Hoodman flip up eyeglasses for photographers

<p>I have started wearing eye glasses and I am having problems using them while photographing. I have lost or broke two pairs of glasses already by constantly taking them off to look through the view finder. If you have my problem, how do you deal with it in the easiest way? I have seen ads for the Hoodman flip up eyeglasses for photographers, but have never seen a pair. They are expensive. Has anyone used these and can you give me your opinion of the quality and the ease of use. Thanks, John<br>

</p>

<p>John, I don't know about the Hoodman flip-ups, but they seem like a Band-Aid approach to me. About ten years ago I finally got tired of struggling with glasses vs. photography and a lot of other things, and switched to contact lenses. Problem solved. (Now, after cataract surgery in one eye, I only have to wear contacts in the other one!)</p>

<p>I am <em>very</em> nearsighted. If I wear glasses while photographing, I need to take my glasses off--or, more often, peer over/under the lenses--to see the back of the camera.</p>

<p>I've had a boyfriend who preferred me in contacts. I obliged, but that meant I had to use reading glasses to see the back of the camera or to read anything! That didn't work at all, so instead I found that I could get around quite well while wearing only one contact. I could see the distance well enough (and without headaches) that way, and when I needed to see anything up close, I'd use my "bare" eye.</p>

<p>I'm not sure how well the Hoodman flip-up eyeglasses would work for me in various circumstances. I'll have to think about that.</p>

<p>I just look through my eyeglasses through the viewfinder. I don't know, maybe it's because I've worn glasses since I was 14 or 15, but I just don't have any problem with that.</p>

<p>Reading Glen's post and the OP again makes me think: like Glen, I don't have any trouble seeing through the viewfinder with my glasses on. (My troubles come when trying to view the controls and the screen and any reading material while wearing glasses or contacts.)</p>

<p>Maybe adjusting the diopter, if your camera has one, John, would do the trick.</p>

<p>I struggled with this until I found a solution--bifocals with a line between the two prescriptions, two thirds of the way down rather than in the middle. I use the upper prescription to look at the world and through the viewfinder, and the lower to read the LCD panels. They're now my normal eyeglasses. For reading and my computer screen, I use a different pair of eyeglasses.</p>

<p>I went thru the eyeglasses struggle for years as my prescription changed...usually wearing eyeglasses while shooting. Contacts didn't work for me, and eventually I ended up with progressive lenses. Then the decision came....wear glasses or not....some cameras had diopter adjustments, some needed screw in diopters, etc. and it became a nightmare until I committed to ALWAYS wearing my glasses (which were corrected to "normal vision") while shooting...problem solved - for all bodies all the time!</p>

<p>I'm with William on this. I have a prescription for daily wear contacts, and use them when I know I'll be out shooting. I can shoot with my glasses, but I find that the extra distance means I'm more likely to miss important info in the viewfinder. If I move around a little, I can see everything, just not all at once.</p>

<p>But, like Noreen, it means I have to use reading glasses to see the back of the camera! Well, till I get those arm extensions, anyway ;-)</p>

<p>It's a tradeoff for me. If I were to :</p>

<ul>

<li>adjust the diopter of the VF to my shooting eye, I'd lose the ability to quickly switch between VF and subject without switching to glasses, which would make shooting very challenging!</li>

<li>shoot using my glasses, I'd still lose the ability to quickly scan the entire VF. Canon makes a VF eyepiece for glasses wearers, but it reduces the size of the VF image, making it harder for me to see through the VF.</li>

</ul>

<p>So, I'll stick with daily wear contacts and readers. I use daily wear contacts, because I barely know they are there, and they won't (usually) get anything built up on them in the 8-16 hours I'll have them in. </p>

<p>Through the eyepiece, spectacles are no problem. The only time I have problems is trying to look at the screen or controls when I'm wearing a hat or if I need to wear safety specs over my normal vision pair. <br>

Being (very) short sighted, I would normally pull my spectacles down my nose and look over the top, whilst holding the camera very close to my face. Photography is just an everyday activity, I would no more consider buying spectacles to use with a camera than I would to buy a pair for driving.</p>

<p>I have the same issue, and taking my glasses on and off was not a good solution. For my Canon 40D, I use the eyepiece that Larry mentioned, the EP-EX15II. On my 7D I was delighted to find that it had enough eye relief that I didn't need an eyepiece (which is good, because the EP-EX15II wouldn't fit on it anyway).</p>

<p>Wow, this is a lot of information to consider. I guess we have to find a method that works for each of us. These are the products Hoodman offers. The flip up eye glasses are expensive so maybe I will try the eye piece. My problem is I wear bifocals and it is a pain to look through the view finder with them on. I need the closeup bifocal len to see the LCD screen and the camera controls.<br>

http://www.hoodmanusa.com/products.asp?dept=1067<br>

http://www.hoodmanusa.com/products.asp?dept=1071</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I guess we have to find a method that works for each of us.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Very true. If all I did was landscapes with the camera on a tripod, I might choose to set the diopter of the VF to my shooting eye and just flip down my regular glasses at other times. But shooting wildlife - esp. birds - I can't afford that delay, or I'll miss the shot.</p>

