pagpow
Well-known
I'm a right-eyed shooter. I have both an M3 and an M2. My right eye
correction is -3.50 spherical and -0.25 cylindrical with an axis of
110. Following Patrick Markham's formula -3.50 + 0.5 (-0.25) = -3.625. This
suggests that, ignoring the possibility of custom eyepiece correction
lenses, I should get a -3 diopter (the closest available manufactured,
either by Leica or by Hong Kong Supplies).
Here's the wrinkle. I have a FSU Zorki 4, with a nice bright
viewfinder incorporating diopter correction. My research indicates
that the range of correction is +1.5 to -1.5. I can rack the
correction out to one limit (presumably -1.5; it is unmarked) and this
gives me what appears to be fine correction, both close up (within 10
feet) and far away [looking at telephone poles (likely 100+ ft away)].
Does this mean:
1) that my research is incorrect -- ie the diopter correction range on
the camera is to higher numbers?
2) that a smaller correction is sufficient and desirable? or
3) that I cannot notice the residual fuzziness in exuberance at the
usability at (a presumed) -1.5?
4) other
Have others had similar experience with diopters less powerful than calculated necessary?
Thanks.
Giorgio
correction is -3.50 spherical and -0.25 cylindrical with an axis of
110. Following Patrick Markham's formula -3.50 + 0.5 (-0.25) = -3.625. This
suggests that, ignoring the possibility of custom eyepiece correction
lenses, I should get a -3 diopter (the closest available manufactured,
either by Leica or by Hong Kong Supplies).
Here's the wrinkle. I have a FSU Zorki 4, with a nice bright
viewfinder incorporating diopter correction. My research indicates
that the range of correction is +1.5 to -1.5. I can rack the
correction out to one limit (presumably -1.5; it is unmarked) and this
gives me what appears to be fine correction, both close up (within 10
feet) and far away [looking at telephone poles (likely 100+ ft away)].
Does this mean:
1) that my research is incorrect -- ie the diopter correction range on
the camera is to higher numbers?
2) that a smaller correction is sufficient and desirable? or
3) that I cannot notice the residual fuzziness in exuberance at the
usability at (a presumed) -1.5?
4) other
Have others had similar experience with diopters less powerful than calculated necessary?
Thanks.
Giorgio
