Epson RD-1 digital rangefinder

[philipotto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have recently ordered a R-D1.

 

Is it possible to remove the AA and IR filters from the R-D1?

 

I doubt that it is, but has anyone attempted to remove AA/IR filters?

 

I would happily contend with moire, and I was already considering purchasing B+W 486 IR/CUT filters

 

 

Cheers,

Philip

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Guest flatfour]

The RD-1 seems to offer good value but have they solved the slightly out of focus problem with Leica lenses ?

[lct]

The RD-1 seems to offer good value but have they solved the slightly out of focus problem with Leica lenses ?

There is no OoF problem if the rangefinder is well aligned which is not always the case with both R-D1 and R-D1s bodies.

Also limitations come from the short base length of the rangefinder.

Difficult to open wider then f/1.4 with 50mm, f/2.5 with 75mm, f/3.5 with 90mm, f/8 with 135mm lenses.

[Sarsfield]

Reid, Reichmann and Adamson have all said the M8's files compare favorably with medium-format film scans. Adamson has said the D2Xs doesn't perform at the level of the M8; Reid's reviews of the DMR and M8 indicate that he puts the M8's performance ahead. David has said the M8's image quality is comparable to 4x5

 

I have just joined this forum but have been following the M8 long before it's official release. I've got to say that the comments regarding this camera's output become more and more ridiculous every day. I have seen every sample posted on the web and, although very nice when it works, the files look no better to me than a $300.00 P&S. Web resolution is a joke anyway but I would expect a lot better than what I have seen for the $$'s someone needs to invest. Something tells me that the emperor has no clothes and nobody's got the ba11s to tell him...

[Guest flatfour]

I have a friend who has an M8 on order and has done a lot of homework in checking reviews etc, He has the advantage of a neighbour with an M8 who used to use only a Hassy - and still does a bit - but he says his neighbour has been bowled over by the quality of his M8 images and ease of use. He said he was persuaded to buy the M8 in preference to a digital back by the Leica dealer and says it has so far proved a good move. It is clearly no good using the web to compare image quality but if I had the money I wouldn't hesitate to order an M8. I think I have now heard enough very favourable comments to suggest this is a very good camera.

[farnz]

I've got to say that the comments regarding this camera's output become more and more ridiculous every day. I have seen every sample posted on the web and, although very nice when it works, the files look no better to me than a $300.00 P&S. Web resolution is a joke anyway but I would expect a lot better than what I have seen for the $$'s someone needs to invest. Something tells me that the emperor has no clothes and nobody's got the ba11s to tell him...

(Apologies for re-quoting Abraham Lincoln.) "'Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."

[ho_co]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have just joined this forum but have been following the M8 long before it's official release. I've got to say that the comments regarding this camera's output become more and more ridiculous every day. ... Something tells me that the emperor has no clothes and nobody's got the ba11s to tell him...

Patrick--Welcome aboard the forum. We don't move forward without communication.

 

You mention that the M8's files look to you like those of a $300 digicam. I'm assuming you are referring to the DNGs that a number of people have made available, since you rightly point out that you can't really tell anything from web JPGs. So what software did you use to process the M8 DNGs? And what $300 digicam that offers RAW were you thinking about?

 

You say that you've been following the M8 since before its release and that "the comments regarding this camera's output become more and more ridiculous every day," but nothing in the section of my post that you cite is new; it all goes back to early November, so you seem to be about 6 weeks out of date.

 

But then, I'm not really sure what you mean. Have you read Reichmann's comments on the M8 (free)? Have you read Reid's comments on the M8 (subscription)? Is your criticism that they don't know what they're talking about, or rather that I misquoted them?

 

Suggestion: Check out the thread http://www.leica-camera-user.com/digital-forum/9022-30-x-40-inch-m8-prints.html. Some felt the initial pronouncement sounded a bit over the top, but David proved pretty convincing. It's a long thread; read it all with an open mind.

 

By the time you finish, I may have figured out what "BA-elevens" are. I hope it's not crude; posting ugliness just to make a point is cheap and rude.

