Eye Relief -- Best Mechanical Cameras

<p>What are some of the better mechanical cameras for people who wear glasses? </p>

<p>Nikon F3HP.</p>

<p>The beloved F3 isn't a mechanical camera, it was Nikon's 1st electronic shuttered pro camera. The Olympus OM-1 cameras have good VF's and are mechanical.</p>

<p>Yes, my first thought was the F3HP, but it doesn't fit the requirement of a fully mechanical camera. The high eyepoint prism is the best I've seen for people who wear glasses, nonetheless.</p>

Nikon F2 with DA-1 finder.

(Having said that, an RB-67 with waist-level finder would be pretty hard to beat. Same for an Hasselblad 500C/M)

<p>I'll second the F2/DE-1 combination. I wear glasses and swear by my F3HP and OMs, but the F2/DE-1 with a rubber-rimmed eyepiece insert (so you don't run the risk of scratching your specs) is surprisingly good. In addition, it's a pleasure to use <em>and</em> the best looking 35mm SLR ever made (IMO, of course)</p>

<p>The Leicaflex SL2, which was manufactured between the years of 1974 -1976, is known as "the tank" for all the right reasons, but one of its features which I've found so appealing is its viewfinder, which provides incredible coverage (both the field and magnification). When other photographers I run into want to take a look thru this "old geezer" camera, I usually hear something like "WOW" when they've put it up to their eye, because the viewfinder is so large, clear, bright and uncluttered....and like SLR cameras of the era...things literally pop into focus. It's only downside, IMHO, is that it doesn't have a built in diopter adjustment. Now since we are in the classic forum, I would also mention, that although most of us are talking about SLR cameras, the Leica M4 rangefinder camera's viewfinder was larger, crisper and brighter than anything which preceeded it in the Leica (and most other) lines...very easy to use with glasses, but could scratch the eyeglass lenses (because the eyepiece was metal) if one wasn't careful. And, in following the debate of the times RF vs SLR, you could easily precisely focus it at night or in extremely low light, whereas with a SLR it was always a challenge - especially for the visually impaired. In my early years1960s I was always changing cameras not primarily due to the latest "must have" features, but because I had difficulty feeling comfortable using them with my eyeglasses which I wore all the time.</p>

<p>My 5x7 Graflex SLR.</p>

<p>Note that Jean-Yves Mead nominated the F2 with DA-1, the Action finder, a big heavy hunk of glass that was designed for use while wearing a helmet, mask or something like that. David Carroll remarekd about the F2/DE-1 combo, which isn't bad for a "normal" finder, but is nowhere near the action finder's eye relief. I've got an F3 with a DA-2 action finder, and while it's not strictly mechanical, it has almost as much eye relief as a modern digicam with the preview screen, you know, the kind that people hold out at arm's length.</p>

<p>OK, perhaps I exaggerate a bit, but not much. But despite the fact that the DA-2 action finder has about two and a half inches of eye relief, and even though I use glasses, I still prefer the F3HP's standard DE-3 for normal use.</p>

<p>There is a trade-off involved with extra eye relief and that is usually lower magnification. I don't wear glasses because I can do without them for most things and I use a diopter correction piece for almost every camera. I have looked through many of the cameras with non-prescription sunglasses just to see what that's like. All other things being equal I would rather have greater magnification than longer eye relief. As a precaution and because I like them I got two Canon Speed Finders for my F-1/F-1n cameras. These allow odd angles and can be very handy but the lowered magnification makes it more difficult to focus even if it also makes it easier to see the whole screen with glasses. I just looked through a few cameras: Nikon F2, Canon F-1, Nikon FE2, Promaster 2500 PK Super and with these your eye needs to get pretty close to see the whole screen. As long as the vision of my right eye can be corrected with diopters I would prefer not to wear glasses while shooting. My fallback is a Canon F-1 with the Speed Finder. </p>

<p>I forgot to mention Minoltas. I prefer the X-700 in most cases for its bright viewfinder and other modern conveniences (1981 modern) but I just looked through an X-700 and an SRT 201 and the SRT 201 is easier to use with glasses. I use both with the same diopter. In his bool on SLRs Ivor Matanle mentioned that at some point he switched to SRTs because they were easier for him to use with glasses. The older I get the more I see how AF was able to extend the working life of many photographers. For now I still prefer manual focus. </p>

<p>My 4x5 camera has a nice viewfinder. JR</p>

<p>

<p >This was a subject I gave a lot of thought to, as I wear glasses and find many SLR viewfinders lacking. My prescription is -0.75x (L); -1.0 ®, no astigmatism. One thing I did a few years ago was order some Zeiss T* coated glass lenses for my corrective eye glasses (sunnies and reading). Best thing I ever did getting rid of those crappy Hoya plastic lenses!</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Below is the data for a few cameras I was playing around with over the last 10 years. At the end of this process I own a Contaflex II, a Nikon F and a Leicaflex SL. Most of the time if I reach for an SLR, it's the Leicaflex. The lenses are unbeatable. However the Leicaflex focus screen is highly curved and very thin on the edges, I suspect this is how they get the illumination so even and bright with most lenses.</p>

</p><div></div>

<p>

<p >One drawback of this is that the 4/21mm Super-Angulon-R has very heavy vignetting on the SL. If I put the SA21 up to the mount of the Nikon F, it displays no vignetting. Perhaps one of the cheaper electronic bodies such as an R4 or R5 would be the answer for this particular lens.</p>

</p><div></div>

<p>

<p >

<p >Below are my opinions of the camera bodies I tried. I went through a long Olympus OM phase, but concluded (once I got my Zeiss T* eyeglass lenses) that the lack of a condenser lens on the OM finder is a fatal flaw, leaving the viewfinder image soft. I hope this data is useful. Sorry about the formatting. You may need to cut and paste this into another text editor to make the tables work properly. I wrote it years ago on Word 5.1 on Mac OS9...</p>

<p ><strong> </strong></p>

<p ><strong> </strong></p>

<p ><strong>Camera Magnify % coverage eyepoint</strong></p>

<p ><em> </em></p>

<p ><strong><em>Canon EF 0.82x 93%</em></strong></p>

<p ><strong><em> </em></strong></p>

<p ><strong><em>Chinon CE-2 0.88x (55mm) 92 %</em></strong></p>

<p ><strong><em> 0.76 (50mm)</em></strong></p>

<p ><em> </em></p>

<p ><em>Fujica ST801 0.98 ? </em></p>

<p ><em> </em></p>

<p ><em>Konica FT-1 0.81x 92 %</em></p>

<p ><strong><em>Konica T3 0.78x 92%</em></strong></p>

<p ><em> </em></p>

<p ><strong><em>Leicaflex SL 0.90x 94%</em></strong></p>

<p ><em> </em></p>

<p ><strong><em>Nikon F/F2 0.80x 100 % 18mm</em></strong></p>

<p ><em>Nikon F3 0.78x 100 %</em></p>

<p ><em>Nikon F3HP 0.75x 100 %</em></p>

<p ><em> </em></p>

<p ><strong><em>Olympus OM-1 0.92x 97 %</em></strong></p>

<p ><em> </em></p>

<p ><strong><em>Pentax KX 0.88x 93 %</em></strong></p>

<p ><em> </em></p>

<p ><em>Voigtlander Bessaflex 0.75x 95 %</em></p>

<p ><strong> </strong></p>

<p ><strong> </strong></p>

<p ><strong>Picks In order of brightness:</strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p >Zeiss Contaflex II bright, sharp</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Olympus OM-1 bright, soft</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Fujica ST801 bright, squinty</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Leicaflex SL bright, excellent</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Nikon F good</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Minolta SRT101 good</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Topcon RE Super bluish, split image vague</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Nikon FM2n bright squinty</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Pentax KX bright squinty</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Olympus FTL bright, squinty</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Chinon CEII dim, squinty</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Konica nT3 blue, squinty</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Nikkormat FT2 blue, squinty</p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong>Picks In order of coverage:</strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p >Zeiss Contaflex II</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Olympus OM-1</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Nikon F</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Topcon RE Super</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Leicaflex SL</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Minolta SRT101 </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Konica nT3</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Nikkormat FT2</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Chinon CEII</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Olympus FTL</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Fujica ST801</p>

<p ><strong> </strong></p>

<p ><strong> </strong></p>

<p ><strong>RAW Data</strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p >Camera Magnify % coverage eyepoint</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Canon A-1 0.96x ?</p>

