M6 TTL but it's true I only used Leica M on Leica M cameras. Today I have lenses from different brands, from different eras, some using adaptors, none of them made by Epson...
My 2 cents...
All my lenses focus on a consistent way on the Epson. That's the good news. The bad news is that some of them focus consistently bad...
My experience is that the Epson RF is accurate enough to focus a 50/1.5 wide-open very reliably. Shots I miss focus are probably my fault or because the subject moved an inch or two (DOF could be that small). DOF for a 50/1.5 at 1m is the same as a 90/2.8 at 1.2m (around 2cm). It's easy for someone to move 2cm back or forth. The base is shorter than a M6 but magnification is higher. I wouldn't go as far as saying the Epson is the best RF to focus a 90 'Cron wide-open, but my experience with it's accuracy is much better than I expected from theory (and I'm comparing it with a M3 - large base, high mag - recently CLA'd).
I think we face two problems:
1) Digital tolerates (IMHO) less than film a slight misfocus. Maybe because the sensor is totally flat (and film has some curvature), because it has almost no thickness (film has some) or demosaicing algorithms do strange tricks, it's a fact (for me) that I have to be more careful when focusing with a digital camera (both RF and SLR). Not to mention that DOF is actually SMALLER on the Epson for the same lens/aperture/distance than it is on the M3...
2) RF lenses are not all collimated (calibrated in terms of distance) the same way. Some are wrong because of bad construction, abuse or whatever, other because of design (some Russian lenses).
With the RD-1s you'll be more exposed to this problem, because of those 2 issues.
I decided to to like this:
1) Take a hard to focus lens (ie, long and fast) and calibrate my Epson's RF to it, if this lens works ok on my M3
2) Lens who don't focus well enough to be used on the Epson will be recollimated. I hope the film tolerance will take care of the slack on the M3, if something's gone wrong.
I never felt the need to collimate any lens on my M3 or my (gone) M6 TTL but it's true I only used Leica M on Leica M cameras. Today I have lenses from different brands, from different eras, some using adaptors, none of them made by Epson...
My 2 cents...
LCT
ex-newbie
The effective base length (EBL) of the R-D1's rangefinder is too short to focus accurately a 90mm lens at f/2.8.
An EBL value of roughly 43mm would be necessary for this purpose, where that of the R-D1 (and R-D1s) is only 38.20mm.
Doesn't mean that you'll miss all your shots of course but f/2.8 is definitely too wide to get the same success rate as with an M camera.
Solutions: Try the 1.30x magnifier of don't open wider than f/3.5.
An EBL value of roughly 43mm would be necessary for this purpose, where that of the R-D1 (and R-D1s) is only 38.20mm.
Doesn't mean that you'll miss all your shots of course but f/2.8 is definitely too wide to get the same success rate as with an M camera.
Solutions: Try the 1.30x magnifier of don't open wider than f/3.5.
jvr
Well-known
LCT said:
LCT, that's very true. But from what I read in this thread, the main problem mars referred to is that the RF does not align properly when focused to infinity. This probably means the RF+lens system is not adapted (maybe the RF is misaligned - mine was), maybe some lenses (this in particular) are not collimated in the same way (some of mine are).
A short RF base should give you random focus error. What I get with some of my lenses is not a random error. It's consistent but wrong. A good example is my old 35/3.5 Summaron. It has a greater DOF than my 50/1.5, both wide-open but it's easier to get focused shots with the 50/1.5 wide-open than with the Summaron if I rely on the RF information: backfocus with my summaron could be more than 3 cm at 1m or 10cm at 3m. Even with a 35/3.5 on a 1.5x crop camera, you'll notice the difference.
My Summaron is the worst case I have with my lenses. I love this lens and the rendering on the Epson but I only use stopped-down on the Epson (no worries on the M3, though).
So, I agree that mars could still have some trouble focusing the 90/2.8 even if the RF and lens were correctly collimated/adjusted.
But I would say he has a much worse chance to get a focused shot with that misaligment problem and he should get rid of it first.
I'll stress again that I'm very pleasantly surprised with the large perceentage of well-focused shots I get from my 50/1.5 Nokton wide-open at close focus (1-3m). In theory, it should be much worse. In reality, a lot of other factors have more impact, namely:
1) low-speeds on low light (camera shake, people movement)
2) even with higher speeds, people movement back and forth between focus and shot (when shooting moving people, of course!
