ksporry Posted February 1, 2012 Share #21 Â Posted February 1, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Maybe I'm crazy but.... If you can afford a Leica, can't you also afford laser eye correction surgery? I'm contemplating the procedure as a glasses wearer myself... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 Hi ksporry, Take a look here rangefinder and eyglasses. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lars_bergquist Posted February 1, 2012 Share #22 Â Posted February 1, 2012 This is where I like using a 35mm focal length with the M3 viewfinder attachment. The 50mm frame is selected on ANY M BODY and the "goggles" fit the 35mm view into it. I know it is a very old lens design, but the M3 version of the 35 Summicron has beautiful bokeh and is no slouch in every other respect. It looks a bit funky, but it is a joy to use if you wear glasses. It also allows you to keep your sweaty forehead off the camera in hot weather. Â If you actually enjoy using the goggled Summicron, then may I offer you my heartfelt congratulations? You are unique, and lucky. I have not heard that from anybody else. Â The old man from the Age of the M3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted February 1, 2012 Share #23 Â Posted February 1, 2012 Maybe I'm crazy but.... If you can afford a Leica, can't you also afford laser eye correction surgery? I'm contemplating the procedure as a glasses wearer myself... Â No laser surgery short of the Star Wars clinic that replaced Luke Skywalker's hand will restore the lost accommodation (focusing ability) of old eyes. The actuating muscles have simply laid off and withered. So I need varifocals in any case, so why not use them? Â The binocular old man Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted February 1, 2012 Share #24  Posted February 1, 2012 No laser surgery short of the Star Wars clinic that replaced Luke Skywalker's hand will restore the lost accommodation (focusing ability) of old eyes. The actuating muscles have simply laid off and withered. So I need varifocals in any case, so why not use them? The binocular old man  My understanding from my eye doc is that it's due to the lens becoming less flexible with age, not a muscular problem (unless some specific disease). There are two ways they surgically fix the aging-eyes loss of near focus problem, at least here in the US. One way (the older way) they correct one eye for distance and the other for close-up, and (supposedly) the brain adapts. A friend of mine had this done and is fine with it. I'm leery, because what if I get a grain of sand or something in one eye? I'd need to carry two pairs of spare glasses.  The other (newer) way is they replace the lenses entirely, with synthetics, the same as they do for cataracts. Another friend had that done, and at age 81 he no longer needs glasses for distance or reading. That's they way I'll go, but not until I get cataracts that are ripe for doing (and by then they'll have something even better I'm sure). No way I'm letting anyone near my eyes with sharp instruments unless it's that or go blind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted February 1, 2012 Share #25 Â Posted February 1, 2012 Maybe I'm crazy but.... If you can afford a Leica, can't you also afford laser eye correction surgery? I'm contemplating the procedure as a glasses wearer myself... Â Does laser surgery correct astigmatism? Â . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomB_tx Posted February 1, 2012 Share #26 Â Posted February 1, 2012 I have four friends who had laser eye surgery to get away from glasses. All of them were back to glasses (for at least some use) after 2 to 4 years. I think I'll avoid it until cataracts require something. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted February 1, 2012 Share #27 Â Posted February 1, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Maybe I'm crazy but.... If you can afford a Leica, can't you also afford laser eye correction surgery? I'm contemplating the procedure as a glasses wearer myself... Â Being able to afford it has no bearing on getting the surgery, Leica user or not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stussy2k Posted February 27, 2012 Share #28  Posted February 27, 2012 HiWhen I tested the M9 in the shop I felt that its viewfinder seems larger and easier to focus than the RD1, even wearing glasses. Someome that wear glasses can confirm ? Alberto  Hi Alberto, if/when you get your hands on the M9 I would be very interested to hear your findings/comparison when it comes to easy of focussing/seeing between the RD1 and M9 viewfinder.  I'm considering the switch from RD1 to M9 myself mainly because of the need of the FF but also because I would still be able to get diopters+magnifiers for the M9 (thus hoping easier fast-and-accurate focussing wide open). My search for a magnifier for the RD1 has only proven fruitless... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted February 27, 2012 Share #29 Â Posted February 27, 2012 I have experimented with magnifiers on the M9, but I have found that they do not improve my focusing ability, but impair it due to the loss of contrast. This was especially true for the 135mm Apo-Telyt. Â LB (the same old man) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 27, 2012 Share #30 Â Posted February 27, 2012 Lars is right - magnifiers only work for a limited proportion of users - others find they only magnify the problem. The way to go is to use the correct diopter, WalterXeyepiece or rglasses. If that is not sufficient you can always try a magnifier. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Printmaker Posted February 28, 2012 Share #31 Â Posted February 28, 2012 Lars is right - magnifiers only work for a limited proportion of users - others find they only magnify the problem. The way to go is to use the correct diopter, WalterXeyepiece or rglasses. If that is not sufficient you can always try a magnifier. Â I tried a magnifier with diopter correction but found that if I needed to take the camera away from my eye to adjust a F-stop or change the ISO, I needed to put my glasses back on to read the numbers. Then the glasses went back into the pocket. Wait, what's that white. Out comes the glasses and a bra strap gets tucked in... glasses back in the pocket. How did the exposure look? Glasses back on. Blown highlights. Adjust F-stop. Put glasses away. Did she blink? Glasses back on.