lowep
Member
I enjoy using my R-D1 with a 28mm Voigtlander Ultron f1.9 lens but experience some difficulty trying to interpret the relationship of the yellow frame lines in the viewfinder to what ends up in and out of my snapshots.
This 28mm lens gives an equivalent 35mm FOV of 43mm on the R-D1 (according to Ken Rockwell). So my first question is should I "expect" the edges of my frame when I take a photo to somewhere between the 35mm and 50mm frame lines in the viewfinder? Or exactly on the 28mm frame lines?
The reason I ask is I just did a quick experiment to try and figure this out by lining up the different frame lines with the edges of a framed picture hanging beside me on the wall, and the results were quite confusing:
(1) When the 28mm frame lines were positioned on the edge of the wooden picture frame I got the whole picture frame plus quite a bit (about 10-20% more of extra wall space. In fact it looks like I got in the photo just about everything I could see through the viewfinder including what lay between the frame lines and the edge of the viewfinder ???
(2) When the 35mm frame lines were positioned on the edge of the picture frame I got the picture plus even more extra wall!
(3) When the 35mm frame lines were positioned on the edge of the picture frame I got the picture plus a lot more (about 50%) extra wall!
This 28mm lens gives an equivalent 35mm FOV of 43mm on the R-D1 (according to Ken Rockwell). So my first question is should I "expect" the edges of my frame when I take a photo to somewhere between the 35mm and 50mm frame lines in the viewfinder? Or exactly on the 28mm frame lines?
The reason I ask is I just did a quick experiment to try and figure this out by lining up the different frame lines with the edges of a framed picture hanging beside me on the wall, and the results were quite confusing:
(1) When the 28mm frame lines were positioned on the edge of the wooden picture frame I got the whole picture frame plus quite a bit (about 10-20% more of extra wall space. In fact it looks like I got in the photo just about everything I could see through the viewfinder including what lay between the frame lines and the edge of the viewfinder ???
(2) When the 35mm frame lines were positioned on the edge of the picture frame I got the picture plus even more extra wall!
(3) When the 35mm frame lines were positioned on the edge of the picture frame I got the picture plus a lot more (about 50%) extra wall!
Sustich
Established
I have the same setup, as well as a Bessa R.
The frameline selector for the RD-1 finder is already adjusted for the 1.5x crop factor. The frameline selector for the Bessa R is not adjusted.
So when you set the framelines on the RD-1 to 28mm, that is the correct field of view for the 28mm on the RD-1. It's not unusual to see (and even capture) outside the framelines. In fact, most consider it a blessing that you don't get with an SLR.
When you switch to 35mm, the frameline field of view becomes even smaller, thus the greater amount outside the frame.
You can see a similar case when you mount the 15mm Heliar on the two cameras. Because the lenses FOV is much greater than the built-in finder, you need to buy an auxiliary finder that fits into the hot shoe on top of the camera. There are actually two different finders available, the normal 15mm for the Bessa and a "15mm" for the RD-1. When you put the two side-by-side you notice that the FOV for the RD-1 "15mm" finder has the FOV equivalent of a 22 meter lens (15mm x 1.5 crop factor.)
BTW, if you can get your hands on the 15mm I urge you to give it a try on the RD-1. It really backs you out to a good FOV. I often travel with the 28mm on the RD-1 and the 15mm on the Bessa - a good pair.
The frameline selector for the RD-1 finder is already adjusted for the 1.5x crop factor. The frameline selector for the Bessa R is not adjusted.
So when you set the framelines on the RD-1 to 28mm, that is the correct field of view for the 28mm on the RD-1. It's not unusual to see (and even capture) outside the framelines. In fact, most consider it a blessing that you don't get with an SLR.
When you switch to 35mm, the frameline field of view becomes even smaller, thus the greater amount outside the frame.
You can see a similar case when you mount the 15mm Heliar on the two cameras. Because the lenses FOV is much greater than the built-in finder, you need to buy an auxiliary finder that fits into the hot shoe on top of the camera. There are actually two different finders available, the normal 15mm for the Bessa and a "15mm" for the RD-1. When you put the two side-by-side you notice that the FOV for the RD-1 "15mm" finder has the FOV equivalent of a 22 meter lens (15mm x 1.5 crop factor.)
