Photographing with glasses

littlemonster said:
Has nobody else suggested laser eye surgery yet?

Seems the most obvious option :D
Click to expand...

Great Idea! Why didn't eye think of that?

Can I send you the bill afterwards? Having been for an assessment with two companies offering this surgery I can tell you the operative word in the tv ads is from - from £395 encompasses the £3325 and £3450 they actually quoted me :gag:

Anyway, having watched the videos of how the operation is done there is pretty much no way I would go ahead. Being totally squeemish about my eyes there's no way I could lie there and let them scrape away the outer surface of my eyeball - gives me the shivers just thinking about it :thumbsdown:
 
dubcat said:
Just to get this straight, is the process to:

1) set the camera up on tripod and autofocus to something very contrasty so you know the camera can lock on focus easily.

2) switch to MF

3) look through viewfinder without glasses on and adjust diopter until image looks sharp

Is that right? I don't understand why you need to do the live view thing as suggested early on in this thread.

Dub
Click to expand...


Actually, I don't think this is necessarily correct. It may give you the desired result but there is the potential for it to make focussing errors within the camera worse.

The idea of the diopter adjustment is to make the apparent distance between the eye and the focus screen correct for your vision. You can make this adjustment without a lens fitted to the camera at all - indeed that's how I was taught to do it.

When you look through the viewfinder it's the focus brackets that need to be in focus not the image coming through the lens.

In his books Thom Hogan says to defocus the lens, which is the same as removing it completely.
 
Bristolian said:
Actually, I don't think this is necessarily correct. It may give you the desired result but there is the potential for it to make focussing errors within the camera worse.

The idea of the diopter adjustment is to make the apparent distance between the eye and the focus screen correct for your vision. You can make this adjustment without a lens fitted to the camera at all - indeed that's how I was taught to do it.

When you look through the viewfinder it's the focus brackets that need to be in focus not the image coming through the lens.

In his books Thom Hogan says to defocus the lens, which is the same as removing it completely.
Click to expand...


AHHH that actually makes a LOT of sense! :) Thanks :)
 
Bristolian said:
Great Idea! Why didn't eye think of that?

Can I send you the bill afterwards? Having been for an assessment with two companies offering this surgery I can tell you the operative word in the tv ads is from - from £395 encompasses the £3325 and £3450 they actually quoted me :gag:

Anyway, having watched the videos of how the operation is done there is pretty much no way I would go ahead. Being totally squeemish about my eyes there's no way I could lie there and let them scrape away the outer surface of my eyeball - gives me the shivers just thinking about it :thumbsdown:
Click to expand...

For older people, eye surgery usually leaves you needing glasses anyway, even if not all the time.

We need glasses as we get older usually because the lens in the eye has got stiff with age and cannot be stretched far enough to focus from both far distance to close up. The 'accommodation' is reduced - basically the focusing range.

Surgery can make vision at a certain distance better, but can't increase the focusing range so you usually end up with glasses anyway, though they'll probably be less strong. Still worth looking into, but not such a successful cure as it is with young folks.

You can also get varifocal contact lenses. I used them for a while, quite successfully, until my eyes got too dry for contacts. Another age problem ;)

Bristolian said:
Actually, I don't think this is necessarily correct. It may give you the desired result but there is the potential for it to make focussing errors within the camera worse.

The idea of the diopter adjustment is to make the apparent distance between the eye and the focus screen correct for your vision. You can make this adjustment without a lens fitted to the camera at all - indeed that's how I was taught to do it.

When you look through the viewfinder it's the focus brackets that need to be in focus not the image coming through the lens.

In his books Thom Hogan says to defocus the lens, which is the same as removing it completely.
Click to expand...

True.

How hard can it be to adjust the eyesight dioptre? Look at the viewfinder readout, twiddle the dial until it's sharp. Done.
 
hmm, I'm sure I saw a gadget for this...it was like a viewfinder extender...
 
HoppyUK said:
For older people, eye surgery usually leaves you needing glasses anyway, even if not all the time.

We need glasses as we get older usually because the lens in the eye has got stiff with age and cannot be stretched far enough to focus from both far distance to close up. The 'accommodation' is reduced - basically the focusing range.

Surgery can make vision at a certain distance better, but can't increase the focusing range so you usually end up with glasses anyway, though they'll probably be less strong. Still worth looking into, but not such a successful cure as it is with young folks.

You can also get varifocal contact lenses. I used them for a while, quite successfully, until my eyes got too dry for contacts. Another age problem ;)



True.

How hard can it be to adjust the eyesight dioptre? Look at the viewfinder readout, twiddle the dial until it's sharp. Done.
Click to expand...