<p >Canon Pellix/FT 0.90 94%</p>

<p >Canon T70 0.87x ?</p>

<p >Canon FT-b 0.85x 94 %</p>

<p >Canon T50 0.84x ?</p>

<p >Canon AE-1 0.83x 94%</p>

<p >Canon EF 0.82x 93%</p>

<p >Canon T90 0.77x 94%</p>

<p >Canon F-1 0.77x 97%</p>

<p >Canon EOS A2E 0.76x ?</p>

<p >Canon EOS 1N 0.75x ?</p>

<p >Canon EOS 1V 0.72x 100 %</p>

<p >Canon EOS Elan 2 0.72x ?</p>

<p >Canon EOS Rebel SX 0.72x ?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Chinon CP-5 0.94x ?</p>

<p >Chinon CE-2 0.88x (55mm) 92 %</p>

<p >Chinon CE-3 95%</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Contax 139 0.89x ?</p>

<p >Contax 137 0.88x ?</p>

<p >Contax RTS 0.87x 92 %</p>

<p >Contax RTS II 0.85x ?</p>

<p >Contax Aria 0.82x 95 %</p>

<p >Contax RTS III 0.75x 100 % </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Cosina Hi-Lite EC 0.90x 95 %</p>

<p >Cosina Hi-Lite 405 (55mm) 0.81x 93%</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Fujica ST701 0.96x (55mm)</p>

<p >Fujica ST801 0.96x (55mm)</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Konica TC 0.91x ?</p>

<p >Konica T4 0.89x ?</p>

<p >Konica TC-X 0.87x ?</p>

<p >Konica FT-1 0.81x 92 %</p>

<p >Konica T2/3 0.78x 92%</p>

<p >Konica FS-1 0.69x ?</p>

<p >Konica FC-1 0.67x 90 %</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Leicaflex SL 0.90x 94% </p>

<p >Leicaflex SL2 0.86x 94%</p>

<p >Leica R4 0.85x 92%</p>

<p >Leica R5, RE, R6, R6.2, R7 0.80x 92%</p>

<p >Leica R3 0.79x 92%</p>

<p >Leica R8 0.75x 93%</p>

<p >Leica R9 0.75x ?</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Minolta XD-11 0.89x ?</p>

<p >Minolta X-700 0.87x 95%</p>

<p >Minolta XD-7 0.87x 94%</p>

<p >Minolta Maxxum 0.86x ?</p>

<p >Minolta SRT-101 0.83x 94 %</p>

<p >Minolta XK 0.80x 98 %</p>

<p >Minolta Maxxum 700si 0.79x ?</p>

<p >Minolta Maxxum 9xi 0.76x ?</p>

<p >Minolta Maxxum 9 0.73x 96 %</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Nikon FM 0.86x 93 % 14mm </p>

<p >Nikon FM2 0.86x 93% 14mm</p>

<p >Nikon FE 0.86x 93 % 14mm</p>

<p >Nikon FE2 0.86x 93 % 14mm</p>

<p >Nikon EM 0.86x 92 %</p>

<p >Nikkormat FT2 0.86x 92%</p>

<p >Nikon EL2 0.85x 92 %</p>

<p >Nikon FG 0.84x 92 %</p>

<p >Nikon FA 0.80x 93%</p>

<p >Nikon F/F2 0.80x 100 % 18mm</p>

<p >Nikon F3 0.78x 100 %</p>

<p >Nikon F3HP 0.75x 100 %</p>

<p >Nikon F5 0.75x 100 %</p>

<p >Nikon F4s 0.70x 100 %</p>

<p >Nikon N70 0.77x ?</p>

<p >Nikon N90 0.77x ?</p>

<p >Nikon N55 0.68x 89%</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Olympus OM-1 0.92x 97 %</p>

<p >Olympus OM-2s 0.89x 97%</p>

<p >Olympus OM-4T 0.84x 97 %</p>

<p >Olympus OM-2000 0.84x 93%</p>

<p >Olympus IS-3 0.76x ?</p>

<p >Olympus OM-4 0.75x ?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Pentax ME 0.98x ?</p>

