Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: lowep on December 31, 2011, 08:28:47 am
-
Like most people my age I use reading glasses and also am becoming a little near sighted so for some mysterious reason cannot see details at a distance as well as I used to thirty years ago. But still prefer not to use eyeglasses when photographing. I can avoid the reading glasses by adjusting the diopter that is a standard feature on most cameras. But this does not help when it comes to viewing details at a distance. Would an EVF with a diopter do both? ;)
-
i am in the same boat. With my GH2, i have adjusted the diopter and see the image with more clarity, but i haven't run a specific test . In the images i manual focused, the eyes seem ok. My normally developing cataracts seem to be reducing contrast as well, which makes more difficult for me to see detail in the EVF. That is just starting to bother me so i need to figure out the settings to see if i can increase the brightness of the display.
A trip to the local camera store might help you decide ?
Frank
-
No decent local camera store in my neighborhood Degrub but your comment reminded me my "old" Panasonic camcorder has an EVF that I just discovered does have a diopter and this does solve the problem, so thanks for your suggestion.
I would expect that the latest EVFs are far superior to the one on my two year old Panasonic TM300 camcorder.
Now I can deduct that maybe a Nex-7, GH2 or x100 or some other camera body with an EVF may be more worthwhile exploring than a traditional DSLR, particularly if a full frame mirrorless body with EVF pops up on the market.
-
Like most people my age I use reading glasses and also am becoming a little near sighted so for some mysterious reason cannot see details at a distance as well as I used to thirty years ago. But still prefer not to use eyeglasses when photographing. I can avoid the reading glasses by adjusting the diopter that is a standard feature on most cameras. But this does not help when it comes to viewing details at a distance. Would an EVF with a diopter do both? ;)
Uh huh..
This is where all those years using The Force comes in handy. Close your eyes and listen to your Father..
-
I had always thought Avendon's photos of the fall of the Berlin wall (http://www.snapindigo.com/assets/gallery_images/256/original/11643_1275839633.original-1.jpg) were deliberately out of focus. Maybe he just forgot to close his eyes?
Happy New Year
-
Like most people my age I use reading glasses and also am becoming a little near sighted so for some mysterious reason cannot see details at a distance as well as I used to thirty years ago. But still prefer not to use eyeglasses when photographing. I can avoid the reading glasses by adjusting the diopter that is a standard feature on most cameras. But this does not help when it comes to viewing details at a distance. Would an EVF with a diopter do both? ;)
First, I doubt if you are becoming myopic (near sighted). Your problem is presbyopia (from the Greek presbys: old). Initially it affects vision at reading distance, hence the need for reading glasses, but eventually it affects distant vision. In any case, with the proper diopter in the viewfinder your ability to see both closer and more distant objects in the viewfinder should be unaffected. I am not sure how an EVF with a diopter would be any different than an optical VF in this regard.
-
No doubt whatsoever Mouse, growing old is the right diagnosis, as not only my eyes but also my mind is losing ability to focus ::)
I had thought since EVF presents both camera data and an image of the scene on the same viewing plane it is possible to adjust the diopter so that both are easy to read in the viewfinder, whereas OVF presents the camera data close up in the viewfinder while the scene viewed through the vf remains far away so adjusting an OVF diopter only enables me to read the camera data as easily as if I were wearing reading glasses but does not at the same time help with seeing details of the faraway scene more clearly. Maybe I am wrong about this?
Looks like what I really need is to find an eye doctor and a dictionary. If presbyopia is derived from "old" is that why so many elderly people are Presbyterians?
-
Yes, it's the aging process I'm affraid. I'd had 20 / 20 vision all of my life until my early 50s when I noticed newspaper print / restaurant menus etc were becoming a little blurred. 12 months later I was forced into wearing reading glasses - at first it was just the "off the shelf" things that are sold in supermakerts etc. Wearing them just for reading though was a real pain as they were constantly being put on and taken off, and invariably being lost when I needed them.
Eventually after a couple more years, I began to notice that one eye was getting worse than the other so went to see an optician who confirmed it was a natural aging process and nothing to be concerned about. I mentioned to him about the taking of and putting back on thing being a pain, and he suggested that seeing as how my near distance vision was a bit supect and would probably get worse, that I have some vari-focal lenses. That was 7 years ago. I'm 61 now and he was rght - the near distance did and is continuing to get worse
but the vari-focals are the best thing I ever got as they sharpen things up from reading, right into the far distance. They did take a week or so to get used to but on the whole I'm happy with them.
