Of viewfinders and LCD backs

I am long sighted, I must wear glasses for close work but distant vision is
good. People often trend in this direction as the focus mechanism of the
human eye gets less flexible with age. If I want to use the screen I have
to put on glasses but then I cannot see the subject so the glasses hang off
my nose and then I can't see the screen and it all turns to crap.

So a viewfinder with its own adjustable focus is an excellent thing to me.
Most (all?) DSLRs have this - well and good. It seems odd that there is so
much hype about LCD screens (size, mobility etc) when a good proportion of
the population (especially the older ones with the disposable income to buy
high end cameras) can't use them. Perhaps this is a penalty for the
emphasis on youth culture.

Is there any other practical solution to this problem other than abandoning
the screen for the viewfinder? Do half-glasses actually work without
annoying?

Are there any DSLR models that don't waste money on this feature that it
seems I cannot use?

David

On 29/01/2013 12:16 p.m., David Hare-Scott wrote:
I am long sighted, I must wear glasses for close work but distant vision
is good. People often trend in this direction as the focus mechanism of
the human eye gets less flexible with age. If I want to use the screen
I have to put on glasses but then I cannot see the subject so the
glasses hang off my nose and then I can't see the screen and it all
turns to crap.

So a viewfinder with its own adjustable focus is an excellent thing to
me. Most (all?) DSLRs have this - well and good. It seems odd that
there is so much hype about LCD screens (size, mobility etc) when a good
proportion of the population (especially the older ones with the
disposable income to buy high end cameras) can't use them. Perhaps this
is a penalty for the emphasis on youth culture.

Is there any other practical solution to this problem other than
abandoning the screen for the viewfinder? Do half-glasses actually work
without annoying?

Are there any DSLR models that don't waste money on this feature that it
seems I cannot use?

David

I don't think there's any significant amount of "money wasted" to
implement liveview and video on DSLRs. All the hardware is there anyway
- it's just a bit of computer code and perhaps an extra button or two on
the body to implement it.
As for presbyopia (I'm 55), I don't have a need to adjust diopter to use
the optical viewfinder in DSLRs, I set it to 0 and it's fine. Sometimes
I do now find that it's hard to view the LCD clearly (without reading
glasses), but my presbyopia is pretty good for my age.

I suggest you talk to an optometrist, explain your difficulty, and
hopefully they'll come up with a convenient solution.

As they say - "it's a ******* getting older - but it beats the alternative".

On 2013-01-28 18:36:42 -0800, Me said:

On 29/01/2013 12:16 p.m., David Hare-Scott wrote:
I am long sighted, I must wear glasses for close work but distant vision
is good. People often trend in this direction as the focus mechanism of
the human eye gets less flexible with age. If I want to use the screen
I have to put on glasses but then I cannot see the subject so the
glasses hang off my nose and then I can't see the screen and it all
turns to crap.

So a viewfinder with its own adjustable focus is an excellent thing to
me. Most (all?) DSLRs have this - well and good. It seems odd that
there is so much hype about LCD screens (size, mobility etc) when a good
proportion of the population (especially the older ones with the
disposable income to buy high end cameras) can't use them. Perhaps this
is a penalty for the emphasis on youth culture.

Is there any other practical solution to this problem other than
abandoning the screen for the viewfinder? Do half-glasses actually work
without annoying?

Are there any DSLR models that don't waste money on this feature that it
seems I cannot use?

David

I don't think there's any significant amount of "money wasted" to
implement liveview and video on DSLRs. All the hardware is there anyway
- it's just a bit of computer code and perhaps an extra button or two
on the body to implement it.
As for presbyopia (I'm 55), I don't have a need to adjust diopter to
use the optical viewfinder in DSLRs, I set it to 0 and it's fine.
Sometimes I do now find that it's hard to view the LCD clearly (without
reading glasses), but my presbyopia is pretty good for my age.

I suggest you talk to an optometrist, explain your difficulty, and
hopefully they'll come up with a convenient solution.

As they say - "it's a ******* getting older - but it beats the alternative".

Presbyopia is one issue, and can be frustrating for those who have had
good vision until their arms started becoming alarmingly short when it
comes to reading a newspaper.

My problem has been extreme astigmatism added to my advancing years (I
am a sneeze away from 64). For some 25 years I have used progressive
lenses along with my astigmatism correction. I have become quite
comfortable using the OVF with a slight tweak to the diopter
adjustment. The switch from the OVF to the LCD to check histogram,
highlights and other stuff is not an issue, as the shift in head
position has become second nature to me. No need to have readers
hanging off my nose.

My optometrist has told me that I have a cataract developing in my
right eye and that I will probably have to deal with it in about two
years. He tells me that after that surgery with the astigmatic lens
replacement I will be seeing better out of that eye that ever.
Whoopee!!!


--
Regards,

Savageduck

David Hare-Scott wrote:

I am long sighted, I must wear glasses for close work but distant vision is
good. People often trend in this direction as the focus mechanism of the
human eye gets less flexible with age. If I want to use the screen I have
to put on glasses but then I cannot see the subject so the glasses hang off
my nose and then I can't see the screen and it all turns to crap.

So a viewfinder with its own adjustable focus is an excellent thing to me.
Most (all?) DSLRs have this - well and good. It seems odd that there is so
much hype about LCD screens (size, mobility etc) when a good proportion of
the population (especially the older ones with the disposable income to buy
high end cameras) can't use them. Perhaps this is a penalty for the
emphasis on youth culture.