Mars, adjusting the RF for inifity focus is easy and should correct the close focus problem if the RF is not badly misaligned. With a correctly aligned RF for a particular lens you should get a good % of in-focus pictures, even with the shorter base of the Epson. The problem is that adjusting the RF for this particular lens will probably make it worse for other lenses. If this is the only lens with a problem and you really want to use it, collimating the lens for the Epson is the route I would take.
LCT
ex-newbie
Yes sorry for misreading but it's perhaps that i don't comprehend well what may be a lens related misalignment. I've got some with Leica Ms from time to time and some more with R-D1 and R-D1s but each time the misalignment was a RF problem. It did not change with lenses and it was not necesseraly related to accuracy. I mean an RF may be misaligned and (more or less) accurate or well aligned and inaccurate, does it make sense at all?
with R-D1 and R-D1s but each time the misalignment was a RF problem. It did not change with lenses and it was not necesseraly related to accuracy. I mean an RF may be misaligned and (more or less) accurate or well aligned and inaccurate, does it make sense at all?
Last edited:
jvr
Well-known
LCT said:Yes sorry for misreading but it's perhaps that i don't comprehend well what may be a lens related misalignment. I've got some with Leica Ms from time to time and some more
Yep, it does. We are dealing with several variables here:
1) Lens collimation plan vs lens-scale. Not all lenses area created equal (unfortunately), either by design, malfunction or sloppy production. A lens should focus on a defined plan (standard for a Leica-M and all optcally compatible mounts) when the lens scale indicates the correct distance for focus. If an object is 1m from the focal plane (film/sensor) and the lens scale is indicating 1m, then the image should be forming at the focal plane (film/sensor). Things get weirder as focal plane for some lenses can (and will) be curved and it can change with aperture. But let's ignore that stuff
for a while and focus on collimation only.2) RF mis-calibration. AFAIK, a RF can be mis-calibarated in several "dimensions" (and it's combinations):
a) it can be vertically mis-aligned
b) it can be horizontally misaligned
b) it can be out-of-focus (the RF patch, that is) and
d) the base length may be off.
The a) problem is usually the most benign (alhough it impairs the ability to correctly focus on other patterns than vertical lines and cause focus errors! My Epson is like that right now and I sure feel it... :-() It's easily corrected on the Epson RD-1 but, apparently, not on the s (I have the s, damn it!). I tried it but it dind't work. The screw that was supposed to act on the vertical aligment turns loosely and does nothing on my RD-1s. I thought that was a problem with mine but some other people in this forum reported the same problem :-(
Problem b) is much worse and it's impossible to focus a lens correctly except relying on DOF. When a correctly collimated lens is focused on infinity (on the scale), the RF patch should coincide with the mais image. If it does not, the RF is mis-aligned. Mine was badly mis-aligned after a mild bump (my M3 had 10x worse bumps and never had a problem with RF...), more than 20% off at infinity. If all your lenses are ok, then it should happen to all of them. If your lenses vary, it could even happen that horizontal mis-aligment is beneficial for some of them...
Problem b) is also easily corrected on the Epson (I corrected mine myself, no sweat).c) and d) are rarer. c) can still be corrected easily (without unmounting the cover) but will give you more work, as it can have impact on b). AFAIK, fixing d) requires unmounting the top cover, so it's not a DIY thing.
3) RF accuracy. That theoretically dependes on the effective base lenghth (base length and VF magnification) but IMHO depends on other stuff in practice (VF constrast, lens helicoid step, available light, eyesight, etc, etc). Of course, everything else being equal, it's obvious a larger effective BL will perform better than a smaller BL base. It's just that, in practice, not everything is equal...
So, we have at least 3 factors: lens collimation, RF aligment, RF accuracy.
My Epson RF is now vertically mis-aligned, but horizontally ok. This means that I am able to correctly focus correctly collimated lenses, within RF accuracy bounds (which, BTW, get smaller with vertical misaligment, unless you have some handy vertical lines to focus on the subject. More on this on the end of my post).
The problem is that "horizontal aligment" depends on the lens being well collimated. If mars's RD1 aligns correctly at infinity with other lenses that he believes are well-collimated (eg: new Leicas, as Leica quality control is good enough to rely on new lenses for that - old could be malfunctioning) and does not with the Elmarit, probably the problem is the Elmarit.
He _could_ align the RF so that it becomes correct for the Elmarit, but that would probably make it worse for all other lenses.
Nothing of this has to do with "accuracy" (in fact, he doesn't need to take a picture at all to test it and align it, alhtough it would be a good idea to check it out
).So, if mars has a collimated lens and an aligned RF, I would guess it would be accurate enough to get a fair share of sharp shots with a 90/2.8 wide-open, at least not much worse than a Leica M6 on the same conditions, if those conditions include low-light and bright spotlights (my M& TTL RF flared a lot in those conditions, making focus accuracy a lottery), low shutter speeds (camera shake), people moving (shallow DOF and people getting out of focus) and high speed ISO settings (lower resolution because of noise processing).
If he didn't, then maybe that's an accuracy problem. But what I found out is that I get a lot of focused shots with the 50/1.5 wide-open and at close range.
This is becoming long, sorry!
But this is something that has been bothering me for a while... To finish: I bought a 35/1.2 CV Nokton and I was getting several out-of-focus shots at f1.2 and f1.4. More than with the 50/1.5 Nokton. I made some tests and it seemed like it was backfocusing a bit, nothing to be afraid of at f2 but showing at lareger apertures.
Two days ago, I decided to repeat the tests on the 35/1.2 but ensuring I had very good lighting AND thin but very visible vertical lines. The results were clear: it focus ok. Problem is that vertical mis-aligment does REALLY impair focus unless you have clear, thin vertical lines to focus on (large lines lead to some focus error, as DOF at 0.7m and f1.2 is razor-thin).
I can post the (boring pictures) that came out of the test, if that's useful.
BTW, the 35/1.2 Nokton (at least my sample) is amazingly sharp in the center from f1.2 and corners keep-up from 2.8. At f2 corners are a bit fuzzier, at f1.4 they are a bit worse. But that's a flat field.
On "practical" pictures, the 35/1.2 is as bit as good as the 50/1.5 Nokton and that is very good. SO, it looks like it will join the rest of the line-up on my signature and I'll have to post some rave about it!
Again, sorry for the long post that became a bit off topic!
LCT
ex-newbie
Great post jvr thank you.
I felt a bit alone with the inactive vertical alignment screw of my R-D1s.
Now i know that we are at least two.
I felt a bit alone with the inactive vertical alignment screw of my R-D1s.
Now i know that we are at least two.
mars
Member
thanks everybody for the inputs. I greatly appreciated.
So from what I see, the mis-alignment problem can be adjusted with our own? is it difficult? So far, I got problems only with my 90f2.8. May be I should wait a bit?
anyhow, thanks again.
So from what I see, the mis-alignment problem can be adjusted with our own? is it difficult? So far, I got problems only with my 90f2.8. May be I should wait a bit?
anyhow, thanks again.
jvr
Well-known
LCT, you're not alone... I'm thinking of either:
a) send my RD-1s to France to correct vert misaligment under warranty
b) take it to a repair person here in Portugal that is able to fix it. Problem: top cover will have to go out, warranty may be lost...
mars:
Yes, correcting a RF misaligment on the RD-1 is easy. There are several threads on the subject in the forum (try Seraching) but this wonderful site explains it very well (http://www.richcutler.co.uk/r-d1/r-d1_01.htm).
To adjust the basic things, you'll just have to take off the hot-shoe. To more serious stuff, the top cover will have to come out.
Anyway, if your RD1 aligns at infinity with other lenses, probably the problem is from your 90/2.8 and it would not be a good idea to adjust the Rf on the Epson...
I'm thinking of either:a) send my RD-1s to France to correct vert misaligment under warranty
b) take it to a repair person here in Portugal that is able to fix it. Problem: top cover will have to go out, warranty may be lost...
mars:
Yes, correcting a RF misaligment on the RD-1 is easy. There are several threads on the subject in the forum (try Seraching) but this wonderful site explains it very well (http://www.richcutler.co.uk/r-d1/r-d1_01.htm).
