Eye glasses gets in the way of looking into the view finder!

tkamiya · Mar 7, 2013

I have a very nice Kodak Tourist camera that functions well as designed. My problem is, I am not functioning as designed. I wear glasses and as such, when I try to look into the view finder (which is a smallish squareish hole) glasses gets in the way and I cannot get close enough to view the whole frame. This got to be a common problem. Is there a common solution?

By the way, Kodak Tourist is a range finder camera from the 50s. It is a range focus, range finder camera.

Ken Nadvornick · Mar 7, 2013

On my Canonet QL17 GIII I have fashioned a small vertical rectangle of black plastic cut from a Dwayne's Photo slide box. At one end a circular hole allows me to mount a standard Nikon diopter eyepiece. The plastic rectangle is then firmly (but not permanently) attached to the back of the camera door using small 3M double-sided adhesive squares. It's positioned so that the diopter lens is centered directly over the viewer eyepiece.

It's surprisingly robust and unobtrusive. It's never popped off in use. But it can be cleanly peeled away whenever it's time to change to a more powerful correction eyepiece. And because it's only attached to the door it does not prevent me from opening the back to change film.

It's worked very well for me.

Ken

henry finley · Mar 7, 2013

Yeah, wearing glasses is a tough life. Been doing it 50 years. But the upside is you have some eye protection going on full-time too. The sighted folks walk around helpless against any speck in the air, and every tree limb everybody occasionally gets whipped in the eye with, walking by. Yeah, viewfinders are tough, aren't they? Do the best you can. That's all you can do. You don't have to live forever, and it won't be like that in heaven. That's my best answer.

AgX · Mar 7, 2013

I got a similar problem by being presbyopic meanwhile. I got a lot of cameras I would like to play around, that neither got diopter adjustment nor a lens attachment facility and for which I do not want to make a permanent lens attachment.

I thought of constructing a small number of attachments consisting of different frames and lenses (cut-outs from cheap plastic reading glasses), in order to have something apt for a variety of cameras.

Following Ken's idea I thought of using doublesided adhesive tape for that frame, with one side having permanent, the other reversible tack.

ic-racer · Mar 7, 2013

I have two Tourists (I and II) in front of me now. Neither has a range finder (I don't think Kodak ever made any 6x9cm folder with a rangefinder).
The Tourist I is probably what you are describing. It has a 'sports finder' with no lenses in the viewfinder. Indeed it is impossible to see the edges of the frame with glasses.
The Tourist II has a Galilean viewfinder and, although still difficult to see the entire viewing area with glasses, it is an improvement over the Tourist I.

These cameras are pretty inexpensive, maybe you could upgrade to the II. In fact that is why I have both. I upgraded to the Tourist II which also has an accessory shoe and mine came with the better Anaston f4.5 lens and a FLASH KODAMATIC SHUTTER (rather than the Anastigmat f6.3 lens & DIOMATIC shutter on my Tourist I).

tkamiya · Mar 7, 2013

I'm not quite sure what these are called technically...

It's the view finder "thingy".... It's not the II type for sure. What's the definition of a "range finder" then? I thought a hole to view through was always called a view finder....

henry finley · Mar 7, 2013

Can somebody tell me what in the world possessed Kodak do make their cameras 620 when the prevailing use of the day was 120? Why were they infatuated with a roll of 120 film but with that skinny little spindle just to make it incompatible? Or whatever was their reason. What was their reason?

AgX · Mar 7, 2013

A range finder integrated into the view finder is called a meter finder, measuring finder or range-view-finder.

But these are terms used in encyclopediae or dictionaries, I have not come across them in textbooks.

tkamiya · Mar 7, 2013

I'm going to have to try Ken's idea. This is such a wonderful camera.... I'm just amazed how good of images it makes.....

Now I want the "II" version...

Ken Nadvornick · Mar 8, 2013

This is one of those instances when I wish I owned a small digital camera. That way I could snap a quick better-than-a-thousand-words illustration image. The diopter mount blends in so well with the black camera covering material that people think it's a cool OEM attachment of some sort.

If you do give it a try remember to clip the four corners of the plastic at a 45-degree angle to reduce the chances it'll get snagged on your clothing and unknowingly pop off, thus losing a nice diopter lens. As mentioned though, that's never happened to me.

Ken

ic-racer · Mar 8, 2013

I have also used Ken's idea of mounting a diopter. Remember on the Nikon diopters, they are marked different than the actual strength because they are not supposed to be used on anything but a Nikon ( ) that has already one diopter of correction built in. So the number on the Nikon accessory diopter incorporates the camera's one diopter power into its total indicated strength.

paul ron · Mar 12, 2013

Contact lenses are the best thing that's happned to me.. wearing since when they first came out with the soft lens.. never go back to shooting with glasses ever again.

ac12 · Mar 13, 2013

I tried the aux eyepiece lenses.
It worked fine...but only when I was looking thru the camera.
Other than that, I had to put my glasses on.
What a PIA.
It was just easier to view thru the camera w my glasses on.

But I agree, certain cameras with "small" viewfinder windows are not designed for use with eye glasses.

Contacts or eye surgery that would get me back to 20/20 would be nice. But middle-age eyes can only be helped so much.

paul ron · Mar 13, 2013

Old age eyes are beyond repair..

still contacts are so nice....

But I find my arms are getting shorter every year!

ac12 · Mar 15, 2013

@Paul
My former eye doc told me that I have too many things to correct to use contacts.
And to make it worse, now I wear tri-focal glasses.

paul ron · Mar 18, 2013

That getting old thing is not so much fun.. they say it;s downhill after 50.. hell you don't hit terminal velocity till you are over 60.. then the ride gets more interesting.

ac12 · Mar 18, 2013

Actually it is 40.
That was when I need to get bifocals.

Eye glasses gets in the way of looking into the view finder!

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency