Proper Diopter for Leica

[ColColt]

I'm having a difficult time seeing the 50mm frame line in the Leica M3 and thought about just getting a diopter to use so I won't have to wear my glasses. I can see it real good without glasses but once I put them on I have to turn my eye/head side to side to see the frame lines.

Does anyone know what the built in diopter is for the M3? I think the Nikon is -1 but didn't know about Leica.

 

[Ronald Moravec]

Go to a drug store and try the various reader glasses . Note the correction and order the same.

Pain to take glasses off for each photo.

M3 is wrong camera for glasses. Any .72 like M2 or M4 of M6 will suit 50 mm with glasses better.

 

[ColColt]

What good would that do? I can see up close, just not far off. I have tri focals so there's a bifocal at the bottom. Glasses just put the frame line too far away.

 

[ciniframe]

What is the minus correction for the eye you use? Your eye doctor will have that recorded on your file. Next step, see if you can see clearly ( even if only part of frame ) through the top part of your trifocals. If you can see clearly then try to get as close to that correction number in a Leica screw in eyepiece diopter. They only come in fixed numbers every 1/2 diopter, i.e.; -.5, -1, -1.5, -2, then a skip to a -3
Only $100 to $110 each. ( For anything to do with Leica, a real bargain. )

It would be advantageous to be at a well equipped Leica dealer and just try the various diopters until you find the one that works best. But that is not always possibile.

 

[ColColt]

My prescription for distances is -1.75. I suppose the closest to that would be the -1.5.

 

[ciniframe]

My prescription for distances is -1.75. I suppose the closest to that would be the -1.5.

Yes, that sounds reasonable. Something else occurred to me. The diopter marked on the correction eyepieces is total correction using that eyepiece, i.e. Say Leica set the native diopter of the M series cameras at -.5 (minus point five). Then a correction diopter marked -1.5 would really be -1, bringing total viewfinder correction to -1.5,
This really does not change anything, you would still select the -1.5, my gut feeling is that it is better to be slightly under corrected than over corrected. But, if you order from a place like B&H and the correction turns out not to work for you then I'm sure they would accept a return, especially if for an exchange.

 

[ColColt]

If the Leica system is -.5 then you'd want a -2 diopter to get the -1.5 seems to me.

 

[ciniframe]

If the Leica system is -.5 then you'd want a -2 diopter to get the -1.5 seems to me.

No, I think the numbers on minus diopters are simply combined to give a total figure. Plus diopter close up lenses work that way, i.e. If you add a +2 and a +3 close up lens you have a combined diopter of about +5, it isn't exactly +5 because there is some spacing between the lens elements, but it is close.
So then, let's say the M3 native correction is -.5 (I'm just guessing, I actually don't know and I'm not sure how a person would find out for sure.) But if it was -.5 and then you obtained a Leica M eyepiece correction marked -1.5 and handed it to an optometrist to check on his tester he would find it to be a -1, which would combine with your cameras viewfinder to give you a total correction of -1.5 Does anyone here know if Leica published that information about their viewfinders? But I really don't think it matters, if you put a -1.5 on your M3, then that will be your total correction. It wouldn't make common sense for Leica to label them any other way.

Finally, this will be a 'cut and try' sort of thing, I don't think you will know for sure until you actually try it out. There is however one more option. If you know a friendly eye doctor, tell him what you are trying to accomplish and why. Perhaps he'll let you try test diopters, holding them to the eyepiece, to see what works. In fact, are there any optometrist at APUG who are also Leica M users who can offer advice?

 

[ColColt]

I once knew what the Leica native diopter was but it's slipped my mind. I want to think -.5 as I think the Nikon was -1.