I never really struggle when using the cameras as I use the rear screen on the compacts and on the DSLR I've adjusted the v/f dioptre to suit but mainly rely on the autofocus.
Now if I could just get my failing hearing sorted as well I'd be a happy bunny ;D
Dewi
-
I've adjusted the v/f dioptre to suit but mainly rely on the autofocus.
I was happily doing same until started to find focus slips when looking at images on my computer that I had not even picked up by zooming in on the LCD of my legacy MFDB. Just one such focussing slip can be very regrettable (even if the palm trees in the background are perfectly sharp). Had a similar WTF! moment some years ago after struggling with eyeball focussing on 4x5 ground glass I discovered there was a thing called a focussing loupe. Perhaps a system with a state of the art live-view LCD and advanced reviewing options would avoid this problem but having to review and to repeat shots is not very satisfactory when photographing people. Hence my interest in EVF, focus peaking etc.
Actually what would be really nice would be an upside down 4x5 inch or even better 8x10 inch live-view LCD designed to be viewed through a focussing loupe with a bifocal diopter under a focusing cloth...and as for hearing problems maybe this is a blessing in disguise unless your significant other is remarkably tolerant about you spending all the money for the grand-children's education on camera gear. :)
-
No doubt whatsoever Mouse, growing old is the right diagnosis, as not only my eyes but also my mind is losing ability to focus ::)
I had thought since EVF presents both camera data and an image of the scene on the same viewing plane it is possible to adjust the diopter so that both are easy to read in the viewfinder, whereas OVF presents the camera data close up in the viewfinder while the scene viewed through the vf remains far away so adjusting an OVF diopter only enables me to read the camera data as easily as if I were wearing reading glasses but does not at the same time help with seeing details of the faraway scene more clearly. Maybe I am wrong about this?
Looks like what I really need is to find an eye doctor and a dictionary. If presbyopia is derived from "old" is that why so many elderly people are Presbyterians?
You're not far off:
Presbyterian
1640, as name of Scottish church governed by elders (as opposed to bishops), from presbyter "an elder in a church" (1597), from L.L. presbyter "an elder," from Gk. presbyteros "an elder,"
A visit to an eye doctor is not a bad idea.
You are mistaken in your interpretation of what happens with an optical VF with the proper corrective diopter. The camera data and the distant scene are presented in such a way that the same accomodation (correction) applies to both. An EVF will not solve your problem. You are left with the nuisance of having to fish out your reading glasses to see the on-camera controls whose settings are not visible in the viewfinder.
-
Gosh! Happily mistaken :-) Not only to be found barking up the wrong tree but also to learn that the view through a SLR OVF is determined by the apparent distance of the viewfinder screen not far in front of my nose rather than the distance of the landscape on the other side of the lake, so thanks.
To verify took out my cameras, adjusted the viewfinder diopter so the frame lines in the viewfinder were as sharp as could be, then tried focussing on the small print in the bookshelf on the other side of the room. The results of this very unscientific dash came out in the following order of clarity?sharpness?detail?easiness to read the text? from best to worst:
1) upper field of bifocal eyeglasses + no camera viewfinder = most clear & readable
2) correctly adjusted diopter of Contax 645 VF + no eyeglasses = not as clear & readable but not bad
3) nonadjustable Mamiya 7 rangefinder OVF + upper field of bifocal eyeglasses = ok but little darker and murkier than 1 and 2
4) unadjusted diopter of Contax 645 VF + reading glasses (just for the hell of it) = ok
5) no glasses + no camera viewfinder = !@#@! terrible, unreadable text though books easy enough to distinguish from each other
6) Mamiya 7 rangefinder VF + no glasses = similar difficulty seeing details as 5 but murkier; still possible to focus with yellow boxes.
So:
No need to develop EVF drug dependency just yet
SLR viewfinder with diopter adjustment continues to be a viable option for ageing eyes
Forget about rangefinder OVF (sigh, Mamiya 7 likely to remain on shelf and no M9 for this bozo) unless via eyeglasses.
Maybe instead of an upside down 8x10 inch LCD what is really needed is a custom built styrofoam donut for using Mamiya 7 or any other camera with eyeglasses without the frames gouging crevices into the skull, or just a little more patience?
-
without the frames gouging crevices into the skull, or just a little more patience?
I somewhat solved that problem by getting special glasses for photography (progressive lenses). They are generally used by motorcycle riders and have a foam lining around the inside of the frame and wrap around. I initially got them because in warm weather the sweat from my forehead would drip down on the glasses and within five minutes I could not see a damn thing. Also the pressure of pressing up to the camera would bring parts of the lens in contact with my skin and I would get and oily residue deposited. A very soft focus effect followed. Since it was cool one day and the glasses do give a slightly tunnel effect that you get used to, I decided to try them without the foam. The oily residue returned so I cleaned the glasses and put the foam back in.
In general, I quite like the glasses. They solve my two big gripes with regular glasses used with a camera. I drive back home to get them if I forget and start off without them. Warning! They were quite expensive - the cost of a medium priced lens. Maybe they work for me due to the way I use the camera - I press it against my face as if I were making love.
Larry
-
Has anyone else here come across my own focussing problem, which isn't to do with the camera, but with my eyes?
What happens is this: at the start of the focussing process, I see okay, but after a few seconds, there is no way I can see anything crisply anymore without looking away at something else at a different distance (which instantly looks perfect), and then going back rapidly to the camera viewfinder for another quick check, when the whole darn circus starts again. This is worse with my right eye - unfortunately - and I find myself going from the right one to confirm via the left!
With normal situations, such as driving, for example, the process is almost self-correcting to the extent that unless I think about it, I don't even notice a problem. The fact that when in focus everything is still crystal clear and brilliantly crisp, comforts me that nothing is amiss with the eye itself, and that it is something else.
My medic told me it was age: old muscles get incapable of holding focus. I wonder if he's right... or just making a general guess. I even wonder if it's medication taking its toll.
Rob C
-
Maybe a little insight here -
http://www.baldmtn.com/blur.htm
-
Maybe a little insight here -
http://www.baldmtn.com/blur.htm
seeing is believing... who would have thought those ancient greeks used the same live view focussing technique we do today
-
I wear glasses and have Varifocals. I can use a viewfinder without any special dioptre setting and then look through the bottom of the spectacle lens and read menu information etc. Best of both worlds as I don't need to take my glasses off to use the camera or read the settings. The only downside is if I am trying to get into a low or awkward position using a tripod and I can't line up the area I need to look through on my spectacles with the viewfinder.
Steve
-
I wear glasses and have Varifocals. I can use a viewfinder without any special dioptre setting and then look through the bottom of the spectacle lens and read menu information etc. Best of both worlds as I don't need to take my glasses off to use the camera or read the settings. The only downside is if I am trying to get into a low or awkward position using a tripod and I can't line up the area I need to look through on my spectacles with the viewfinder.
Steve
My solution for that problem is a right angle viewfinder attachment.
-
Many of our instrument techs had their bifocals made upside down so they could work overhead when needed.
-
Here is another solution, Air Optix Aqua Multifocal contact lenses. They work for me and you can keep them in for a week at a time without having to soak them in cleaning solution.
http://www.airoptix.com/contact-lenses/air-optix-aqua-multifocal.shtml
-
Has anyone else here come across my own focussing problem, which isn't to do with the camera, but with my eyes?
What happens is this: at the start of the focussing process, I see okay, but after a few seconds, there is no way I can see anything crisply anymore without looking away at something else at a different distance (which instantly looks perfect), and then going back rapidly to the camera viewfinder for another quick check, when the whole darn circus starts again. This is worse with my right eye - unfortunately - and I find myself going from the right one to confirm via the left!
With normal situations, such as driving, for example, the process is almost self-correcting to the extent that unless I think about it, I don't even notice a problem. The fact that when in focus everything is still crystal clear and brilliantly crisp, comforts me that nothing is amiss with the eye itself, and that it is something else.
My medic told me it was age: old muscles get incapable of holding focus. I wonder if he's right... or just making a general guess. I even wonder if it's medication taking its toll.
