This form factor thing is hard to adapt to.

kshapero

kshapero

South Florida Man
Local time
1:10 PM
Joined
Mar 27, 2006
Messages
10,052
I guess I am getting old. been shooting RF's and SLR's for over 30 years. It is really hard to treat a 35mm lens a s a standard normal and a 50mm as a 75mm portrait lens, etc. my mind is really rebelling. The R-d1 shoots great but can I get past this?

Old farts never die they just smell bad.
 
Switching between a film RF and the RD-1, it's like getting two lenses for the price of one! Who else has a sonnar 75/1.5 or an Ultron 53/1.7 ? :cool:

Usually when form is a problem, you can gain a little room to maneuver by switching the focus onto content.

Or maybe the RD-1 is just a "silent but deadly" stepping stone to an M8 :D
 
I think the hard part is accepting that a 50mm is only a 75mm with respect to filed of view/crop factor -- but depth of field and perspective effect is still that of a 50mm.
 
Phooey on the RD-1. When are you going to take that sweet little Leica llla you have & take some photos outside from your bedroom?;):)
 
With no previous 35mm RF experience, and coming from an OM background where my two favourite lenses were 50mm and 85mm, the switch to 35mm and 50mm on the Epson was smooth. Maybe you should send the above-mentioned little Leica my way, so I can confuse myself so I can take part in the upcoming depth of field and perspective debate.
 
That's why I (largely) stick to film, until the dust clears (more or less). The tech circus has hardly started, IMO.

Not a knock on digital (well, not a huge one, anyway), but a vote for going with what works best for you.


- Barrett
 
Last edited:
kshapero said:
I guess I am getting old. been shooting RF's and SLR's for over 30 years. It is really hard to treat a 35mm lens a s a standard normal and a 50mm as a 75mm portrait lens, etc. my mind is really rebelling. The R-d1 shoots great but can I get past this?...
Click to expand...
If you are like me, this will be easier than with the M8 where 50 is either too short or too long. With APS-C, 50 = 75 (as far as FoV) and 28 = 40 roughly so you could begin by using those two focal lengths to get accustomed to them in their new incarnation.
 
I find it irrelevant. Most of the time I have a 35 on the RD1 and just take pictures. I don't think about the FOV, just what I see within the VF frame lines. Exactly the same when I was using film RFs.
 
Denial is the first symptom ! he he he
: 28-40, 35-50, 50-75. Thats it! Done! think of them as a WATE analogy! After a while, its second nature!
 
i like the versatility of changing lenses and what the crop factor yields, yesterday i limited my use to one lens, my elmarit 28, 4th version, while walking around chicago and taking the architecture tour on the river.

i debated about taking a 21 but decided to travel simple, even though the vc 21 would have made a much smaller walkaround package.
 
It was strange at first, thinking that I had a 35 attached. But I've gotten used to it and now it doesn't really enter my mind. Well, that is except when a 50 (er 35) isn't wide enough, which is fairly often for me....
 
I'm new to the world of RF with my Epson R-D1s. I guess that's an advantage or, at a minimum, it keeps me from sounding like a cranky old dude on the subject.

amateriat got me thinking about the pixels vs. film debate. As we all know digital is in full swing for the SLR crowd -- they went through the deep pain long ago. It's very sad to see film slowly falling to the wayside. That said, this is a new era and digital has some benefits and a feel all it's own.

I don't know any professional shooters who prefer digital to film, how could they? Those who hire professional photographers rarely prefer digital because they see the difference and know that it doesn't save a single cent in the commercial world. Clients perceive it as a better buy buy, if anything, they spend more with it on the back end than they would with film.
 
mobilexile said:
I don't know any professional shooters who prefer digital to film, how could they? Those who hire professional photographers rarely prefer digital because they see the difference and know that it doesn't save a single cent in the commercial world. Clients perceive it as a better buy buy, if anything, they spend more with it on the back end than they would with film.
Click to expand...
Funny these days I don't know any professionals who prefer film anymore. I do know a few artists who prefer film.
 
well since I don't have a 28mm lens, the widest I can go is the 35mm (50mm line in viewfinder). I just carry a 35mm lens for my RD1, and it will be similar to carrying an M3, a 50mm viewfinder line with 1.0x magnification (or 0.9x on the m3)

So when using the 35mm lens on RD1, just think of it as using the M3. Hope this make sense
 
sabrewolf said:
well since I don't have a 28mm lens, the widest I can go is the 35mm (50mm line in viewfinder). I just carry a 35mm lens for my RD1, and it will be similar to carrying an M3, a 50mm viewfinder line with 1.0x magnification (or 0.9x on the m3)

So when using the 35mm lens on RD1, just think of it as using the M3. Hope this make sense
Click to expand...

Got it. thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom