Aging eyesight!

[Melvin J Bramley]

I should add.
The newer film Nikons in AP mode offer shutter speeds in 1/3 stops perhaps this is why the images look good?

 

[r_a_feldman]

Rangefinders are an option, but every SLR I've ever owned (excluding those with auto-focusing) have had split-rangefinders in the middle of a fresnel donut. True, they are only useful with lenses faster than f5.6 or so, but most of my lenses meet that criterion.

Yes, I also find split-image focusing screens in SLRs the easiest to focus with. I used them in my OM-1’s and they are available for a number of other brands (e.g., Nikon F).

For the Olympus Pen F/FT, however, split-image is not an option and focusing them can be hard, as Patrick Robert James noted above. There is a repair shop in Japan (Kanto Camera, http://www.kantocamera.com/english/repair/olympus/index.html) that advertised replacing the standard Pen F/FT screen with a split-image screen, but it looks like they no longer do that. Replacing the semi-silvered mirror in an FT to get a brighter view finder is relatively easy if you are willing to loose the meter (I have done that myself), but getting the focusing screen out requires major disassembly, so I have not attempted changing the focusing screen.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yes, I also find split-image focusing screens in SLRs the easiest to focus with. I used them in my OM-1’s and they are available for a number of other brands (e.g., Nikon F).

For the Olympus Pen F/FT, however, split-image is not an option and focusing them can be hard, as Patrick Robert James noted above. There is a repair shop in Japan (Kanto Camera, http://www.kantocamera.com/english/repair/olympus/index.html) that advertised replacing the standard Pen F/FT screen with a split-image screen, but it looks like they no longer do that. Replacing the semi-silvered mirror in an FT to get a brighter view finder is relatively easy if you are willing to loose the meter (I have done that myself), but getting the focusing screen out requires major disassembly, so I have not attempted changing the focusing screen.

I have found the split image focusing are seriously lacking when I use lenses with smaller apertures which cause one side or the other or both sides of the split image or grid to go dark rendering the split image or grid useless.

 

[xkaes]

I have found the split image focusing are seriously lacking when I use lenses with smaller apertures which cause one side or the other or both sides of the split image or grid to go dark rendering the split image or grid useless.

With lenses that slow, accurate focusing isn't that critical anyway, thanks to the increased DOF of the lens.

A largely unknown benefit of the split-rangefinder "spot", is that if either side of the rangefinder "blacks-out", that probably means your eye is not dead center in the viewfinder -- where it should be anyway. Move the camera (or your eyeball) up and down and side-to-side and the "black-out" will disappear -- assuming the lens is fast enough (usually faster than f5.6). The closer the lens is to f5.6 the more helpful this "trick" will be.

 

[Firestarter]

I wear reading glasses but don't like wearing glasses with my cameras as I find it hard to see the viewfinder fully. I have dioptre lenses in for my Bronica WLF and prism finder which I find are working well.

I have cut a piece of the lens from a cheapo set of reading glasses using a Dremil and filed it to fit inside the eyepiece of my Canon T90, this works really well. See pic.

Have also Just purchased an AF Minolta for something faster to use when needed, something I can just raise to my eye and shoot quickly. Will cut another piece for this also.

 

[Sirius Glass]

With lenses that slow, accurate focusing isn't that critical anyway, thanks to the increased DOF of the lens.

A largely unknown benefit of the split-rangefinder "spot", is that if either side of the rangefinder "blacks-out", that probably means your eye is not dead center in the viewfinder -- where it should be anyway. Move the camera (or your eyeball) up and down and side-to-side and the "black-out" will disappear -- assuming the lens is fast enough (usually faster than f5.6). The closer the lens is to f5.6 the more helpful this "trick" will be.

Yes, however some of my lenses are f/8 and no variation of the eye position will work. Therefore I have removed split image and microprisms from my viewfinders.

 

[xkaes]

I just got my new pair of progressive glasses today, and I'm back to 20/20 vision. I had gotten down to 20/40 with my old pair -- not horrible, but now it's like I have a new pair of eyeballs!!!

And chances are -- if you wear corrective lenses -- you're like me and waited too long for a check-up.

 

[madNbad]

I've been wearing trifocals for years but finding what I really want are lenses that are ground for distance and middle distance. Often when trying to find the rangefinder patch in dim light, it's too far away for the close distance, the far distance is too far and the narrow band of middle distance is too narrow and I have to tilt my head back a bit to make it work.

 

[MattKing]

I've been wearing trifocals for years but finding what I really want are lenses that are ground for distance and middle distance. Often when trying to find the rangefinder patch in dim light, it's too far away for the close distance, the far distance is too far and the narrow band of middle distance is too narrow and I have to tilt my head back a bit to make it work.

Sounds like the glasses that are optimized for working on a computer

 

[henryvk]

Yes, however some of my lenses are f/8 and no variation of the eye position will work. Therefore I have removed split image and microprisms from my viewfinders.

I've had this issue with an old Edixa Reflex. I like to use a (slower, I guess) 135mm lens to collimate other cameras/lenses but it's a massive pain to get the split-prism from blacking out.

 

[madNbad]

Sounds like the glasses that are optimized for working on a computer

Any time I read or do anything that I can hold close enough to see clearly, I take off my glasses. It occurred to me when watching the credits after a movie. If I positioned my head just right, the credits were clear. Last week I put six rolls of Tri-X through my M4-2 at the Evergreen Aviation & Space Museum. When I was outdoors or in brightly lit areas, focusing was easy. Some aircraft, like under the SR-71, were in shadow. The rangefinder patch was still visible, it just took some effort to get it to the right place.

 

[M-88]

Perhaps I should have purchased a Nikon F70 with it's odd interface that offers light weight with backwards compatibility?

Personally for me, "odd" is an understatement. F70 is probably one and only Nikon, whose menu left me wondering, if engineers were high on some substance when designing the camera. May I suggest Nikon F-801 and/or F90 instead? They are not as lightweight as F70, but they have conventional interface, run on AA batteries and are compatible with AI lenses in aperture priority and manual exposure modes.

P.S. When in doubt about focus accuracy, using a manual focus camera, I resort to zone focusing.

I should add.
The newer film Nikons in AP mode offer shutter speeds in 1/3 stops perhaps this is why the images look good?

I'm not sure about that. I mean, if shooting slides, 1/3 stop increments would definitely give better result, but with the flexibility of modern color and monochrome negative films, 1/2 stop is more than adequate, especially considering how many other variables are introduced when scanning, or even when doing a darkroom print.

 

[lecarp]

Get an 8x10 and be done with little peepholes.

 

[xkaes]

I've been wearing trifocals for years but finding what I really want are lenses that are ground for distance and middle distance. Often when trying to find the rangefinder patch in dim light, it's too far away for the close distance, the far distance is too far and the narrow band of middle distance is too narrow and I have to tilt my head back a bit to make it work.

All you need are progressives. Talk to your optician or optometrist.

 

[madNbad]

All you need are progressives. Talk to your optician or optometrist.

My prescription is progressive.

 

[BrianShaw]

My prescription is progressive.

Mine also. They aren't the magic bullet some might think them to be.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Mine also. They aren't the magic bullet some might think them to be.

Yes, they were much better than I was led to believe.

 

[L Gebhardt]

While I'm only on the far side of my thirties, I've been near-sighted since my teens and so has everyone in my immediate family. This has bothered me enough to get ICL surgery and it's been nothing short of a revelation. I can finally use any camera I like and some of those squinty viewfinders seem generous enough now.

I'm already a bit more far-sighted after the surgery and this trend will continue but chances are I'll never need anything other than reading glasses ever again.

That being said, I find rangefinders the easiest to focus cameras by far.

Having had my eyes fixed with lasik in my 30s I now, 20 years later, find myself wearing reading glasses 80% of the time. Unfortunately I find I've forgotten them more often than not when I go out to take pictures with my large format systems.

 

[xkaes]

I've been wearing trifocals for years but finding what I really want are lenses that are ground for distance and middle distance.

My prescription is progressive.

That doesn't sound like progressives to me. Your prescription might say progressive, but that doesn't mean they were made that way. You can visually tell if you have tri-focals or progressives.

 

[madNbad]

That doesn't sound like progressives to me. Your prescription might say progressive, but that doesn't mean they were made that way. You can visually tell if you have tri-focals or progressives.

I'm looking through them right now. No breaks or lines between distance, mid or close up. I want to drop the close on one pair with more mid and distance to use with my camera. My prescription is quite strong and adjust for astigmatism. I tried contact lenses but didn't like them.

 

[xkaes]

I want to drop the close on one pair with more mid and distance to use with my camera.

I never thought about that -- a set of specs just for my camera. Close (for the camera) & far with no inbetween -- just bi-focals. I donated my old pair a long time ago, so I can't check that out -- but a good idea????

 

[madNbad]

I never thought about that -- a set of specs just for my camera. Close (for the camera) & far with no inbetween -- just bi-focals. I donated my old pair a long time ago, so I can't check that out -- but a good idea????

As long as you remember to take them! I’ve done it before, I was tired of beating up my good glasses with the sharp eyepiece on Retina folders and it was handy. That pair was traditional distance and close. I find I’m using the mid distance more and that’s where my eyesight has changed the most. It’s time for a new pair, so I might as well have a second, camera specific made at the same time.

 

[SodaAnt]

I've had poor eyesight most of my life and it's not getting any better with age, so I can associate with the OP.

It's not a problem with MF because I use the pop-up magnifier to focus and ditto with LF, where I use a 4x loupe to focus on the ground glass. With SLRs, I've found that the screen appears at a distance that isn't good for focusing (at least for me).

I could probably solve this with diopters and whatnot, but would prefer to leave my glasses on at all times, especially in the city with traffic whizzing around. After considerable thought, I took the AF route and bought a Canon EOS-1N.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Having had my eyes fixed with lasik in my 30s I now, 20 years later, find myself wearing reading glasses 80% of the time. Unfortunately I find I've forgotten them more often than not when I go out to take pictures with my large format systems.

The problem with lasik is that the eye keeps growing and evolving and the lasik changes fade. Lasik can only be done once. It is better to where contact lenses, hard or soft, as possible.

 

[xkaes]

Unfortunately, there weren't enough cameras made with the built-in diopter adjustment in the viewfinder. In some ways, it's odd, that it's much more commonly seen in auto-focusing cameras -- which aren't the cameras that really need it.