marbrink
Established
I'm thinking of getting a R-D1 or R-D1s now that prices are getting a bit lower. However I don't like the very mediocre 85% frame coverage... Why is it that bad? What frame coverage does my M6 TTL have in comparsion? How do you find it to shoot with that bad frame coverage?
Going from 100% frame with my 1Ds to 85% with R-D1 would be weird..
Going from 100% frame with my 1Ds to 85% with R-D1 would be weird..
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
The 85% coverage figure is at infinity, and it's incorporated into the R-D 1's finder frames as a safety device. Here's why:
The effective focal length of a lens increases as you focus closer -- in effect, the lens "zooms in" slightly at close distances.
Because of this effect, if the finder frames were designed to provide 100% coverage at infinity (which certainly would be possible) then when you focused down to 1 meter, the finder would show more than you'd get in the final image (because the lens had "zoomed in" compared to the finder view.) This would be dangerous --- you might try to compose the picture very carefully so some object would be on the exact edge, and then you'd be upset to discover that in the image it was cropped out entirely!
Since this effective-focal-length increase is an inherent property of lenses, every rangefinder camera has this type of safety factor designed into its finder frames -- yes, including Leica Ms, although I don't know the exact percentage Leica uses.
The only exceptions are a handful of cameras designed with viewfinders incorporating a "field size correction" feature -- the only ones I can think of are a few Konica models (IIIA, IIIM, Auto S2, Pearl IV) and the Polaroid 180. Of course, none of these have interchangeable lenses; to incorporate both switchable finder frames and field size correction would make the rangefinder mechanism ridiculously complex.
So, what's it like to shoot with a finder that's not 100% accurate? Well, of course it means that you can only make poorly-composed, crappy pictures, like those of Henri Cartier-Bresson, Elliott Erwitt, etc., etc. ;-)
The effective focal length of a lens increases as you focus closer -- in effect, the lens "zooms in" slightly at close distances.
Because of this effect, if the finder frames were designed to provide 100% coverage at infinity (which certainly would be possible) then when you focused down to 1 meter, the finder would show more than you'd get in the final image (because the lens had "zoomed in" compared to the finder view.) This would be dangerous --- you might try to compose the picture very carefully so some object would be on the exact edge, and then you'd be upset to discover that in the image it was cropped out entirely!
Since this effective-focal-length increase is an inherent property of lenses, every rangefinder camera has this type of safety factor designed into its finder frames -- yes, including Leica Ms, although I don't know the exact percentage Leica uses.
The only exceptions are a handful of cameras designed with viewfinders incorporating a "field size correction" feature -- the only ones I can think of are a few Konica models (IIIA, IIIM, Auto S2, Pearl IV) and the Polaroid 180. Of course, none of these have interchangeable lenses; to incorporate both switchable finder frames and field size correction would make the rangefinder mechanism ridiculously complex.
So, what's it like to shoot with a finder that's not 100% accurate? Well, of course it means that you can only make poorly-composed, crappy pictures, like those of Henri Cartier-Bresson, Elliott Erwitt, etc., etc. ;-)
rami G
Established
one crucial difference between slr and rangefinder is that in a rangefinder, regardless of the accuracy of the frame, you can see 100% of the image you are taking, while you can see the whole frame only in slrs that have 100% covarage. (obviously, for wider lenses you might need an external finder to see the whole image).
marbrink
Established
jlw,
Thanks! Very good explenation. I'm new to rangefinders so thanks for having patience with me.
rami g,
I can see 100% of the image I'm taking with the 1Ds. But I can't see outside the frame like with my M6. It's nice to being able to see outside the frame.
Thanks! Very good explenation. I'm new to rangefinders so thanks for having patience with me.
rami g,
I can see 100% of the image I'm taking with the 1Ds. But I can't see outside the frame like with my M6. It's nice to being able to see outside the frame.