To adjust the basic things, you'll just have to take off the hot-shoe. To more serious stuff, the top cover will have to come out.
Anyway, if your RD1 aligns at infinity with other lenses, probably the problem is from your 90/2.8 and it would not be a good idea to adjust the Rf on the Epson...
LCT
ex-newbie
I did it already under warranty and the misalignment has been fixed for free actually.jvr said:LCT, you're not alone...
a) send my RD-1s to France to correct vert misaligment under warranty...
Not quite sure if i've posted this here already but anyway, for those interested, call or send a fax to Epson Engineering in France (address below) who seem to repair most if not all the R-D1 and R-D1s bodies purchased in Europe.
Ask them to give you a "Numéro de retour SAV" (after-sale service number) and send them in the body with that number and a copy of your invoice together with the bar code and serial number of the body:
Epson Engineering Europe SA
60 rue Auguste Perret
Europarc
94000 Créteil
France
Tel: +33 892899999
Fax: +33 156715726
manojd
Established
Mars, I would think ten times before opening the camera if I were you. Also, is the lens front focusing or back focusing? This happened to me recently. My 35/2.8 Xenogon was not focusing. All the other lenses, including the 50/1.5 was fine. I figured that the xenogon was front focusing. Which means that it was pushing the RF lever too much. After much trial and error with the lens assembly, I came to the conclusion that the only way to solve the problem was to modify the lens. I sanded down the focus ring that pushes the RF lever and now the lens is spot on. In your case, you may have to turn the RF ring to push it further out to get infinity focus.
Another thing to try is do scale focusing. If the lens is focusing with scale, then it is the lens focus ring that needs to be modified.
Another thing to try is do scale focusing. If the lens is focusing with scale, then it is the lens focus ring that needs to be modified.
mars
Member
manojd said:
Thanks for your suggestion. yeah.. I am hesitated to open the camera, especially for one lens. Besides, other than the problem of infinity. it also has coupling problem. I mean there are some problems of focusing in the mid-range as well. The finder resist to focus properly in the mid-range. =(
Anyhow, I guessed I will simply ignore the 90f2.8 for the time being. I am not going to touch the lens at this moment since it works fine on other camera.
May be I will to test with the scale-focusing as you mentioned.
thanks again. =)
Braeside
Member
Interesting, I have the same problem with a 75/2.5 Heliar on my M8. I think I am going the sanding down method. I guess I would use 600/1200 grit wet and dry on a good surface.
Did you repaint the RF ring with black afterwards? I was just a bit worried about reflections.
Some details of what my CV 75/2.5 Heliar looks like at http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1177191#post1177191
Last edited:
Braeside
Member
I went ahead and lapped down the ring and it works fine. More details in the other thread mentioned in previous post. I looked at a Leitz lens and noticed the RF cam is not black, so reckoned that it is not important at all. The CV75 RF cam is made of brass by the way.
elmer3.5
Well-known
RD1s
RD1s
Hi, a few days ago i suffered from a mis alaignment myself.
Have to say that i was focusing a canon 50 1.2 no hard times on the camera just focusing.
I realised the lens circular focusing cam has a diameter too wide for the wheel on the rf lever, it tends to overlap (on the top of it), i suffered the same in my summicron 50 it even got stuck and wouldn´t move, had to make the cam thicker with some paper stickers, now works fine.
I have a rd1s and could positively fix it through the srew under the hotshoe, but as Rich Cutler say it´s very sensitive i found it wasn´t at all.
I had to turn it many times in and out (ye oldie) and finally after at least four complete turns in, got the problem fixed, it works!
bye and luck!
RD1s
Hi, a few days ago i suffered from a mis alaignment myself.
Have to say that i was focusing a canon 50 1.2 no hard times on the camera just focusing.
I realised the lens circular focusing cam has a diameter too wide for the wheel on the rf lever, it tends to overlap (on the top of it), i suffered the same in my summicron 50 it even got stuck and wouldn´t move, had to make the cam thicker with some paper stickers, now works fine.
I have a rd1s and could positively fix it through the srew under the hotshoe, but as Rich Cutler say it´s very sensitive i found it wasn´t at all.
I had to turn it many times in and out (ye oldie) and finally after at least four complete turns in, got the problem fixed, it works!
bye and luck!