Tiny Zeiss-Ikon viewfinders and glasses

[Donald Qualls]

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

I've got an Adapta-A-Roll 620 and it works pretty well. If you can find 'em (or make 'em), there were masks for it to shoot 6x6 and 6x4.5, but it's natively 6x9. You load it by the arrows, like some 120 backs, and advance by ratchet clicks. It needs a 620 spool for takeup, but mine will feed from a trimmed 120 roll. Best of all, it slips under a spring back like a Horseman roll back that costs five times as much. And, like most medium format roll backs, you can also load it with 35 mm (and unload in a dark bag) to get sprocket hold panoramic images, 35x85 mm.

 

[jgoody]

Perhaps something like this might work -- it's an eyepiece diopter made for Nikons -- lens removed, the plastic piece sliced down to make it thinner with a hacksaw blade, sanded flat, lens reinstalled, and removeable double faced tape securing it to the camera. The process almost takes longer to type than do. It has stayed on through thick and thin. Someplace I have a detailed post as I did it to my Canon 7 and Canon P. I get almost the full image that a non myoptic gets!

 

[RLangham]

I've got an Adapta-A-Roll 620 and it works pretty well. If you can find 'em (or make 'em), there were masks for it to shoot 6x6 and 6x4.5, but it's natively 6x9. You load it by the arrows, like some 120 backs, and advance by ratchet clicks. It needs a 620 spool for takeup, but mine will feed from a trimmed 120 roll. Best of all, it slips under a spring back like a Horseman roll back that costs five times as much. And, like most medium format roll backs, you can also load it with 35 mm (and unload in a dark bag) to get sprocket hold panoramic images, 35x85 mm.

It's the one I've most considered, I will say that

 

[guangong]

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).

If you wore hard lenses the quality of soft lenses would be a disappointment anyway and would not be a choice. I have keratoconus, so specticals are not a choice. After cataract surgery, corneas were distorted, but smoothed out by soft lenses and vision corrected by hard lenses.
From my viewpoint, we only pass through this life once, so I don’t try to cut expenses for keeping the body working as well as possible. The joy of seeing the world in true colors was well worth the cost of cataract surgery. Frugality for camera equipment, but a big spender when it come to optometrists, etc.

 

[gorbas]

With Kiev viewfinder first watch for sharp edges around opening. It's deadly for plastic lenses. I wear spectacles all the time and refuse to fit it with anything but glass lenses. It's getting harder to find shop to deal with glass. Also It's very hard to see edges of the frame thru that viewfinder, so additional one on accessory shoe is good idea. USSR turret one is very nice for me. So bad that Kodak Retina auxiliary viewfinder has just 35 and 80mm lens option. You will be fine with RF patch as long as you protest your lenses from scratching.

 

[John Will]

With Kiev viewfinder first watch for sharp edges around opening. It's deadly for plastic lenses. I wear spectacles all the time and refuse to fit it with anything but glass lenses. It's getting harder to find shop to deal with glass. Also It's very hard to see edges of the frame thru that viewfinder, so additional one on accessory shoe is good idea. USSR turret one is very nice for me. So bad that Kodak Retina auxiliary viewfinder has just 35 and 80mm lens option. You will be fine with RF patch as long as you protest your lenses from scratching.

Get some of these protectors. http://aki-asahi.com/store/html/kiev-4/eyepatch/index.php They also have them available for other old USSR cameras.

You could also make your own with some thin self adhesive felt or rubber sheet.

 

[abruzzi]

I just tried looking through a Soviet Era shoe mount Turrentine viewfinder with my classes on, and it is usable. Not ideal, but not bad. I have come to the realization that I shoot with my glasses off, and view the world with them on, but I see perfectly close up, and badly at distance. And my eye doctors have been unable to come up with a prescription that works both at distance and closeup.

 

[gorbas]

You could also make your own with some thin self adhesive felt or rubber sheet.

Of course, I already did make my own

 

[Donald Qualls]

If you wore hard lenses the quality of soft lenses would be a disappointment anyway and would not be a choice. I have keratoconus, so specticals are not a choice. After cataract surgery, corneas were distorted, but smoothed out by soft lenses and vision corrected by hard lenses.

I'll probably need cataract surgery within the next decade; my ophthalmologist has me on "wait and watch" while recommending I minimize UV exposure (not a big problem, as I can't order glasses lenses without 100% UV coating even if I wanted them). Apparently, cataract surgery now includes a near-mandatory Lasik surgery to finalize the vision over the implanted replacement lens, and I'm not looking forward to convincing the docs to leave me nearsighted (I'd rather wear glasses every day than have to deal with magnifiers for close work like camera shutter repairs) and keep the two eyes about the same (they like to "eliminate bifocals" by making one eye focus for distance, the other for reading). I refuse to give up my one piddly little super power, my built-in microscope.

