Tiny Zeiss-Ikon viewfinders and glasses

[Donald Qualls]

I've had a Zeiss-Ikon 532/16 Super Ikonta B (early post-War, uncoated f/2.8 Tessar, though that doesn't matter in this case) for a while, and just bought a Kiev 4A on the auction site (coming from Russia, so it'll be a few weeks).

They both have the tiny Zeiss-Ikon viewfinder window with integrated RF.

I wear glasses (gave up on contact lenses since the last time I used my Super Ikonta). Coming back to photography after ten years or so, I now find that I have trouble seeing through the viewfinder of the Super Ikonta, and expect that to also be an issue with the Kiev when it arrives. This is due to the lens of my glasses preventing getting my eye close enough to the viewfinder window to see the whole frame at once. I can see the RF patch pretty well, so focusing isn't the issue -- but composition is.

As far as I can tell, neither of these cameras has a provision for a diopter eyepiece to be added to the viewfinder, and I don't know that such devices are made in -6.75 in any case.

Short of going back to my eye doctor and getting a new prescription for contact lenses (which I'd rather not do, for reasons of comfort and eye safety at my age), or defacing these old cameras by cutting up a lens from an old pair of glasses and gluing it on the eyepiece, what can I do to make these cameras more "glasses friendly"?

 

[Ariston]

All I can think of is zone focusing...

EDIT: Come to think of it, you could find a rangefinder that is more to your liking that will mount on a cold shoe, if those cameras have one.

 

[Peltigera]

It depends on how bad your eye sight is. I take my glasses off and I can still see the rangefinder spot and enough detail to focus the camera. For composition, I do this primarily without the camera so while looking through the viewfinder without my glasses I can get the main elements where I have already decided they should be.

 

[thuggins]

If you think the 532 has a small viewfinder, I'm going to assume you haven't used many pre-1960's cameras. The 532 viewfinder is comparably quite large.

As noted above, unless your eyesight is extremely bad, just take off your glasses. You should already have the shot composed in your mind before you ever look thru the viewfinder. All the viewfinder should do is insuring the framing is correct. I wear glasses, too, but always remover them before looking thru the VF.

There are various auxiliary viewfinders that typically mount to the accessory shoe. I've collected quite a few because I have cameras that really do have small viewfinders, or more to the point provide significantly less coverage than the lens. The best bet is a flip up one made by Impossible for one of their cameras. It is huge and covers a "normal" field of view. The only drawback is that it mounts with magnets. You have to pry those out and epoxy or screw on (or both) a shoe mount.

 

[Donald Qualls]

It depends on how bad your eye sight is.

My relaxed focus distance is about 14 cm, or just under 6 inches. Hence the need for -6.75 diopter correction to see infinity. I might try looking through the viewfinder without my glasses, but I don't think I'll be able to see well enough to compose, say, a landscape shot.

 

[Donald Qualls]

If you think the 532 has a small viewfinder, I'm going to assume you haven't used many pre-1960's cameras. The 532 viewfinder is comparably quite large.

As noted above, unless your eyesight is extremely bad, just take off your glasses. You should already have the shot composed in your mind before you ever look thru the viewfinder. All the viewfinder should do is insuring the framing is correct. I wear glasses, too, but always remover them before looking thru the VF.

There are various auxiliary viewfinders that typically mount to the accessory shoe. I've collected quite a few because I have cameras that really do have small viewfinders, or more to the point provide significantly less coverage than the lens. The best bet is a flip up one made by Impossible for one of their cameras. It is huge and covers a "normal" field of view. The only drawback is that it mounts with magnets. You have to pry those out and epoxy or screw on (or both) a shoe mount.

No, this 532/16 is about 1948 vintage, very early post-War (has an uncoated f/2.8 Tessar, they went coated in 1951, as I recall). It's made in "Germany, USSR Occupied". The viewfinder eyepiece is about 8 mm clear diameter. The Kiev that's on the way looks like it's about the same (copied from a pre-War Contax, after all).

 

[Peltigera]

8 mm is a large eyepiece! Many of my cameras have eyepieces that are 5mm and less.

 

[Donald Qualls]

8 mm is a large eyepiece! Many of my cameras have eyepieces that are 5mm and less.

Okay, none of my other cameras have this small an optical finder. All my other RF cameras, however, are from the late 1950 into the 1970s -- Petri, Canonet, Kodak Motor 35, etc. with relatively big, bright finders. Even my 1938 Pacemaker Speed has about 10 mm or more on the Kalart.

 

[thuggins]

By your references to various millimeter measurements I am assuming you mean eye relief and not some physical dimension. In that you are certainly correct, newer cameras have greater eye relief than older ones. It's a feature.

If you want to shoot an old camera and must wear your glasses, get an accessory finder. For focusing, use hyperfocal distances.

Don't ever get a Kolibri.

 

[btaylor]

I use the eyeglass flip method: I have my glasses on while I use the rangefinder patch, then flip them up and move my eye in close to compose. As mentioned above, I’ve already decided what I want in the frame before I flip up the glasses. I like old cameras, but they are quite unfriendly to eyeglass wearers!

 

[bunip]

Look for Voigtlander Kontur Finder

 

[benjiboy]

I have a Zeiss Contax my dad brought back from Germany after WW 2 that also has a tiny viewfinder, I wear glasses and I don't use it anymore I just have it as a keepsake of my father.

 

[guangong]

I don’t understand the resistance against contact lenses. As for me, I find the constant search for misplaced spectacles most annoying. I have been wearing contact lenses since mid 1960s. My optometrist is one of the best in NYC, and by prescribing gas permeable hard lenses over soft lenses, I have 20/20 vision and no longer need spectacles at all. Also, my eyes are further protected from possible damage from external sources. Put them on in morning and take off at night. No more searching for spectacles. No more glasses sliding down nose during hot weather. A much simpler solution than glue.
Just as with a new, unfamiliar camera or film, getting used to contact lenses requires a certain period of persistent use. It has taken me quite a while for me to get used to my Fuji GF670 folder and off and on I thought of selling it, but now its use is becoming intuitive.
Frankly, there are times when guesstimation and depth of field are less annoying than fussing with prangefinder.

 

[Donald Qualls]

By your references to various millimeter measurements I am assuming you mean eye relief

No, I mean the diameter of the ocular window in the viewfinder. It's so small that, with my glasses between eye and window, the rear window is the limiter on my field of view through the viewfinder; I can't see the edges of the front window (at least, not all at once).

 

[Donald Qualls]

I don’t understand the resistance against contact lenses. As for me, I find the constant search for misplaced spectacles most annoying. I have been wearing contact lenses since mid 1960s. My optometrist is one of the best in NYC, and by prescribing gas permeable hard lenses over soft lenses, I have 20/20 vision and no longer need spectacles at all. Also, my eyes are further protected from possible damage from external sources. Put them on in morning and take off at night. No more searching for spectacles. No more glasses sliding down nose during hot weather. A much simpler solution than glue.
Just as with a new, unfamiliar camera or film, getting used to contact lenses requires a certain period of persistent use.

I wore acrylic hard contacts, then rigid gas permeables, for about forty years. I can't wear soft lenses because the ones that correct astigmatism cost too much, and without astigmatism correction I see traffic lights at night as crossed ellipses, rather than circles (my astimatism is about .75 diopter value, and the two eye axes are close to 90 degrees apart); the eyestrain that results is terrific. I stopped wearing rigid lenses because my eyes would no longer tolerate wearing them for long periods -- and they're also much more expensive than glasses (and I can't get them from a discount source as I do my glasses). Further, with the beginnings of cataracts, I need to protect my eyes from UV; my coated glasses lenses do that automatically, vs. having to remember to wear sunglasses that I'd have to take off every time I stepped inside (or used a camera).

 

[RLangham]

I wore acrylic hard contacts, then rigid gas permeables, for about forty years. I can't wear soft lenses because the ones that correct astigmatism cost too much, and without astigmatism correction I see traffic lights at night as crossed ellipses, rather than circles (my astimatism is about .75 diopter value, and the two eye axes are close to 90 degrees apart); the eyestrain that results is terrific. I stopped wearing rigid lenses because my eyes would no longer tolerate wearing them for long periods -- and they're also much more expensive than glasses (and I can't get them from a discount source as I do my glasses). Further, with the beginnings of cataracts, I need to protect my eyes from UV; my coated glasses lenses do that automatically, vs. having to remember to wear sunglasses that I'd have to take off every time I stepped inside (or used a camera).

Well, that is rough. I suppose I might get there one day. I have an astigmatism that has gotten gradually worse since I was 16... I can still drive without my glasses but maybe no much longer.

I agree that auxiliary finders may be your best bet for viewing. What I imagine would be ideal, and I'm not sure if it exists, would be a miniature clip-on version of a LF camera's frame finder, with no lenses at all. That would be guaranteed to work with your glasses.

Beyond that, I don't know. Perhaps there are auxiliary finders that take Nikon diopters... I'd be surprised if there weren't. Pricey or liable to be, but no one said film photography was economical...

I will say there are excellent adjustable diopters on some of the Russian Leica-type rangefinders, although I know that's not what you're asking.

Sorry I couldn't be more help!

 

[Donald Qualls]

Yep, a shoe-mount viewfinder may be the solution -- I'd probably need one anyway, on the Kiev, to account for changing lenses (when I get more than one lens for it -- remarkable how cheap those cameras and lenses still are). A lot of those have large enough eye windows I can use them with my glasses, as I do my other RF cameras. Worst case, I could build a frame style one to fit a shoe and match the focal length of any given lens. If it doesn't fold, however, it'll be prone to damage...