<p >Pentax MX 0.97</p>

<p >Pentax Spotmatic F 0.89x w/50 93%</p>

<p > Lifesize w/55</p>

<p >Pentax Spotmatic SP II 0.88x w/50 93%</p>

<p > Lifesize w/55</p>

<p >Pentax K1000 0.91x ?</p>

<p >Pentax A3000 0.90x ?</p>

<p >Pentax KX 0.88x 93 %</p>

<p >Pentax LX 0.86x 97%</p>

<p >Pentax PZ-1 0.86x ?</p>

<p >Pentax Super-A 0.82 92%</p>

<p >Pentax ZX-5 0.78x ?</p>

<p >Pentax MZ-S 0.75x 92 %</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Ricoh KR-5 0.95x ?</p>

<p >Ricoh XR-2 0.91x ?</p>

<p >Ricoh XR-7 0.87x ?</p>

<p >Ricoh XR-P 0.86x ?</p>

<p >Ricoh Singlex II (w/55mm) 0.84x 92%</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Rollieflex 35SL E ? 93%</p>

<p >Rolleiflex SL2000F 0.84x ?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Sigma SA-1 0.82x ?</p>

<p >Sigma SA-300 0.70x ?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Topcon RE Super ? 97%</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Vivitar 450/SLD (55mm) 0.81x 93%</p>

<p >Vivitar 250SL 0.73x 93%</p>

<p >Vivitar 400SL 0.73x 93%</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Voigtlander Bessaflex 0.75x 95 %</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Yashica FR-1 0.87x 92 %</p>

<p >Yashica FR 0.84x ?</p>

</p>

</p>

<p>Thank you all for the quick and thoughtful responses. I'm obviously not the only one who has had this question pop into the mind. I'm a Leica M user now, and have been for the last 15 years. I can confirm that a Nikon F2 and F3HP and Leicaflex SL and SL2 all have wonderful viewfinders for the eyeglass wearer, but they're all big and heavy cameras. I like the results I'm getting with the SL I have now, and in some respects I like using it more than the rangefinder, and I was just wondering whether there was a smaller alternative out there. I have sampled a Nikon FM2N, but its' viewfinder is the pits (for someone who wears glasses). Thank you again for the help.</p>

<p>Wow, Peter. I'm glad your choices and discussion are now on record here. Thanks.</p>

<p>My personal favorite is still my Nikon F plain prism (NOT Photomic).</p>

<p>Well Jeff, you're fortunate that your correction needs are not that severe. I am extremely farsighted, and the situation has only gotten worse as presbyopia set in with age. I'm fortunate that my vision can be corrected to 20/20 (or even slightly better), but that comes at the price of requiring trifocals. Using a camera with only a diopter correction eyepiece is not an option. I find that I must often use a small + diopter in addition to my glasses to see the screen clearly with most cameras.</p>

<p>Stephen, I agree the FM series finders are awful for a glasses wearers which is a pity, as the FE is a great camera. Looking at the trends in viewfinder design over the years, it appears that manufacturers have decreased viewfinder magnification, because the lower the magnification, the better the result for glasses wearers.</p>

<p>A Leica R5, RE, R6, R6.2, R7 at 0.80x magnification and 92% coverage may be the answer if you don't want to lug around a Leicaflex /Leicaflex SL/ Leicaflex SL2, although the viewfinders are not as bright as the Leicaflex series.</p>

<p>The real surprise to me was how good the original Zeiss Contaflex design is. Another good thing about the Contaflex is that it's viewfinder is 1:1, meaning you can view the scene with both eyes open and the frame seems to float within it!</p>

<p>The later Contaflexes also have a great finder and interchangable lenses, although the ergonomics of the focusing mechanism are a bit stiff. Perhaps if the focus helicoid was dismantled and some space-age wonder grease used it may be better...</p>

<p>JDM, I also have a plain prism for my Nikon F and it's really good, better than the Photomic head. I have a Leica M2 and M5 as well, but have reverted to the Leicaflex SL of late, as my 10-month old daughter is impossible to keep up with using a rangefinder!</p>

<p>I must say that the Minolta SRT 101 has an excellent finder for the price, a little bluish, but easy to see with glasses and the information layout is almost identical to the Leicaflex, except that the shutter speeds show up as black figures on a clear ground along the bottom of the finder - an improvement on the Leicaflex's clear numbers set in a black strip. I would love to have the money to get Leica to re-make some screens for the Leicaflex with the figure-ground relationship reversed like the SRT.</p>

<p> </p>