david_kieltyka1

High contrast lenses can be an issue with digital sensors too. I've run into this with the R-D1 and certain lenses, such as the CV 28mm f/3.5. The 28mm is so "hot" it can easily create images with more dynamic range than the sensor can handle. Lower contrast lenses yield flatter images that are easier to deal with. I've been using my Zeiss 50 & 85mm LTM Sonnars with the R-D1 with great results. They were snappy lenses for their time but are only of moderate contrast by current standards. With digital all you need is enough contrast to resolve fine detail...from there you have total control over the appearance of that detail via post-processing. This is something to consider with the M-Digital as well should that product ever come to market.

-Dave-

I have the PII. With color neg film it performs great. High contrast, very good resolution. And of course it's small & light. I have yet to use it with b&w film. On the Epson R-D1 it's a bit too contrasty, at least compared to a pre-ASPH Summicron (or 40mm Summicron-C) or the CV 35mm f/1.7. If you like snappy Tri-X negs the PII will help you get them.

-Dave-

IMO you really have to look at prints from a lens to properly judge its characteristics. I have the single-coated 40mm Nokton and have seen no double-line stuff in any photos I've taken with it so far. It does often render out-of-focus specular highlights as sharp discs. I think this is what people are objecting to in web-sized images. Overall the Nokton's OOF look isn't much different than that of the DR 'Cron I used to own or the 40mm 'Cron-C.

-Dave-

I agree with Jack. If you're not printing you can skip the 30D (or whatever it might be called) as well as the 20D. Wait for an improvement you'll be able to see while displaying an entire photo on-screen. Dynamic range is an area likely to get some attention from sensor makers over the next few years. You may end up buying a monitor capable of displaying a full 6mp image before you buy another camera. :-)

-Dave-

I'd get the R-D1's RF calibrated. This will fix the vertical misalignment if nothing else. Once that's done re-test with the 40mm and see what happens. If the problem still remains I'd suggest doing a lens swap. I'd be happy to provide my 40mm Summicron-C for the first part of this. Since I know my lens focuses accurately on my R-D1 let's see how it behaves on yours.

-Dave-

>> Yes, they were completely correct about the problems, which we are now seeing on the RD-1-- vignetting, focusing, lack of picture quality compared to film, etc. <<

No, they weren't correct. Leica said a digi-RF was a no-go. Wrong. Vignetting is an issue with the R-D1 and certain wide lenses but it can be dealt with. Focusing...the camera is spot-on provided the RF mechanism is adjusted properly. Just like any other RF camera. The R-D1's relatively short effective baselength would appear on paper to limit accuracy with longer lenses, but in practice this isn't nearly the issue I expected it to be. Lack of picture quality? How do you define "picture quality?" My 8x12" prints from R-D1 shots are indistinguishable from my 8x12" prints made from scanned low-ISO 35mm color film. That's how I define quality. Do such a comparison yourself, to whatever standards you employ. Then you can comment on quality.

-Dave-

Michael, my comments on focusing accuracy with the R-D1 weren't meant to minimize in any way the problem you're experiencing. Based on my own experience I'm convinced the issue is due to miscalibration, or at least something out-of-spec, somewhere in the chain rather than fundamental incompatibility. At any rate eventually you'll nail it down and then we'll know for sure.

-Dave-

I used to own the CV Ultron, then sold it last year in favor of the CV f/3.5 Skopar. I wanted a more compact lens. But after buying the Epson R-D1 I switched back to the Ultron. It performs very well in front of film frames or digital sensors. I'd prefer if it were a bit shorter but on the R-D1 and my M2 it balances fine.

-Dave-

I think the Hexar RF issue was with the camera itself (or, perhaps more accurately, certain samples of the camera) rather than the lenses. I've used a borrowed Konica 50mm f/2 on my M2 and had no problems with focus accuracy.

-Dave-

Definitely get the RF adjusted. I have the 40mm Summicron-C and have had no problems with it on the R-D1. Performs fine at all apertures and focus distances. Being a medium contrast lens it's a good match for the R-D1's sensor. Does the Rokkor look good on film at f/2?

Because programs like Photoshop offer such precise control over contrast I've found I can get snappy results even from a low-contrast lens like the 50mm Summar. (Central resolution is actually pretty darn good with the Summar. You just have to boost local contrast to reveal the finer detail.) As you note a deep hood is definitely essential with older lenses.