Rob C
a. I spend a lot of time looking through rifle and spotting scopes in addition to cameras and noticed this happening when I approached my mid-40's. In my case if I relaxed my eyes I'd notice fine focus 'cycling' in/out. If I tried to force it then they'd lock on where I didn't necessarily want them. Learning to relax my eyes took some practice.
b. It was explained to me that age was one thing that would bring this on, as your eyes age the cornea gets more hard and this increases the time it takes to achieve focus and can make staying on focus difficult. There are other factors involving age related eye diseases so its always a good idea to get your eyes examined. In my case I've had the original Radial-K corrective surgery with a laser touch-up 25 years later.. and that contributes.
At 50 I notice some issues with focusing so I recently made a few visits to the eye doctors and tried a few different products and have some observations.
1. My eyes measure 20/20 and 20/15 at distance, and 20/20 and 20/25 near. You'd think this would be good enough but it's not. As photographers we know what focus is and we're constantly striving for critical focus and we know what it 'should' look like. So correction is necessary. I was concerned after two surgeries correction might not be possible or perfect.
2. At first I lucked out and got a trainee who did my exam and she recommended progressives. I took them home and immediately recognized they weren't for me. I use dual monitors (2 26.5 inch) and want to see the entire two screens at one time without indexing my head on either the vertical or horizontal plane. With progressives I could only see a third of one monitor in fine focus at a time, to see the rest of that screen I would need to move my head up/down to see the other two thirds. To see the second screen I'd haver to turn my neck to line up on that monitor, and then adjust my head up/down to find the third I could see at one time. I found this very tiring and it just wasn't acceptable.
3. My next visit netted an experienced doctor who spent a lot of time with me and suggested a single focal lens which would allow what I wanted, to see both screens at the same time without moving my head as I've always done. Anyone who has dual monitors knows it takes some effort to tilt them towards each other and move them forward/back to achieve the ideal distance from your eyes. Once there you don't dare move anything. He mocked up some temporary glasses, set up two monitors for me to test with, and after several tries came up with a prescription for single focal lenses that allow me to see both my monitors, all of them, in fine focus and at the same time. A very nice improvement.
4. Through the viewfinder I'm fortunate in that the standard diopter adjustments work great. No issues at all.
5. Where I continue to have issues is with LCD screens on the back of the cameras and especially with low quality LCD's like on the back of my Quantum flashes. I find them very hard to read immediately after looking through a diopter corrected viewfinder and have invented all sorts of compensations that usually involve memory presets where I can adjust them while indoors and I try to avoid changing them when in the field in challenging light. I recently talked to the good eye doc over the phone and he said to bring in these devices and he could work up a prescription that would be just for this purpose and I could hang them around my neck and only wear them as needed while working. It would be really great if this works and I'll know more next week, and I might even stop bothering the engineers at Quantum to make their Pilot or Trio screens output to a tablet.. :) There is a point where bigger and brighter screens really shouldn't be the solution, but I'm glad we have them available.
6. I had a fairly long discussion with my doctor about the future. Would I always have the 20/20 20/15 far and 20/20 20/25 near? What would change as I entered my mid-50's, early 60's, etc, and how would I know when I need to come see him again. Basically, at this point he said my eyes will remain the same with the exception of possible cataracts which he said everyone gets at some point if they live long enough. He told me so much progress is being made with artificial/replacement lenses that by the time I need them they will be able to implant a lens far better than my natural eyes have ever been. He said the rest of my body will age and get worse with time, but after my future eye surgery (whenever they may be) I'll have the eyes of a young man. Of course I asked the question "why not do the surgery now.." He said while there are very good lenses available, they're not quite there yet. Better to wait.
I don't know how much of the above can transfer to anyone else, but I thought it might be of interest if it does.
-
Not that I can contribute anything useful (other than to say that at 65 I have a lot of the same problems and use two pairs of glasses rather than varifocals). But isn't this Forum such a brilliant place? Here I am browsing this morning and I stumble across this thread, which is just so interesting, informative and useful.
And civil. Thank you all.
John
-
Couldn't agree more. John. I've learned a few things myself reading through all the posts... Can't wait for my new lens implants to be fitted Alas, I'll most probably be worm food by the time that particular technology is available :D
Dewi
-
Ok, time for some reality;
You guys know a lot more about pixels, noise and EV/ISO's (but I'm learning right here so thanks).