BTW, if you can get your hands on the 15mm I urge you to give it a try on the RD-1. It really backs you out to a good FOV. I often travel with the 28mm on the RD-1 and the 15mm on the Bessa - a good pair.
kermaier
Well-known
The R-D1 frame lines enclose about 15% less area than the field of view of the corresponding lens. This provides a safety margin against the inherent inaccuracy of framing with a rangefinder. I.e., you always get more in the picture than you think. For this reason, a 40mm lens fits the 35mm frame lines almost perfectly.
aldobonnard
Well-known
Your description of the perceived problem is incomplete : viewfinder frames are set up for a certain distance. The R-D1 finder may be set up for 3m (anyone to confirm?). So, the accuracy of the frames varies with distance of your subject.
For close distances, you have to take into account the parallax, and adjust your framing yourself. It requires a little practice, nothing difficult.
It can be frustrating at times, but that is the reason why the frames are conservative and the picture is actually wider than what the frames predict : you are more or less assured to have everything you aimed at.
FYI I have found that the M8/M9 are worse than the R-D1.
Good luck with the practice !
For close distances, you have to take into account the parallax, and adjust your framing yourself. It requires a little practice, nothing difficult.
It can be frustrating at times, but that is the reason why the frames are conservative and the picture is actually wider than what the frames predict : you are more or less assured to have everything you aimed at.
FYI I have found that the M8/M9 are worse than the R-D1.
Good luck with the practice !
Addy101
Well-known
It seems mister Rockwell can't do math. 1.5 times 28 is still 42 in my book, not 43 :bang:
As mentioned, the framelines are optimized for a certain distance. Being at a different distance means the look changes slightly. Also, framelines are set to put in a little more in the picture then they show. Because you're not looking through the lens, there will always be a difference between the framelines and what you get in the picture - and it is better to get slightly more then you thought then getting slightly less. You can always crop a little, adding is much more difficult....
As mentioned, the framelines are optimized for a certain distance. Being at a different distance means the look changes slightly. Also, framelines are set to put in a little more in the picture then they show. Because you're not looking through the lens, there will always be a difference between the framelines and what you get in the picture - and it is better to get slightly more then you thought then getting slightly less. You can always crop a little, adding is much more difficult....
It's a 1.53 crop...not 1.5. He's closer to right on this one.
ped
Small brown dog
I find that with my 35 skopar the 28mm framelines are almost spot on!
EpicRavenLord
Member
THANK YOU FOR THIS INFORMATION !!!! This is tested accurate?
kermaier
Well-known
Not by me -- I remembered that figure from Rich Cutler's info, and my 5 years' experience hasn't refuted his assertion.
http://cameraquest.com/Epson-R-D1/_r-d1/r-d1_04.htm
Ari
http://cameraquest.com/Epson-R-D1/_r-d1/r-d1_04.htm
Ari
neonart
Established
I can attest that at least the "35mm" frame lines waste a lot of space. I have both a 35 and a 40 lens, and the 40 is perfect.
This would be just fine on a camera with 16 or 24 mpix, but on the RD1 cropping those 6.1 mp unnecessarily is more damaging, especially if your printing.
However, some will adjust and learn where to compensate with time.
paradoxbox
Well-known
I agree that the 35mm (and 50mm) framelines have a lot of extra space.
I've tested (not scientifically) the framelines and found that they have a lot of buffer room especially at infinity focus.
For example if I put something in the top right corner of a "rule-of-thirds" grid, and try to place the object so that it's just touching the framelines, in the actual photo the object will look much closer to the center of the photograph than I intended.
Now I am in the habit of cutting objects off slightly over the framelines if I want them to appear in the corner of my composition.
This happens much much less with the 28mm framelines.
I've tested (not scientifically) the framelines and found that they have a lot of buffer room especially at infinity focus.
For example if I put something in the top right corner of a "rule-of-thirds" grid, and try to place the object so that it's just touching the framelines, in the actual photo the object will look much closer to the center of the photograph than I intended.
Now I am in the habit of cutting objects off slightly over the framelines if I want them to appear in the corner of my composition.
This happens much much less with the 28mm framelines.