Is there any other practical solution to this problem other than abandoning
the screen for the viewfinder? Do half-glasses actually work without
annoying?

My guess would be yes. In effect being very short sighted I use my
small lenses glasses as helf glasses the other way round when
photographing. I push them down my nose so I can see the live view
screen by looking over the top of them, and then tip my head back to
look through them to check the model etc..

Are there any DSLR models that don't waste money on this feature that it
seems I cannot use?

A further development of the DSLR might also answer your problem with
the LCD. An EVF will show you everything the LCD shows you, including
working your way through camera menu settings, reviewing shots,
checking histograms, and would be viewable by you without your
spectacles. Of course a good EVF costs money, but then on the other
hand you save money by not having to implement an optical viewfinder.

There is another advantages to replacing the optical viewfinder with an
EVF -- the extra camera stability of having no flapping mirror in the
camera.

--
Chris Malcolm

On 2013-01-28 23:16:48 +0000, David Hare-Scott said:

I am long sighted, I must wear glasses for close work but distant
vision is good. People often trend in this direction as the focus
mechanism of the human eye gets less flexible with age. If I want to
use the screen I have to put on glasses but then I cannot see the
subject so the glasses hang off my nose and then I can't see the screen
and it all turns to crap.

So a viewfinder with its own adjustable focus is an excellent thing to
me. Most (all?) DSLRs have this - well and good. It seems odd that
there is so much hype about LCD screens (size, mobility etc) when a
good proportion of the population (especially the older ones with the
disposable income to buy high end cameras) can't use them. Perhaps
this is a penalty for the emphasis on youth culture.

Is there any other practical solution to this problem other than
abandoning the screen for the viewfinder? Do half-glasses actually
work without annoying?

Are there any DSLR models that don't waste money on this feature that
it seems I cannot use?

David

I have for years worn progressive bifocals. They take a little getting
used to, but there is no annoying sharp line demarcating near and far
vision and it's just a matter of which part of the lens you look
through for near or far that does the trick. Sounds confusing but
really after a week or so it's second nature.
--
Michael

David Hare-Scott wrote:

So a viewfinder with its own adjustable focus is an excellent thing to me.
Most (all?) DSLRs have this - well and good.

Most probably all. It's no DSLR without an optical view
finder and I can't see anyone cheaping out on adjustability
there.

It seems odd that there is so
much hype about LCD screens (size, mobility etc) when a good proportion of
the population (especially the older ones with the disposable income to buy
high end cameras) can't use them. Perhaps this is a penalty for the
emphasis on youth culture.

LCDs are relatively new (compared to the SLR) and having it
done right means finding effective ways --- and time for these
to perchlorate from design studies and small scale evaluation
into popular models.

No wonder there's buzz, and no wonder camera makers prefer to
spend a bit more to sell a lot more cameras.

Is there any other practical solution to this problem other than abandoning
the screen for the viewfinder?

There are a few solutions, it depends on how much you want
to spend and if you are comfortable with what could be done.

e.g. there are wearable projectors that shine the image right
into your eyes (and you bet they can be set to infinity)
and some cameras have HDMI live view outputs. It would be
relatively simple (for someone skilled in the arts) to connect
these two. However, these things do cost money (the projectors
being still rare, not mass market, with matching prices),
there's a question of resolution, you'd have another tool
that needs to be fed power from some battery and the cables
(unless you go for a wireless transmission and all *that*
entails) can be in the way. It'll have bugs, too.

OTOH, using the optical view finder for photography still is
a good method for many shooting situations --- and keeps the
camera way more stable than two outstretched arms.

Are there any DSLR models that don't waste money on this feature that it
seems I cannot use?

An old 20D perhaps: no liveview, no video. Does have a rear
screen, though, to review photos. Alas don't take the 20Da,
as that is one of the first cameras with (very limited) live
view: just enough to focus the stars at night (the a stands
for astronomy).

-Wolfgang

On 1/02/2013 5:08 a.m., Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
--- and time for these
to perchlorate from design studies

Interesting result from the spell-checker you've got there.

On 2013-02-03 12:29:26 -0800, Me said:

On 1/02/2013 5:08 a.m., Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
--- and time for these
to perchlorate from design studies

Interesting result from the spell-checker you've got there.

It might also result in a strange & interesting brew.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Me wrote:
On 1/02/2013 5:08 a.m., Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
--- and time for these
to perchlorate from design studies

Interesting result from the spell-checker you've got there.

Indeed, I was wondering if anybody else would notice.

An eon ago I had to write a report about organisational change for a large
organisation and the report had to be audited. The auditor was a clever man
and knew quite a bit about the topic and what questions to ask etc but
English was not his first language. He gave me a preview of his audit which
was quite surreal. You could almost understand what he was saying but not
quite. He had accepted all the spell checker recommendations. He helped me
get my plans implemented and I helped him with English.

D

On 4/02/2013 10:10 a.m., Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-02-03 12:29:26 -0800, Me said:

On 1/02/2013 5:08 a.m., Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
--- and time for these
to perchlorate from design studies

Interesting result from the spell-checker you've got there.

It might also result in a strange & interesting brew.

Perhaps it was just an unusual espression.