-Dave-

IMO comparing an RF camera directly to an SLR, even price-wise, misses the crux of the matter. I use my R-D1 and Canon 20D for different purposes. Each encourages a particular style of shooting (for me anyway) and thus neither is a direct replacement for the other. There's a logic that says all products accomplishing the same basic task to the same basic quality level should be priced the same. I don't agree. The R-D1 is a first-generation, small-production-run product with a monopoly on a niche market (digital RF cameras) within a niche market (RF cameras in general). The price, while certainly high, is in line with that status. For now anyway. If sales stagnate the price will come down.

-Dave-

The issue isn't that the metering systems are inaccurate but that ISO ratings aren't standardized. The G6 meters as accurately at ISO 50 as at any other setting. Which is to say okay but with a tendency to overexpose in medium & high contrast situations. Photograph a gray card and the histogram will have a spike in the middle, which is as it should be. But the sensitivity of its "ISO 50" is more like that of an ISO 80 film. Its other gain settings are also faster than the ISO numbers indicate. Canon could rate the G6 at ISO 80-640. But maybe the marketeers like 50-400 better. Dunno.

-Dave-

The old f/3.4 Super Angulon is excellent in the distortion department but may cause metering issues depending on your camera. Among modern lenses I'd second the Kobalux f/2.8. It has a nice combination of low vignetting and low rectilinear distortion. The G Biogon is IMO the finest RF 21mm lens you can buy...though that may change once Zeiss releases their new M-mount version. If you need a lens right now try to find a used or New-Old-Stock Kobalux.

-Dave-

Overpriced? Yes. But it's a limited production item with no competition.

Severe vigenetting? No. There is noticeable vignetting with certain wide lenses but it can be dealt with in Epson's RAW converter. There are plenty of online examples demonstrating this. My CV 15mm vignettes...but it does this on 35mm film too. The converter dials it out quite nicely. My Kobalux 21mm vignettes a bit wide open but stopped down it's okay. My CV 28mm Ultron doesn't noticeably vignette at any aperture. No vignetting to speak of with any of my longer lenses apart from the 50mm Summar, which shows about the same degree of falloff at wider apertures on the R-D1 as on a Leica or CV Bessa.

Slow starting. Yes, it takes a few seconds to power up. Waking up from sleep mode is as fast as half-pressing the shutter, waiting a beat, then firing. When I'm out with the R-D1 I just tap the shutter release every so often to keep the camera awake. It's a habit I developed from using the Canon 10D, which takes longer to wake up than the R-D1. The Canon 20D, OTOH, turns on & wakes up almost instantly.

Unreliable metering? No effin' way!! The R-D1's meter makes the "evaluative" metering system in my Canon 20D look pathetic. Perhaps the reviewer is accustomed to meters that happily blow out highlights in order to render midtones as midtones. The R-D1 doesn't do that...it's biased toward preserving highlights. This is IMO one of the camera's strong points.

-Dave-

>> Has anyone noticed that after Borders has established itself in a city and driven out all the independent book sellers, they start removing all the confortable chairs. <<

That's just the company's ever-shifting attitude toward being a hangout place as well as a retail business. For many years chairs and sofas were considered essential in creating a casual, relaxed atmosphere. Then Borders became a huge company, leadership changed and this was de-emphasized. Nowadays the comfy chairs come & go depending on the amount of available space and store manager preference. If you want more chairs ask for 'em. If enough people ask you'll get 'em.

-Dave- (who works for Borders Group, Inc.)

In my experience a photo taken with the 15mm on a 10D and then de-fished & cropped to preserve the maximum amount of horizontal image data (using PanoTools this gives you roughly a 4:7 aspect ratio rather than the standard 2:3) will have about the same horizontal field-of-view as a 12mm lens on the 10D. Call it 19mm on a 35mm camera. Crop the de-fished image to 2:3 and you're pretty close to where you want to be.

-Dave-

As other folks here have suggested, if you really want the Distagon you better buy one now while you still can. Even if you have to buy a new one. Zeiss has all but severed its relationship with Kyocera, and the Contax lens line will continue to dwindle as stockpiled supplies are sold. The Japanese Zeiss lens facility has already shut down in fact.

-Dave-

Yeah, I like Moby...his music and his approach.

I actually do a lot of recording with casette & reel 4-tracks, then I dump the tracks into the Powerbook for editing & processing. The quick & simple handling of the old combined with the power of the new. This also means I can use outboard analog processing gear--nice compressors & such--without going through two separate stages of digital/analog conversion. And I can get tape compression effects with real tape. :-)

-Dave-

Nikon loses money on its compact digis as do many other companies. But it's pulling in big bucks with the D70. The company overall is in the black, not necessarily comfortably so but doing pretty well.

-Dave-

I suspect the angle-of-incidence issue is such that APS sensors are the way to go with a digi-RF. For now anyway...who knows what might develop tomorrow. We already have a 12mm lens from Cosina. Even on the R-D1 it gives you a wider field-of-view than Leica's widest RF lens. So it's not like there are no wide APS options currently. Making wider lenses more telecentric is, I bet, the best way to deal with sensor-exacerbated vignetting. It'll be interesting to see how the new Zeiss M lenses perform in this respect.

I'm of two minds about smaller-image-circle lenses. From a size & weight standpoint I like the idea. But I don't think the digi-RF market will be large enough to justify them. I also agree with the folks who've said the market is probably too small for a high-volume company like Canon to get involved. The Canon of the 1950s-70s is long gone. I personally like the prospects of a Zeiss-Cosina-Epson trio...but this probably exists only in my imagination. :-)

-Dave-

>> Velvia stands for pumped-up, unnatural colors. <<

I don't necessarily disagree. But that specific look is easily available in the film world, and I'd like it to be easily available in the digital world too. Along with lots of other film looks. Give me more options, please, not fewer.

-Dave-

Yes, I think viewing at full res is only a means to an end, not the end itself. I do it mainly to find dust blobs & stuck pixels...or scratches & dust spots if I'm scanning film. But it's the final print I really care about, and the best way to find out what the print will look like is to make one. :-)

-Dave-

There's a significant part of the digital audio equation that hasn't been touched on yet. IMO the reproduction media are of far less importance than the tools used to create the audio in the first place.

In the audio world much time, effort & money has been spent on designing digital gear that sounds analog. Digital guitar amps emulate tube classics. (I have a Vox Valvetone digi-amp that does an uncanny recreation of my 1960 AC15.) Digital recording preamps & effects do much the same thing. These products would be *dead in the water* if they didn't emulate classic behavior & sound. This provides a smoother transition into the digital world for people raised on analog sound. A generation or two from now these products may die out as digital loses its "cold, clinical" stigma. But right now they're ubiquitous.

In the photo world there's little of this. The changeover from analog to digital is more abrupt than in the audio world. Digital cameras make no attempt to emulate the look of classic films. RAW converters and post-processing apps have offered only feeble attempts at film profiling. If you switch from a film to a digital camera you simply accept a different look to your photos. I think the profiles and emulations would exist if people wanted them. But by & large they don't seem interested. Out with the old, in with the new. Very different attitude to the music world.

-Dave-

IMO viewing images at full res has a number of valid uses, which I won't go into here. They'll be well-known to anyone who spends time post-processing digital photos or film scans. But I also think some folks have crossed the line into obsession over pixel-level detail. This is typical of any hobby/interest/pursuit with a technical aspect to it. People lose sight of the point behind taking photos and get hung up on minutiae. (And for some folks the minutiae are the whole point. But these folks aren't interested in photography per se.) This leads to conflict with other people who see full-res viewing as merely a means to an end. The end being a print or some sort of display where you can see the entire photo at once.

At this point I prefer to ignore "pixel peeping" rather than get stirred up by it.

-Dave-

All that is fine, Trevor. You should indeed go for the lenses that meet your important criteria. But that still isn't objective, it's just your take on what makes a good lens. It may be shared by lots of other folks too but it's not universal. IMO much of the friction we see in this forum comes about because people behave as though their view of things photographic is the only view worth having. Other views are seen as stupid or backwards or wrongheaded rather than what they really are: just different. If we could accept multiplicity and diversity of outlook and opinion things would be far more harmonious. There'd be no bickering whenever the words Zeiss, R-D1, Cosina, etc. appear in threads.

-Dave-