Most people with spec's have astigmatism, which is not corrected by the adjustment available on the camera. My post above explains exactly how to sort this 100%

Richard King SMC Tech, FBDO(hons) LVA CL, MSc (Optics) + a few others
 
I cant shoot without my specs as i'm not certain it would be too safe for a half blind person to be wandering around a race circuit. This means i have to shoot with an eye piece extender on my 40d, 50d. However the 1d's viewfinder is superb as it is, lovely big field of view, makes looking down the 50d with extender like looking down a tunnel.
 
Richard King said:
Most people with spec's have astigmatism, which is not corrected by the adjustment available on the camera. My post above explains exactly how to sort this 100%

Richard King SMC Tech, FBDO(hons) LVA CL, MSc (Optics) + a few others
Click to expand...

Most people with specs might have astigmatism as almost everybody does have a little, but that's not the main problem - it's either short or long sight, and the dioptric adjustment corrects for that within reason.

If astigmatism is the major problem, then of course you will need a prescription eyepiece as you said. Most folks don't.
 
I think it depends on the camera too. When I was shooting on my 450D (low end Canon), I found it slightly difficult with my glasses on. However, it's no problem at all with my new 7D (high end canon). So some eyepieces are designed better than others I guess.
 
HoppyUK said:
Most people with specs might have astigmatism as almost everybody does have a little, but that's not the main problem - it's either short or long sight, and the dioptric adjustment corrects for that within reason.

If astigmatism is the major problem, then of course you will need a prescription eyepiece as you said. Most folks don't.
Click to expand...

I wonder what the "cylinder" bit on virtually all of those prescriptions was that passed under my nose then..

The adjustable eyepiece in most cameras is pretty crude, with harsh steps, and offers little useful spherical adjustment, barr to compensate for accommodation

from a prescription point of view (ignoring presbyopia & exotropia) there are 4 types of eyes

1. no rx
2. cyl only (astigmatic)
3. Spherical lenses only
4. mixed spheres and cyl's

group 2 is arguably the same as 4 if you are picky

If you are not in group 1, it is unlikely you are in group 3

90% of us have measurable astigmatism

25% having more cylinder that than 1.0 D

If uncorrected 1.0 D of astigmatism decreases visual acuity from 20/20 to
between 20/30 and 20/40 depending on its axis

On the sight test Snellen chart, the letters at 20/40 are twice as big as those of 20/20

In other words, 25% of us would benefit a lot from correcting astigmatism
the % will clearly be bigger in the spectacle wearing group
 
Contact lenses were the best thing I did, I use the dailies they are really easy to wear and you just bin them when you have finished with them.
 
I wear glasses and I can't stand using them with the camera. I therefore have the constant wear contact lenses. £15 per month and you wear them the whole month then bin them and switch to glasses for a day before sticking the next ones in.
 
Got my first new contacts last week after a 20 year break from them.

Apparently my left eye is just a normal round curved lens, it's so comfortable I can't detect it being in until it gets a tad dry. I just use a squirt if Optrex acumist or whatever it's called and it goes alright for about 4 or 5 hours. It's me camera eye so I'm pretty darned chuffed.

However my right eye is astigmatic and as such I need a different lens. It's taking a little getting used to as I sometimes feel it. The optician is sure there's nothing I can do to make it pefect so as it's within my annoyance threshold I can live with itt.

I've been prescribed One day Accuvue Moist.

Seems I have one part of that script that I think is rotation thats 110 degrees that none of the online lens supermarkets don't seem to stock.

I got charged £40 for 30 sets, so I'll be looking elsewhere for a cheaper supplier.

As for togging in lenses, oh boy what an improvement. The only downside Is I can't see the rear screen as well so I'm having to put more effort into geting the picture right in the viewfinder. Thats no bad thing really.
 
I need glasses, got them and won't wear them (only use them for watching the tele), so I have no problem. On the rare occasion were i'm wearing glasses and I just leave them on and I can still easily shoot them on, but no way could it be a permanent thing.
 
Richard King said:
I wonder what the "cylinder" bit on virtually all of those prescriptions was that passed under my nose then..

The adjustable eyepiece in most cameras is pretty crude, with harsh steps, and offers little useful spherical adjustment, barr to compensate for accommodation

from a prescription point of view (ignoring presbyopia & exotropia) there are 4 types of eyes

1. no rx
2. cyl only (astigmatic)
3. Spherical lenses only
4. mixed spheres and cyl's

group 2 is arguably the same as 4 if you are picky

If you are not in group 1, it is unlikely you are in group 3

90% of us have measurable astigmatism

25% having more cylinder that than 1.0 D

If uncorrected 1.0 D of astigmatism decreases visual acuity from 20/20 to
between 20/30 and 20/40 depending on its axis

On the sight test Snellen chart, the letters at 20/40 are twice as big as those of 20/20

In other words, 25% of us would benefit a lot from correcting astigmatism
the % will clearly be bigger in the spectacle wearing group
Click to expand...

Science is good when it's relevant, but misleading when it isn't.

While most people do indeed have some degree of "measurable astigmatism" that isn't the main cause of poor vision. In terms of prevalence, it tends to be basic myopia in younger people who need glasses for distance, and accommodation in older folks, not astigmatism. This is fixed with varifocals, or simple off the shelf reading glasses for less than a fiver. Not much correction for astigmatism in those.

It doesn't follow that spectacle wearers are more prone to astigmatism than those without. Glasses will naturally have some small adjustment for astigmatism because, as you say, most people have a bit of it so you might as well get it fixed at the same time. That's not the same thing at all as needing specs purely because of astigmatism.

The eyepiece dioptric adjustment is fine for most people, though of course not all. It takes two seconds.
 
ChrisH said:
Can I ask why ?

Your eyes will get worse not wearing them, I hope it isn't vanity ?:geek:
Click to expand...

My eyes are better when things are close to me and when I wear glasses they make it harder for me to read/see. I should wear them all the time but I really dont like wearing them. Im gonna ask about contacts sometime anyway.
 
I heard if you adjust the viewfinder so that the text at the bottom is in focus, then your vision will be similar to that of the camera.

Of course you could just avoid using manual focus unless it is for macro/landscape using liveview. That way the camera's autofocus will still be accurate and you can let it focus for you.
 
I understand the problem, I have variofocals and would prefer to not wear my glasses during photography. Nikon supply a diopter suited to your eyesight. My camera is a D80 and the base diopter I under stand is -1. You can get them to suit your prescription. I have yet to get one as I cant find my prescription. I think Microglobe supply them, at around £15 I think.

Nikon supply them for -4 to +4 prescription, on the Nikon US web page under answers it it is Answer ID 639.

The following link may explain, also Warehouse Express sell them.

http://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/639
 
I have worn glasses for the last 23 years, I'd been using a D-slr for about 4 years when a friends 9 year old daughter asked me why I look over my glasses when using the viewfinder. Never realised I did! I have astigmatism in both eyes, vision in my left is pretty poor even with correction

I set the diopter to max - on all my cameras and get on with it. But I can't manual focus, and just have to live with the fact.

Added bonus of this is my nose doesn't touch the camera so no bogies on the screen!

J
 
Andy said:
My eyes are better when things are close to me and when I wear glasses they make it harder for me to read/see. I should wear them all the time but I really dont like wearing them. Im gonna ask about contacts sometime anyway.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a job for varifocals ;) It comes to all of us... :D I had varifocal disposable contacts for a while and they were good until my eyes needed stronger than they made.

It took me a long time to get used to specs. You just have to persevere for a few weeks. It helps if you get a really good pair, with high refractive index glass (plastic). They cost a bit but are so much lighter than cheapies, frameless titanium. I don't know I'm wearing them now.
 
Jay12329 said:
I have worn glasses for the last 23 years, I'd been using a D-slr for about 4 years when a friends 9 year old daughter asked me why I look over my glasses when using the viewfinder. Never realised I did! I have astigmatism in both eyes, vision in my left is pretty poor even with correction

I set the diopter to max - on all my cameras and get on with it. But I can't manual focus, and just have to live with the fact.

Added bonus of this is my nose doesn't touch the camera so no bogies on the screen!

J
Click to expand...

Thats about it, one gets on with it. I to have to rely on 'auto focus', have done for years. Things are a little better with varifocal lenses and I find the more restricted viewfinders of entry level cameras easier to see, because the eye is not up tight to the glass, I cant see the extreem edges of bigger (some say better?) view finders.

Both my cameras have flippy, floppy screens, hard to come to terms with . . . but I admit to using them more and more . . . :bang: The original reason was Hazel my partner cant stand up straight and I have a dodgy knee. So she has a light weight G1, mounted on a mono-pod at high waist level the screen is used as though it was a box camera, the mono-pod doubles as a walking stick for here. I have a D5000, one likes low angle shots, but can no longer get 'down and dirty':naughty: . . . getting down is not so bad, but getting up again !!!! :help:

As I say, I'm finding I use the screens more and more for normal shots:naughty: Great to have the choice . . . :thumbs: Next thing, I'll just be using a compact 'tourist style' . . . :thinking: :exit:

CJS
 
If you can replace the eyecup on that camera try leaving if off altogether and shooting without it while wearing your glasses. You might find that gets you close enough to the back of the viewfinder that you can see the entire frame. I wear glasses and it works for me.
 