 

[RLangham]

Yep, a shoe-mount viewfinder may be the solution -- I'd probably need one anyway, on the Kiev, to account for changing lenses (when I get more than one lens for it -- remarkable how cheap those cameras and lenses still are). A lot of those have large enough eye windows I can use them with my glasses, as I do my other RF cameras. Worst case, I could build a frame style one to fit a shoe and match the focal length of any given lens. If it doesn't fold, however, it'll be prone to damage...

Re. building a frame finder: I have done it in a rudimentary way with a black film canister and two lids. In one lid I cut a large rectangle with an exacto knife-- I estimated the size for a 50mm. In the other I cut a small rectangle that I estimated for 135mm. It was for my Argus C3. I never did figure out a sturdy way to mount it on the shoe, though.

EDIT: autocorrected "shoe" to "short."
EDIT: I wonder what you could do with an old plastic slide holder...

 

[Donald Qualls]

I'm a lot more likely to fabricate the thing out of model shop sheet plastic and spray paint it black (Krylon Ultra Flat). Shoe mount is easy to build that way, and I'm not quite up to date enough to have a 3D printer -- if I were, I'd already have one printing.

 

[RLangham]

I'm a lot more likely to fabricate the thing out of model shop sheet plastic and spray paint it black (Krylon Ultra Flat). Shoe mount is easy to build that way, and I'm not quite up to date enough to have a 3D printer -- if I were, I'd already have one printing.

Me and my dad once installed a cast iron bathtub for a lady so rich her teenage daughter had two 3d printers back when they were brand new. Sorta like having two TV's in 1955...

Long before that, my maternal grandfather's department at the university had a rapid prototyping machine that 3d-printed by firing a laser into a chemical bath or something like that.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Yep, UV laser, with UV-cure liquid resin. All prints must have openings to drain the liquid. The earliest 3D printers were those and the ones that laser sintered metal powder. Then came the plastic filament printers -- and the Prusa Mendel and other "rep-rap" brought the prices down into hobbyist range, almost literally overnight, by being able to build a 3D printer with a 3D printer. But as far back as there were plastic models, there were polystyrene "shapes" for building model railroad scenery. Join with acetone, plastic model cement, or methylene chloride. Cut with a razor saw or hobby knife.

 

[RLangham]

Yep, UV laser, with UV-cure liquid resin. All prints must have openings to drain the liquid. The earliest 3D printers were those and the ones that laser sintered metal powder. Then came the plastic filament printers -- and the Prusa Mendel and other "rep-rap" brought the prices down into hobbyist range, almost literally overnight, by being able to build a 3D printer with a 3D printer. But as far back as there were plastic models, there were polystyrene "shapes" for building model railroad scenery. Join with acetone, plastic model cement, or methylene chloride. Cut with a razor saw or hobby knife.

It would be wonderful to be able to 3d print metal components for cameras... I suppose they wouldn't be all that reliable in some cases but I would love to be able to print a graflok back for my Pacemaker Speed 45. If we're talking big metal pieces I could almost design a primitive date back for my FED (or any Contax-style camera where the bottom and back come off as one.) Oh the things that would be possible.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Date backs are almost trivial, no 3D printing needed. Just a quartz clock in a box on one end of the door (wherever convenient), feed wires through a double reverse tube or seal them into the back with black silicone, and cut a hole (with polished edges reblackened) in the pressure plate at the upper left corner of the frame for your vertically mirrored LED segment display.

Personally, I hate date backs. The only exception would be if I could make one put the info *between frames*, in the area that's usually cropped by the enlarger or scanner anyway.

A Graflok back for a Pacemaker? Why? I use Graflok accessories (like Polaroid backs) on mine, I just made a couple little brass clips (from hobby brass sheet) that screw onto a spare spring back (where the spring center screws would go) and hold in the Graflok slots. Can't change instantly, but I don't usually need to.

 

[RLangham]

Date backs are almost trivial, no 3D printing needed. Just a quartz clock in a box on one end of the door (wherever convenient), feed wires through a double reverse tube or seal them into the back with black silicone, and cut a hole (with polished edges reblackened) in the pressure plate at the upper left corner of the frame for your vertically mirrored LED segment display.

Personally, I hate date backs. The only exception would be if I could make one put the info *between frames*, in the area that's usually cropped by the enlarger or scanner anyway.

A Graflok back for a Pacemaker? Why? I use Graflok accessories (like Polaroid backs) on mine, I just made a couple little brass clips (from hobby brass sheet) that screw onto a spare spring back (where the spring center screws would go) and hold in the Graflok slots. Can't change instantly, but I don't usually need to.

As for the Graflok, I'm just having trouble finding a 120 back that's not terrible for springback.

 

[Bud Hamblen]

You can put an auxiliary finder in the accessory shoe of the Zeiss. I have a Zeiss Ikon flip-up van Albada finder on a Contax IIa. Kodak AG made an open frame finder for the Retina. Viewfinders on old cameras are mostly squinty.