$#%$#$ Screw this. Put magnifier away... for good! Â I invested in a $700 pair of anti-scratch neutral grey photochromatic bifocals and gave up on ever seeing the 28mm framelines. Â Knives and lasers in the hands of island doctors scares the $%#$%# out of me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted February 28, 2012 Share #32 Â Posted February 28, 2012 I wear glasses mostly for reading and don't care for them when shooting. I tried a magnifier, but my astigmatism limited its usefulness (it just magnified it). The perfect solution turned out to be - and something I fully reviewed here is the Walter RX Eyepiece. Great solution for me and it solved all my issues. YMMV. Â Agree with that, the Walter helped my hit rate due to my astigmatism. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted February 28, 2012 Share #33  Posted February 28, 2012 The problem with exchanging my glasses for a correction eyepiece is that without my glasses I am half blind – unless I look at the world through the finder. Also, whipping off the glasses when shooting means that sooner or later I will drop them and probably somebody will thread on them (and then I will be half blind ...) Not the recipe for action photography. I want to get out alive.  The inability to use a 28mm lens without an accessory finder is a very minor inconvenience. I have never been able to understand what that focal length is actually for. It seems that it entered the ranks of Compulsory 35mm Focal Lengths because in the 1930's, that was the widest you could design without horrible amounts of vignetting and distortion. That is a bad argument nowadays.  LB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gyoung Posted February 28, 2012 Share #34  Posted February 28, 2012 If you actually enjoy using the goggled Summicron, then may I offer you my heartfelt congratulations? You are unique, and lucky. I have not heard that from anybody else. The old man from the Age of the M3  Well I enjoy using mine, on the M3 or even on the M6ttl, where it gives a more accurate framing than the mean compromise that is the (actually about 40mm) frame that Leica saw fit to foist upon us as the 'solution' to the lack of eye relief on the M2/4 which means that I can't see the 35 frame on those cameras with my glasses on.  from Gerry, the fairly old man who chose an M3 and goggled Summicron 35 over the M2/4 new in '68, and has used and enjoyed them ever since.  Gerry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gyoung Posted February 28, 2012 Share #35  Posted February 28, 2012 The problem with exchanging my glasses for a correction eyepiece is that without my glasses I am half blind – unless I look at the world through the finder. Also, whipping off the glasses when shooting means that sooner or later I will drop them and probably somebody will thread on them (and then I will be half blind ...) Not the recipe for action photography. I want to get out alive. The inability to use a 28mm lens without an accessory finder is a very minor inconvenience. I have never been able to understand what that focal length is actually for. It seems that it entered the ranks of Compulsory 35mm Focal Lengths because in the 1930's, that was the widest you could design without horrible amounts of vignetting and distortion. That is a bad argument nowadays.  LB The main problem for me with correction lenses is my considerable astigmatism, as well as the difficulty of what safely to do with my glasses while 'snapping' away. I feel very similarly about the 28mm, I only bought one for the Ms when the 28/1.9 Voigtlander came out, it gives me a bit more angle of view for available light interiors than the 35 at an aperture fast enough to be able to use handheld with 400iso in your average cathedral/museum. Attempts to use it for scenic work always seem to result in unsatisfying shots with annoying perspective, rather than the dramatic possibilities of the 21/24  Gerry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted February 28, 2012 Share #36 Â Posted February 28, 2012 This is where I like using a 35mm focal length with the M3 viewfinder attachment. The 50mm frame is selected on ANY M BODY and the "goggles" fit the 35mm view into it. I know it is a very old lens design, but the M3 version of the 35 Summicron has beautiful bokeh and is no slouch in every other respect. It looks a bit funky, but it is a joy to use if you wear glasses. It also allows you to keep your sweaty forehead off the camera in hot weather. Â Why I used to use one myself. Â Bifocals or progressive are of little value because you are forced to use a certain portion of the lens and that portion is toward the bottom. Not comfortable at all. Â Either take the glasses off or use a + 1 diopter so you can see close through the top of the lens. I adopted this for many years. Â My eyes have improved and now I just go bare. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
asmith Posted February 28, 2012 Share #37 Â Posted February 28, 2012 I use varifocals and have no problem with the rangefinder. My only problem is that I can't see the 28 mm frame. I've therefore given up the 28 Summicron whic was so good with the M8. Alwyn Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 28, 2012 Share #38 Â Posted February 28, 2012 :confused:Even if one cannot see the framelines it is not really difficult to learn to estimate the field of view. Using a dedicated viewfinder is not a real problem either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeverettfine Posted February 28, 2012 Share #39  Posted February 28, 2012 If you actually enjoy using the goggled Summicron, then may I offer you my heartfelt congratulations? You are unique, and lucky. I have not heard that from anybody else. The old man from the Age of the M3  Actually I have a later goggled version of the 2.8 Summaron. Very nice lens every bit as good as the Summicron of that era without the extra stop. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted February 29, 2012 Share #40 Â Posted February 29, 2012 The Summaron was and is a nice lens. But the Suchervorsatz? Â LB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.