New SmallRig 28mm OVF - sad results

[Ken Ford]

SmallRig recently released an inexpensive ($40 US) optical viewfinder; when I saw this I grabbed one from Amazon.

The mechanical quality is exceptional, it has a solid well made metal body and shoe. Optically it was horrid, I’ve never had a shoe mount OVF this blurry and there is no diopter adjustment. I figured I got a lemon so I sent it back for an exchange. Same problem with the replacement, so back it goes.

I hope they figure out how to make these!

 

[Timmyjoe]

Do you think it's a diopter issue for you? Do you use an add on diopter for other optics, I know I can't use any "off the shelf" optics without adjusting or adding a diopter (these aging eyes). An optic can be top notch and to me it looks fuzzy and soft, until I diopter it. And for optics that don't offer a diopter adjustment or an aftermarket diopter, I have made some out of cutting down reading glasses.

Just curious.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Ken Ford]

I’m pretty sure it’s not - I compared it to other OVFs and played around with different regions of my bifocals and readers plus bare eye (my distance vision is near plano.) It’s just very blurry compared to everything else. I’m bummed.

 

[agentlossing]

That's too bad, I had interest in that viewfinder as well.

 

[Darthfeeble]

I got an extra cheap plastic one some years ago and had the same problem. I opened it up and turned the front element around and that was the problem. If the replacement is just as bad try that, it could be that the assembly worker or machine is in need of correction.

 

[Ken Ford]

I got an extra cheap plastic one some years ago and had the same problem. I opened it up and turned the front element around and that was the problem. If the replacement is just as bad try that, it could be that the assembly worker or machine is in need of correction.

I wasn’t able to budge the front ring and didn’t want to damage it trying. I wouldn’t be surprised if that is all it is, but it’s their problem to fix.

 

[Dustfinder]

SmallRig recently released an inexpensive ($40 US) optical viewfinder; when I saw this I grabbed one from Amazon.

The mechanical quality is exceptional, it has a solid well made metal body and shoe. Optically it was horrid, I’ve never had a shoe mount OVF this blurry and there is no diopter adjustment. I figured I got a lemon so I sent it back for an exchange. Same problem with the replacement, so back it goes.

I hope they figure out how to make I had the exact same thing happen. I slapped mine on the camera, looked through it, and my first thought was, "What on earth is this piece of junk?" I was so annoyed I just took it off and tossed it on my desk.

I had the exact same thing happen. I slapped mine on the camera, looked through it, and my first thought was, "What on earth is this piece of junk?" I was so annoyed I just took it off and tossed it on my desk.
About half an hour later, I picked it up again to box it up for return. Just for the heck of it, I looked through it one more time—but I had taken my prescription glasses off. Suddenly, the image was perfectly tack sharp.
It hit me then: the thing has a massive, fixed diopter built right in! It's basically a viewfinder for people with a -3.5 or -4.0 prescription. By accident, I guess!

 

[Ken Ford]

I had the exact same thing happen. I slapped mine on the camera, looked through it, and my first thought was, "What on earth is this piece of junk?" I was so annoyed I just took it off and tossed it on my desk.
About half an hour later, I picked it up again to box it up for return. Just for the heck of it, I looked through it one more time—but I had taken my prescription glasses off. Suddenly, the image was perfectly tack sharp.
It hit me then: the thing has a massive, fixed diopter built right in! It's basically a viewfinder for people with a -3.5 or -4.0 prescription. By accident, I guess!

Interesting! My eyes aren’t bad, near plano at distance and my readers are a +2.00 - nothing gets it in focus (any part of my bifocals, readers, naked eye.) I just handed it to my wife who has much worse eyes than me and she says it’s completely blurry with any part of her bifocals or her naked eye.

This is a very fair representation of appearance through the OVF:

 

[Dustfinder]

Interesting! My eyes aren’t bad, near plano at distance and my readers are a +2.00 - nothing gets it in focus (any part of my bifocals, readers, naked eye.) I just handed it to my wife who has much worse eyes than me and she says it’s completely blurry with any part of her bifocals or her naked eye.

This is a very fair representation of appearance through the OVF:

I have astigmatism and myopia. I absolutely hate using bifocals—they drive me crazy. The weirdest thing, though? The moment I take my glasses off, the viewfinder image is absolutely perfect. It’s like it has my prescription.

 

[Zuiko-logist]

I have a couple of these in 28 and 35mm fl. I will try reversing the optics. They are unusable as they are now.

 

[Godfrey]

Hmm. While I have nothing against saving a little money, there are some things that are worth spending money on. A good viewfinder for a camera that doesn't have one fitted as stock is one of them.

As example, I re-acquired a Leica X2 which has only the LCD as viewfinder. I don't like using that as my only viewfinder, so I paid the princely sum and bought the Leica 36mm accessory finder made for it ... it wasn't horrifyingly expensive, but it wasn't cheap either; it does an excellent job and is certainly worth the price.

Voigtländer accessory viewfinders are also excellent; they're all seemingly discontinued now, but findable on Ebay although prices have risen to the same level as the Leica viewfinders. I have a collection of Leica and Voigtländer finders that covers nearly all my most used lenses, and I use them all regularly ... on several different cameras... 🙂

G

 

[Zuiko-logist]

Fair point. I made the mistake of selling two Ricoh GV2 finders (very compact) that I bought for a very low price, then discovered some time later how expensive they are now.

 

[Dustfinder]

Hmm. While I have nothing against saving a little money, there are some things that are worth spending money on. A good viewfinder for a camera that doesn't have one fitted as stock is one of them.

As example, I re-acquired a Leica X2 which has only the LCD as viewfinder. I don't like using that as my only viewfinder, so I paid the princely sum and bought the Leica 36mm accessory finder made for it ... it wasn't horrifyingly expensive, but it wasn't cheap either; it does an excellent job and is certainly worth the price.

Voigtländer accessory viewfinders are also excellent; they're all seemingly discontinued now, but findable on Ebay although prices have risen to the same level as the Leica viewfinders. I have a collection of Leica and Voigtländer finders that covers nearly all my most used lenses, and I use them all regularly ... on several different cameras... 🙂

G

I thought about that mostly as a shot in the dark, because it was cheap and it could surprise me in a good way. I'm keeping it for the odd reasons stated above, but it really is as far as it can be from my Zeiss 35mm external VF, made for the Sony RX1R, that offers a brighter, comfortably larger view.

 

[Ken Ford]

It really did have promise, and it’s beautifully made.