 

--HC

[sdai]

I have recently ordered a R-D1.

 

Is it possible to remove the AA and IR filters from the R-D1?

 

I doubt that it is, but has anyone attempted to remove AA/IR filters?

 

I would happily contend with moire, and I was already considering purchasing B+W 486 IR/CUT filters

 

 

Cheers,

Philip

 

Hi, Philip,

 

I believe the IR filter of the R-D1 can be removed - even by yourself, not sure about the AA. The R-D1 uses the same sensor assembly as the one found in D70/D70s and there are many readily available tutorials on the web.

 

Interestingly, I'm actually thinking of hacking a M8 ... my buddy in Japan will take a look at the damn camera once he gets his hands on it - if he could replace the IR filter in front of the sensor. One other thing on top my head is to unlock 16-bit output, obviously

 

Cheers,

[rvaubel]

Hi, Philip,

 

I believe the IR filter of the R-D1 can be removed - even by yourself, not sure about the AA. The R-D1 uses the same sensor assembly as the one found in D70/D70s and there are many readily available tutorials on the web.

 

Interestingly, I'm actually thinking of hacking a M8 ... my buddy in Japan will take a look at the damn camera once he gets his hands on it - if he could replace the IR filter in front of the sensor. One other thing on top my head is to unlock 16-bit output, obviously

 

Cheers,

 

I would like to know myself if the IR filter is removable. Some are and some are bonded to the sensor. The astrophotagraphy community has been hacking sensors for years. My Canon 20D has been hacked (by Canon itself) but others have remove the IR filter themselves. If it were possible to exchange the current filter for a stronger one, there are some new absorbtive glasses that might be better than what Solm choose. This is a bit of Fantasyland thinking but it has been done before.

 

Rex

[ho_co]

... how could one claim that the M8 bests the DMR (not to mention all 35mm format) in the image quality department?

Simon--

Check out also (from Dec 28, 06) http://www.leica-camera-user.com/film-forum/12345-scanning-quality.html#post128300:

Also my statement of M8 output over any 35mm output stands on a technical level-not aesthetic. In 15 years of scanning and printing for industry greats I have never seen (technically) output that matches or exceeds the M8 files. I base this on sharpness,dynamic range,shadow and highlight detail retrieval, enlargement capability.

[Vivek Iyer]

I have recently ordered a R-D1.

 

Is it possible to remove the AA and IR filters from the R-D1?

 

I doubt that it is, but has anyone attempted to remove AA/IR filters?

 

I would happily contend with moire, and I was already considering purchasing B+W 486 IR/CUT filters

 

 

Cheers,

Philip

 

Philp, I think the IR cut filter can be removed. AFAIK, it isn't glued to the sensor. However, after removing it, one needs to put a spacer (plain glass, for example) of EXACTLY the same thickness so that the RF functions without problems. Otherwise, you will end up with a "naked" and "blind" camera.

 

I believe the AA filter (nothing to do with IR cut) is integrated on the R-D1' s sensor. To get rid of this, you need to pop open the sensor's cover glass which is hermetically sealed. This risks damaging the sensor itself.

 

You are also likely to discover that the B+W 486 will not work as efficiently when the original blue-green IR cut filter is removed. You may need a cyan filter over the lens to filter out IR.

[rvaubel]

Philp, I think the IR cut filter can be removed. AFAIK, it isn't glued to the sensor. However, after removing it, one needs to put a spacer (plain glass, for example) of EXACTLY the same thickness so that the RF functions without problems. Otherwise, you will end up with a "naked" and "blind" camera.

.

 

When the astro guys remove the IR filter they DO replace the filter with a piece of plain glass that is exactly the same thickness. But this is to preserve the autofocus function. My interest in removing Leica's idea of proper IR filtration would be to replace it with a more effective filter. Then , one would hope, to dispense with the external filter kludges. It sounds pretty adventuresome but par for the course for the the Astronuts.

