edhohoho
Established
Just read a thread on LUF regarding peoples' experiences with high speed, extremely shallow DOF lenses like the Noctilux and 75 Summilux wide open, citing how many of them have noticed significant back/front focusing or focus shift issues with these lenses that require, in some cases, multiple trips back to Leica for service of the lenses and/or M8 bodies.
I have also read that the M8 tends to bring out many of the flaws of lower quality and/or miscalibrated lenses due to a combination of the accuracy of the rangefinder and extremely flat and highly sensitive sensor.
Even though the R-D1 has been known for rangefinder quality issues and has a lower resolution sensor with a more substantial AA/IR filter, it still shares the same characteristic with the M8 of a flat sensor plane that does not allow as much "leeway" or "fudge factor" for the above mentioned focus issues that the thickness of the film plane confers to film cameras.
Which brings me to my question: Do R-D1 users note as many such focus issues when using the above high speed lenses?
Are R-D1 users more reticent about these problems, or are there relatively fewer of these lenses being used on the R-D1 (due to its shorter baselength or whatnot) than the M8? Perhaps M8 users are more vocal or critical? Maybe the combination of lower resolution and rangefinder "variability" or "tolerances" on the R-D1 somehow work fortuitously to recreate that "fudge factor" to decrease these focus issues? Or is it as simple as people not using the aid of a magnifier to aid in focusing?
Some people advocate "mating" bodies and lenses (one camera body to be calibrated specifically to one lens only), but for me that would be financially unfeasible and just plain impractical to carry around multiple body-lens combinations in addition to other gear.
So far, knock on wood, I consider myself very lucky because I haven't noticed significant issues with focusing lenses that fall into this category with my R-D1 equipped with a magnifier (and my R-D1 isn't perfect either because the rangefinder patch is slightly tilted and does not perfectly align images at close distances of 1 to 2 meters but appears pretty good thereafter). Then again, I'm not looking extremely closely either, partly because pixel peeping does my sanity no good, but more importantly, I don't want to get into a potentially maddening and seemingly endless cycle of "which came first, the chicken or the egg" in terms of returning the camera and/or lenses for recalibration.
I certainly feel for those who have real focusing problems (I had to send my R-D1 back 3 times just to get a 95% properly aligned but still slightly tilted rangefinder) but I just wanted to see what other R-D1 and/or M8 users, past and present, have to say about this issue.
Thanks in advance, and sorry for the long-winded post. Happy holidays!
I have also read that the M8 tends to bring out many of the flaws of lower quality and/or miscalibrated lenses due to a combination of the accuracy of the rangefinder and extremely flat and highly sensitive sensor.
Even though the R-D1 has been known for rangefinder quality issues and has a lower resolution sensor with a more substantial AA/IR filter, it still shares the same characteristic with the M8 of a flat sensor plane that does not allow as much "leeway" or "fudge factor" for the above mentioned focus issues that the thickness of the film plane confers to film cameras.
Which brings me to my question: Do R-D1 users note as many such focus issues when using the above high speed lenses?
Are R-D1 users more reticent about these problems, or are there relatively fewer of these lenses being used on the R-D1 (due to its shorter baselength or whatnot) than the M8? Perhaps M8 users are more vocal or critical? Maybe the combination of lower resolution and rangefinder "variability" or "tolerances" on the R-D1 somehow work fortuitously to recreate that "fudge factor" to decrease these focus issues? Or is it as simple as people not using the aid of a magnifier to aid in focusing?
Some people advocate "mating" bodies and lenses (one camera body to be calibrated specifically to one lens only), but for me that would be financially unfeasible and just plain impractical to carry around multiple body-lens combinations in addition to other gear.
So far, knock on wood, I consider myself very lucky because I haven't noticed significant issues with focusing lenses that fall into this category with my R-D1 equipped with a magnifier (and my R-D1 isn't perfect either because the rangefinder patch is slightly tilted and does not perfectly align images at close distances of 1 to 2 meters but appears pretty good thereafter). Then again, I'm not looking extremely closely either, partly because pixel peeping does my sanity no good, but more importantly, I don't want to get into a potentially maddening and seemingly endless cycle of "which came first, the chicken or the egg" in terms of returning the camera and/or lenses for recalibration.
I certainly feel for those who have real focusing problems (I had to send my R-D1 back 3 times just to get a 95% properly aligned but still slightly tilted rangefinder) but I just wanted to see what other R-D1 and/or M8 users, past and present, have to say about this issue.
Thanks in advance, and sorry for the long-winded post. Happy holidays!
Last edited:
LCT
ex-newbie
Due to the smaller base length of their rangefinder the R-D1 and R-D1s are not made for lenses like 75/1.4 or 90/2 at full aperture and 50mm lenses are not easy to focus at f/1 without a magnifier. But within reasonable limits e.g. 50mm at f/1.4, 75mm at f/2.8 or 90mm at f/3.5 for example, both my R-D1 and R-D1s prove to be accurate, or more exactly proved to be so as soon as their slight RF vertical misalignments have been addressed by myself (R-D1) and Epson (R-D1s).
RFNewbie
Established
When I first got my R-D1, I also thought I had focusing issues and need to adjust my rangefinder. That was when I was using a new Voigtlander 40mm f/1.4 S.C. and the Multicoated version. Both had issues with focus, even at f/2.8. I was going to attempt the rangefinder adjustment but then I tried a newly acquired Zeiss 50mm f/2. Focus dead on, even at f/2. Then I started to do a comparison study against my other lens, (2) Voigtlander 28mm f/3.5 and 75mm f/2.5 all focused a little off. Later, I bought a Minolta M-rokkor 40mm f/2 and 28mm f/2.8, both of which focused very close to perfect wide open. I also increased my collection to Zeiss lens, 21mm f/2.8, 28mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2. All the Zeiss focused very close to dead on....and all very consistant, even wide open. I have never adjusted the rangefinder and have recently got a new R-D1 replacement with the same results. My experience with Voigtlander lens is that they vary from lens to lens....even for the same focal length.
Others might have much better results than me. But based on my own experience, I'm not sure if this is as much a R-D1 vs. M8 issue as it is a lens related issue.
Others might have much better results than me. But based on my own experience, I'm not sure if this is as much a R-D1 vs. M8 issue as it is a lens related issue.
ZorkiKat
ЗоркийК&
My R-D1s has rangefinder backlash. It's a mechanical problem which cannot be fixed using the DIY methods described on the 'net. By following a certain focusing method- ie, focusing by turning the lens from short to far distance settings, I could get properly focused pictures.
Using this method also assures getting correctly focused pictures with a Jupiter-3 1.5/50- the only 'fast' lens I use with the R-D1s. This lens isn't too big or heavy compared to a Jupiter-8 (2/50) or even an Industar-61 (2,8/50). The J-3's size and weight, and ability to produce more than just acceptable focus at maximum opening makes it a good all-purpose (discounting angle coverage issues due to the cropped sensor) lens.
Using this method also assures getting correctly focused pictures with a Jupiter-3 1.5/50- the only 'fast' lens I use with the R-D1s. This lens isn't too big or heavy compared to a Jupiter-8 (2/50) or even an Industar-61 (2,8/50). The J-3's size and weight, and ability to produce more than just acceptable focus at maximum opening makes it a good all-purpose (discounting angle coverage issues due to the cropped sensor) lens.