I am an eye surgeon who deals with this all the time so I will try to address most issues
The first sign of presbyopia is the loss of clarity when going from NEAR to FAR. Thus as someone noted earlier, they must look away from the finder and re-focus at distance to get "clear". While the effect is near universal, many don't do enough true near work (18" or less) to notice this earliest sign, but it is very reproducible in folks in their early forties. As folks approach their mid forties the near itself begins to be effected. This is normally attributed to the lens (not the cornea) stiffening, but it's just not that simple. If you actually remove lenses of folks that age you quickly realize that they are of differing rigidity depending upon the specimen. A more attractive model suggests simple crowding of the structures not allowing the muscles to pull as strongly (the lens grows throughout life). Anyone who lifts weights knows that a fully extended muscle can exert more power than a partially contracted one, has to do with molecular binding sites exposed, but unless you really want to get granular we'll stop there.
Note to all myopes; yes I know you take off your glasses to see up close, but these comments refer to everyone when corrected for distance whether by nature or man.
The effect is progressive as we age. Since the image in the optical viewfinder is actually a projection onto a mirror it is indeed a distance image, but unless you are old the correction necessary for near will only blur the image slightly. And has been noted things such as contrast sensitivity and secondary aberrations blur as well. An EVF is as looking at a TV and thus could be near, but I would suspect that manufacturers use correction to make it appear as a distance one, though I am not sure
As far as surgery, if you never wore glasses but it hit you in your 40-50 range it can be easily corrected with lasik. These are among my very happiest patients. As noted lens implant surgery can work well too but I do not recommend it for photographers since it will render you in focus at one point. Multifocal lenses are available but the decrement in distance is not tolerated by critical viewers in most cases. No one can make old eyes see as a young man however, time and gravity are cruel forces. We can make you better, but as yet cannot improve on Nature.
-
thanks allegreto, this is very informative.
taking your expert analysis one step further - what apart from eye surgery (prestissimo?) would you do?
-
thanks allegreto, this is very informative.
taking your expert analysis one step further - what apart from eye surgery (prestissimo?) would you do?
after reviewing your thread posts I think you need both the dioptric correction in your viewfinder and magnification.
I have two cameras, an M9 and an A77. In the M9 I routinely use a mag (1.25 for anything over 28mm and 1.4 for my 90mm) and I use the mag and peaking peaking for the A77 when possible, if not I just hope the AF got it right.
What camera do you use, and I can give you some suggestions? If you don't have either option that I use, I would suggest you use a contact lens in your shooting eye since this eliminates the eyeglass relief problem inherent in any viewfinder. The link posted makes sense of course and it is handy that manufacturers use a 3' viewing distance since this stakes but 1D of correction.
-
what camera do you use?
Contax 645 that fortunately has a decent diopter.
Understand what your suggestion about diopter but not about magnification?
Seems like many like me also use the squint > autofocus > hope for the best approach
Best solution I have found so far is eyeglasses with no camera - but that doesn't help with focussing :-)
-
yes, I meant that I use the on-board magnification of the A 77 (goes to about 11X) when I manually focus. You also mentioned a mag loupe in one of your posts I believe (unless I'm confusing you with someone else).
The M9 has little mag lenses you screw on to the viewer.
As I noted I much prefer a contact lens to glasses if I needed it. I can never get used to bumping my glasses against the camera, feels uncomfortable to me.
-
Hmmm... anybody tried using an add on gizmo like this (http://www.brightscreen.com/accurfocus.html) brightscreen ACCURFOCUS™ critical focusing magnifier that looks :-) interesting
-
Hi,
Both optical and electronic viewfinders project the image into an imagenary plane in front of the eye. You would not see much of a difference. EVF can usually enlarge live view to actual pixels and that capability is very usable.
Best regards
Erik
Like most people my age I use reading glasses and also am becoming a little near sighted so for some mysterious reason cannot see details at a distance as well as I used to thirty years ago. But still prefer not to use eyeglasses when photographing. I can avoid the reading glasses by adjusting the diopter that is a standard feature on most cameras. But this does not help when it comes to viewing details at a distance. Would an EVF with a diopter do both? ;)