RF’s viewfinder and reading glasses

[Sparrow]

Do we have an optician on call? This is probably a silly question but I’ve recently had to start using reading glasses in poor light or for very close work and I’m wondering if I should be using any sort of correction on an RF’s viewfinder, but can't come up with an answer, I wear the reading glasses to focus a TLR but instinctively take them off to use an RF, can't get my head round why!!!!!!!
regards

 

[dll927]

I'm not an optician, but I wear glasses full-time. Anyone who does knows that almost any eye-level camera takes some slight moving around to see the entire viewfinder. That's especialy true with current models that have all sorts of reading material around the edges of the finder.

If you can see what's going on without reading glasses, I see no reason for using them. But it depends on what's call the "eye relief" of the camera, which is the term for how close the eye sees what's in there.

Many RFs have diopter adjustments that can be 'tuned' to one's eyesight. Even FSU (former Soviet Union) RFs of FED and Zorki brands have such. Of course, they were essentially copies of Leicas of the time, which also had them anyway.

My glasses happen to be trifocals, and since they're always in front of my face, I don't take them off for photographic purposes. My own TLR (Yashicamat 124) has a magnifying glass above the ground glass finder to aid in focusing. As to which part of the glasses I use, I've had trifocals so long now that I don't even think of that part of it. Guess I use whatever looks right!

 

[Sparrow]

So can I be confidant that if I can see the “view” clearly and see the patch is aligned properly I have the correct focus? My vision has no effect on it

 

[Gid]

I've worn reading glasses for quite a few years, but never wear them when photographing - no problem either focussing or seeing shutter speeds in the RF.

 

[Sparrow]

No I don’t have a problem, someone commented at the weekend and I realised I was putting them on to focus the Rolleiflex and taking them off for the RF, its all new to me and I couldn’t understand why

 

[tkluck]

So can I be confidant that if I can see the “view” clearly and see the patch is aligned properly I have the correct focus? My vision has no effect on it

I need my glasses to find my glasses in the morning. Trifocals, with an extra pair of "computer glasses", optivisor, clip-on loop like the old guy in Toy Story, etc.

The beauty of a RF focusing system is that it is independent of your eyeball. If you can see the rf patch enough to align it, it is in focus. You can focus even if you're not sure on what (witch explans some of my images...). Try focusing with and without your glasses. The patch may be fuzzy, but if you carefully line up the fuzz you've got it.

This is also true of split image SLR screens, the split image but not the ground glass. (I risk getting my rusty physics stomped here, but it seems to work well enough to justify buying two more OM system screens)

If you ware reading glasses to focus a TLR remember that you're focus your eye on something (the ground glass) about as far away as your morning paper. With an RF, or an SLR for that matter, you are looking at the subject. Opticaly the RF is analogus to that rear view mirror where "objects are larger than they appear" and the SLR is a telescope (and yeah, with a wide angle you're looking through the wrong end...)

Be glad you can ditch the glasses to use an eyelevel camera. Eye relief is one distraction and one less concern when selecting a camera.

Problem isn't you're eyes. Your arms are just getting shorter...

 

[Sparrow]

Thanks that’s what I thought, but the wheels fell off my Physics before that point, with the VF and the RF patch looking clear to me I wondered if I was using the mechanism to compensate and going off focus