Sure do wish the FDA would approve those drops that reverse cataracts...

With Kiev viewfinder first watch for sharp edges around opening. It's deadly for plastic lenses. I wear spectacles all the time and refuse to fit it with anything but glass lenses. It's getting harder to find shop to deal with glass. Also It's very hard to see edges of the frame thru that viewfinder, so additional one on accessory shoe is good idea. USSR turret one is very nice for me. So bad that Kodak Retina auxiliary viewfinder has just 35 and 80mm lens option. You will be fine with RF patch as long as you protest your lenses from scratching.

Within my budget, glass lenses are simply impossible. I buy my glasses online, get bifocals for WAY under $100, vs. $600+ for a pair bought from the eye doctor's optician -- but even the specialists can't/won't produce glass lenses in the -6.75 range; they'd be too heavy and too thick compared to high-index plastics.

I just tried looking through a Soviet Era shoe mount Turrentine viewfinder with my classes on, and it is usable. Not ideal, but not bad. I have come to the realization that I shoot with my glasses off, and view the world with them on, but I see perfectly close up, and badly at distance. And my eye doctors have been unable to come up with a prescription that works both at distance and closeup.

If you're past your mid-40s in age, that's not too surprising. The best you can get is a compromise, even with bifocals. I order my glasses online, from Zenni Optical; this last time around I ordered one pair of single vision with my distance prescription, and a second pair with a reading prescription (+1.25 diopter from the distance prescription) and bifocals (giving an additional +1.25, so a focus around 10 inches as opposed to roughly arm's length). Much more useful with the close work I do every day repairing power tools. Two frames and two pair of lenses, one pir bifocals, and the total bill was around $70.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Well, the Kiev arrived today, and the viewfinder is more usable than I'd expected. The eyepiece pupil is rectangular, in a circular bezel, and looking through the center of my glasses lens and pushing fairly hard into the eyepiece, I'm able to see the whole frame at once. The RF patch is easy to use without pushing in. All that to say, I may have over-anticipated trouble -- but see my newer thread for a shutter-related question.

 

[RLangham]

Well, the Kiev arrived today, and the viewfinder is more usable than I'd expected. The eyepiece pupil is rectangular, in a circular bezel, and looking through the center of my glasses lens and pushing fairly hard into the eyepiece, I'm able to see the whole frame at once. The RF patch is easy to use without pushing in. All that to say, I may have over-anticipated trouble -- but see my newer thread for a shutter-related question.

Well, that's good to hear! I'd hate to order a camera and then not get to use it effectively.

 

[jgoody]

I'll probably need cataract surgery within the next decade; my ophthalmologist has me on "wait and watch" while recommending I minimize UV exposure (not a big problem, as I can't order glasses lenses without 100% UV coating even if I wanted them). Apparently, cataract surgery now includes a near-mandatory Lasik surgery to finalize the vision over the implanted replacement lens, and I'm not looking forward to convincing the docs to leave me nearsighted (I'd rather wear glasses every day than have to deal with magnifiers for close work like camera shutter repairs) and keep the two eyes about the same (they like to "eliminate bifocals" by making one eye focus for distance, the other for reading). I refuse to give up my one piddly little super power, my built-in microscope.

I think you may be misinformed about cataract surgery -- at least from my experience (a few years ago), and my wife's recent experience. They don't normally do lasik after cataracts -- which is removal of the cloudy lens -- they merely put in the appropriate plastic lens to give you 20/20 distance vision. My wife elected to have perfect reading vision and wear distance glasses, as she has been nearsighted since childhood. Worked out fine. If you have severe astigmatism then there is an option to correct that, that she did (her insurance didn't cover the extra cost) but it's achieved by having the new lens that's implanted have that correction, and be implanted in the correct orientation. In our experience no secondary lasik was needed. YMMV - I am not a doc!

 

[Donald Qualls]

Okay, good new is, probably don't need the Lasik. And, if they can leave me about the same vision I have, astigmatism isn't a big issue, as glasses correct that as readily as myopia At least being able to keep some level of near vision is excellent (but it seems uncertain whether they'll be able to leave what I have now, with relaxed focus around six inches). And maybe, by the time I need the surgery, someone at FDA will have admitted that there are eyedrops that reverse cataracts and I'll never have to mess with the surgery.