SixToes said:
If you can replace the eyecup on that camera try leaving if off altogether and shooting without it while wearing your glasses. You might find that gets you close enough to the back of the viewfinder that you can see the entire frame. I wear glasses and it works for me.
Click to expand...

It amazes me . . . considering the amount of people that wear glasses . . . manufacturers of cameras have made no effort to accommodate then . . . :shrug: Binoculars . . . they make the rubber eye piece so that it can roll back! So may be you are right SixToes, 'I will have a look' :lol:

I recon the first brand to introduce a true 'spectacle friendly' viewfinder will steel a march?

CJS
 
I didn't realise this thread would get so many posts! Good point about removing the eye cup, its often the simplest things that are best.....
 
I really don't see how so many people have problems shooting with glasses. I wore glasses for 16 years to correct around -5.5 short sightedness. Never had any problem using my viewfinder, occasionally shot with contacts if I happened to be wearing them that day, never found that any more or less convenient. Regarding the laser surgery comments, I had mine done last year. Convenient but not "life changing" as some TV ads would have you believe but still glad I had it done and worth the money. Still, I shoot wearing sunglasses a lot of the time (sunny alpine conditions), no hassle.
 
Lornholio said:
I really don't see how so many people have problems shooting with glasses. I wore glasses for 16 years to correct around -5.5 short sightedness. Never had any problem using my viewfinder, occasionally shot with contacts if I happened to be wearing them that day, never found that any more or less convenient. Regarding the laser surgery comments, I had mine done last year. Convenient but not "life changing" as some TV ads would have you believe but still glad I had it done and worth the money. Still, I shoot wearing sunglasses a lot of the time (sunny alpine conditions), no hassle.
Click to expand...

How lucky you are . . . :clap:
 
Reading this thread with interest. :)

Generally, getting older does nothing for your eyesight - it just gets worse. :eek: I wore varifocal glasses or varifocal contacts for years, and lived with the fact that even with correction my eyes weren't good enough to use manual focusing. Then 2 years ago a routine checkup revealed cataracts in both eyes. The optician recommened I got them fixed sooner rather than later, and the transformation is still like a miracle - a very short simple operation has removed the cataracts and corrected my shortsightedness, giving me near-perfect eyesight. I just need glasses for reading very small print, and if I'm being very, very fussy I use them for chimping.

The downside - eye-make up smudges on my camera! :lol:

Cataracts start to affect your eyes very gradually and if you find you're forever cleaning your glasses, or you start thinking that car headlights are getting brighter, or other drivers are not bothering to dip their lights, it's worth getting a check up. Apologies to the OP for going off-topic, but I certainly didn't know about the early symptoms and I suspect lots of other people don't either. :)

Jean
 
i wear glasses but didnt use them for photos generally.... but the other week i wore them while using the camera - and whadya know.... i can see.


its not too hard using specs and camera - just takes a bit of getting used too :)
 
Something to be aware of, since you're eye isn't as close to the viewfinder with specs, there's a chance that light can get in behind them and upset the exposure meter which is inside the pentaprism.

Not usually a problem as it's well shielded, but if the sun is low and behind you, it can throw things a bit and you'll get under exposure.
 
jerry12953 said:
TVM for posting that...I have a tendency to press the menu (etc) buttons on my 5Dii with my nose, and the extender might just help to prevent it. At only £10ish from 7day shop, I've ordered one already!

I note from reviews that it is better to take the lens out of the extender, which is easy to do.

I note also that there are two models, the EP-EX15 for most bodies, and the EX15 II for the 450D, 500D and 1000D (IIRC) Anyone thinking of purchasing should check they get the right one.
Click to expand...

I am looking at getting the EX15 II for my 550D. I have read somewere else that the additional lens in the extender can distort view but is easily resolved by undoing the 2 small screws and removing the glass. I can't say I have checked this but will do when I buy one. Does anyone have one that can comment/
 
Sausages said:
I am looking at getting the EX15 II for my 550D. I have read somewere else that the additional lens in the extender can distort view but is easily resolved by undoing the 2 small screws and removing the glass. I can't say I have checked this but will do when I buy one. Does anyone have one that can comment/
Click to expand...

Well I went out ( not literally...) and bought one but have yet to become convinced of its usefulness!

You certainly can take the lens out - it's in two pieces - but then it's more difficult to see into the corners of the image.

It is easy to fit but the jury is still out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top