<p>If I should ever not be able to wear contacts, I'd possibly consider the Hoodman frames. </p>

<p>As a scientist looking through microscopes all day, contacts were a godsend! I had my eyes lasered well before returning to photography in a big way. As a kid and young adult I would look through the VF with glasses, and then I eventually got a diopter attachment. There's no comparison. Glasses suck!</p>

<p>But why not simply use the diopter adjustment on the viewfinder?</p>

<p>Some years after cataract surgery, I have corrective lenses for my view-finders. On the rare occasions on which I cannot read small print on cameras, lenses and meters with my bare eyes, I wear my glasses on a cord around my neck. There was a time when I wore a special pair of glasses for photography: the right eye had the correct prescription for the finder, the left eye had my normal reading prescription. Made walking a bit tricky, that's all.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But why not simply use the diopter adjustment on the viewfinder?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For me, I still need glasses/contacts/LASIK for distance vision.</p>

<p>Compensating with the diopter adjustment on the VF works like putting glasses (ok, a monocle) on, making the VF image (which is "focused" to appear as if it were a meter or two away) clear, same as glasses or contacts would, but then my unaided eyes can't focus on my subject.</p>

<p>With contacts compensating for distance vision and the VF set at "0" diopters, I can switch easily from VF to the subject, same as someone who doesn't need glasses or contacts. I end up needing readers for close vision, like to chimp, or change menu settings, but for me, it works better than the alternatives.</p>

<p>I'm somewhat in the same boat as you, Larry. My laser-vision eyes are older now. Distance vision is fine, but I can't focus close up. So I'm good to see the subject and good to see the VF at 0 diopters. But I'm not quite as good to see the camera. My arms aren't long enough, especially when the strap keeps me from getting the camera at a respectable reading distance! ;-></p>

<p>Thinking about this conundrum, I once asked if there was such a thing as a cheap monocle we could buy to hang on our camera strap. Better still, maybe a +2 diopter meniscus lens mounted in a lens cap. That way we'd always have close-up vision near at hand. Nobody knew of such a thing, although I suppose it's easy enough to cobble something up from a cheap close-up "filter."</p>

<p>Someone (I forget who) made a brilliant, but geeky suggestion: If you're someplace you NEED close-up vision, but you are without your reading glasses, pinch your fingers together to form a tiny hole, and then gaze through the hole. You'll get a dim image with greatly expanded depth of field (because you are stopping down the aperture of your eye). I've done this when trying to read ingredients lists in the grocery store. I get a couple of strange looks when I do it, but who cares? It might not be as good for chimping an image on the LCD, but it's a perfectly viable way to read text/labels. I'd still prefer a small meniscus lens, though.</p>

<p>Follow-up: Good heavens, I've checked ebay, and monocles are all over the place! It seems they're now popular for the steampunk folks. The only problem is that they all seem to be "5x" lenses, about +20 diopters, as far as I can tell -- good for burning ants, I suppose. But I'm looking now for something a bit less severe! Fingers crossed!</p>

Being British wearing monocles comes as second nature. Once you get a pipe to support the camera body and grow a

moustache for cushioning there is no difficulty in switching from VF to screen seamlessly and safely. My wife never looked back

once she had the full set! Only forwards.

;-)

<blockquote>

 

 

<p>Being British wearing monocles comes as second nature. Once you get a pipe to support the camera body and grow a moustache for cushioning there is no difficulty in switching from VF to screen seamlessly and safely. My wife never looked back once she had the full set! Only forwards. ;-)</p>

 

 

</blockquote>

 

<br />

<p>Are you saying your wife has a mustache?</p>

 

 

<p><a name="pagebottom"></a></p>

<p>I tend to associate monocles with Germans, but I guess that's because I grew up with Hogan's Heroes and <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=Colonel+Klink&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-Address&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=yeX3Ufm8OcSBiwLr4oB4&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1237&bih=837">Colonel Klink</a>.</p>

Family portrait ..... In patriotic pose.

 

http://1000words1000days.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Header14.jpg

 

Seriously, my right eye is so bad that I have to use my (first class) left one. Unfortunately, as I use an M9 my schnoz is oiling up the rear screen making it distracting to read in sunlight.

Everyone seems to have a different approach. I use a camera for fun, and a microscope all day professionally, and use

both with my glasses on. I am short sighted and wear multifocals. I sometimes look over the top of my glasses to see

the displays very closely, but usually the close focus element is good enough. I've tried contacts and find them too

uncomfortable. I would find it very annoying to have to take my glasses on and off all day to use any optical instrument.

 

Incidentally, for the last 10 years I have worn Lindberg titanium rimless frames that seem virtually unbreakable and set to last forever!

http://lindberg.com/

<p>I had a pair of +4 diopter power glasses made for me for about $45 with a decent frame that fits well. I use them all the time for live view and formerly focusing my large format gear.</p>

<p>Works for me.</p>