 

Rex

[Vivek Iyer]

When the astro guys remove the IR filter they DO replace the filter with a piece of plain glass that is exactly the same thickness. But this is to preserve the autofocus function. My interest in removing Leica's idea of proper IR filtration would be to replace it with a more effective filter. Then , one would hope, to dispense with the external filter kludges. It sounds pretty adventuresome but par for the course for the the Astronuts.

 

Rex

 

 

Well, Rex, when (not if) I check an M8 for UV response, I am going to buy one. I may even cut off the 0.5mm thick IR cut filter (glued onto the sensor casing).

[farnz]

I may even cut off the 0.5mm thick IR cut filter (glued onto the sensor casing).

Would you be so kind as to video it and post it on YouTube please so we can all watch it from behind our fingers and make all of the appropriate "ooohs" and "aaahs" and "yikes"? You could create a new spectator sport!

[Riley]

Philp, I think the IR cut filter can be removed. AFAIK, it isn't glued to the sensor. However, after removing it, one needs to put a spacer (plain glass, for example) of EXACTLY the same thickness so that the RF functions without problems. Otherwise, you will end up with a "naked" and "blind" camera.

 

this is my theory

that the camera is then somewhat sharper because of additional IR

my theory is that the additional IR works with in camera sharpening somehow

to create a 'sythetic' sharpness

putting the IR cut on the front of the lens doesnt eliminate this quality

but as yet i dont understand why that is so

[rvaubel]

Well, Rex, when (not if) I check an M8 for UV response, I am going to buy one. I may even cut off the 0.5mm thick IR cut filter (glued onto the sensor casing).

 

Hey, I thought you said it wasn't glued? On my 210D it is in a frame and can be easily removed if you have the guts.

 

Are you one of those crazy guys that are into UV photography? Everyone knows that the only sane kind of non-visible photography is Infrared.

 

Rex

[Riley]

i ommited to mention that, indeed M8 does have IR filtering at the sensor

 

so for RD1 owners and others, duplicating the results might require more IR filtering at the front of the lens should you opt to remove the existing filter at the sensor. Im not at all sure how this would pan out, but it seems to me to be a worthwhile experiment. For which, one would best take some pre test shots in a controlled environment (as best as can be organised) and then reshoot after the mod, and check the differences based on what we know can happen.

 

it would be best to be in possesion of a macbeth chart, and a range of synthetic material, as well as some predictors for sharpness evaluation.

[Vivek Iyer]

Would you be so kind as to video it and post it on YouTube please so we can all watch it from behind our fingers and make all of the appropriate "ooohs" and "aaahs" and "yikes"? You could create a new spectator sport!

 

A lot of folks have gone through those emotions with the unchanged M8.

 

I would rather ask Solms to do the deed (if they are willing).

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[alukban]

Aliasing refers to sampling the image subject without enough spatial frequency resolution. What frequency? The Nyquist frequency of the system. AA filters and moire patterns go hand in hand. The system is "softened" or made less sharp by the AA filter thus making it more likely that the systems sampling limit is not reached and thus reducing the possibility of moire artifacts at high frequencies. The imaging system has a high frequency spatial resolution limit. Once it goes beyond the high frequency spatial resolution, you get a system modulation transfer function which reverses into the negative, i.e. reversal of intensities or the moire pattern.

[ho_co]

this is my theory

that the camera is then somewhat sharper because of additional IR

my theory is that the additional IR works with in camera sharpening somehow

to create a 'sythetic' sharpness

putting the IR cut on the front of the lens doesnt eliminate this quality

but as yet i dont understand why that is so

Rob--Very interesting idea to say the least. But I choose Occam's Razor here and stick with Leica's explanation:

1) Thin cover glass reduces image focus degradation

2) Same thin cover glass allows extra IR transmission

3) Since IR has different focal plane from visible light, its presence reduces sharpness

4) Front IR-Cut filter eliminates IR and increases sharpness

 

Of course, effects 3 and 4 would be very hard to see since IR is such a small part of the image-forming light. And I do admit that the idea of a 'synthetic sharpening' is far sexier!

 

--HC