At what age did you start to have trouble focusing?

S

SaveKodak

Well-known
Local time
7:41 AM
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
598
I'm 32 years old and yesterday I discovered that I could not accurately focus the 75/1.8 Heliar wide open (on an M 262). I am not a glasses wearer, and have never had vision problems! This makes me wonder if I should ever even bother buying a 50/1.4 over a 50/2. Or perhaps there is simply a Contax G2 in my future. (scary!) :eek:
 
Once I hit 41 years old, I saw drastic changes in my low light and close-up vision. And I've been a glasses wearer for 30 years. It hasn't affected my focusing yet though.
 
I started wearing glasses when I was in third grade.

I've not yet had any difficulties focusing a camera, and I've passed my 62nd birthday.

Focusing a camera is a matter of technique, not vision, unless your vision is truly deficient; I can't read (unless the typeface is very large) without my glasses on but I can focus either the M or the SL without any problems even without my glasses.

G
 
I was not sleeping enough for three days. Yesterday I was not able to see dual images of the eye in M-E RF patch at 1-2 meters. Had good sleep last night, checked exactly same light, place, eye this morning, I could see it again.

Since I've started to heavily use iPhone and iPad my close up vision declined to +1.25. Well, if not Apple, then my age, because I could see better in the dark if driving and using my wife glasses. It happened around 48.
 
At around 33 here, but didn't realize it until recently (I'm 35 now). I've been contemplating switching to a rangefinder to fix the problem, but apparently that won't work, either?
 
I started noticing it in my 40's. I'm now 66. Fortunately, accurate autofocus became common about the time that started. And for manual focus lenses, thank the stars for EVF and magnifying the images.
 
I have missed focuses since 1960, but I find it harder and harder to get them right since I was 62. I even bought a cheap (now) Pentax ZX-5 and a Pentax SF1n which are auto focus. I still manually focus most shots but it seems to take me longer to 'get it right.' The AF SLRs are great for travel when I don't have the time to really work hard. My TLRs and SLRs are the hardest for me, my RF cameras are the easiest. For some reason I hardly ever miss with the Mamiya Super 23, but there are so many steps with that camera I usually goof one of those up.
 
I started wearing glasses at 14. Didn't notice any big changes till I was in my early
50's when I had to go to progressive lenses. Now that I'm 80 I've noticed much
difficulty in focusing manually. I guess it gets worse with time!
 
Up to age 26, I was able to obtain quick and accurate focusing with a Nikon B (ground glass type) view screen. After age 26, I had to start using a Nikon A (split-image rangefinder type) screen to obtain quick and accurate focusing.

When I started shooting Nikon APS-C digital cameras, I started relying on auto focus because nothing I did allowed me to obtain quick and accurate manual focus.
 
I went for the first time ever to have my eyes examined when I was in my fifties. The doctor at the end of the exam told me "if we had more people with your eye sight, we would be broke." I still don't wear glasses or contacts.
 
Far-sightedness will only become evident as the accommodation range of the eyes decreases. Which usually goes past the critical threshold somewhere between thirty and fifty.
 
As you get older, even getting out of bed gets harder, but a 50/1.4 is going to be more iffy than focusing a 50/2 for anybody, no matter how good your vision is. I admit I am not understanding why, short of macular degeneration, age would have much if anything to do with it. I'm 67 and wear trifocals; I have difficulty with exposure, composition, and remembering what film is in what body, but I don't have any more difficulty with focusing than I did when I was 16.

With corrective lenses, vision can be corrected, in most people, to 20/20; astigmatism can be corrected usually as well.
20/20 is 20/20 is 20/20, no matter how old you are. The only reason one would be unable to focus as well as when they were 20, once they got to 50, 60, 70 or whatever, is that their vision is not corrected as well as it could be.
It is only if your vision can't be corrected to 20/20 for some reason that age should enter into it. Even then, that is an individual problem, and not an age problem per se.
 
In my early 40's I started wearing reading glasses for close up work. By mid-50's I started having to add diopters to my old film cameras (Nikon F, S2, Leica M series). My digital cameras all have adjustable diopters, so that's nice. But yeah, the eyesight starts to deteriorate as we age.

One thing, if you've never tried a diopter on a camera, it's quite an eye opening experience (pun intended). For years I found it harder and harder to focus an old M camera I had, and was getting more and more out of focus shots. Couldn't figure out why everything in the viewfinder was just a little bit blurry. Sent the camera in for a CLA, got it back and still the same problem. Had the camera with me in a camera shop one day, and just out of curiosity tried a few different diopters. Was totally blown away. Brought back the joy of shooting with this camera, like when I was young. I could see everything, sharp and bright and clear. Eight diopters later, now all my cameras are fun to use again.
 
frequencies said:
At around 33 here, but didn't realize it until recently (I'm 35 now). I've been contemplating switching to a rangefinder to fix the problem, but apparently that won't work, either?
Click to expand...

I'm very skeptical about internet talks how good RF is for f1.5 with its large Leica RF base. I think it is the case for tripod based, still life photography.
If you holding it and breath and taking alive person picture at f1.5, RF is not going to make it easy. Any camera with AF and eye recognition will outperform manual RF.
Also RF patch is in the middle, if you focus and recompose even at f2 on close distances it is going to be OFF.

Vision difficulties or not, RF will fail with moving people and large apertures, close distances photography. But if you like to capture something quick at 3 meters distance and have lens with focus tab (mostly if not only RF lenses have it) RF is handy and not so obstructive way to verify if object is within the DoF.

To me RF is great if to be focused on the silhouette, contours, not on eyes and letters.
 
It's all about the Dioptrics, baby [humming "When I'm 64"]. I got em on M5, GF670, XPro, Hexar RF, etc.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Wear a monocle...

I have, for over 25 years.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Whoa thats cool! Ive been wearing glasses for 2 years (Im 43 now) but havent notice any problem when focusing. I cant read a thing without my glasses but seems Ive no problems with my rangefinders or slr. Most focusing issues I ever had have mostly due to my sloppiness not my vision.

Personally,I find it easier to focus a RF than an SLR, although a SLR with a bright lens algo help (1.4 or so are a pleasure to use).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom