LCD finders and reading glasses

Discussion in 'Mirrorless Digital Cameras' started by wayne melia, Dec 14, 2012.

  1. I am considering a mirrorless camera (probably Nikon J1 or Sony RX100) for the "pack it with you all the time" advantage, but am hesitant because I use 'reading glasses' for near vision, and worry that using a rear LCD will be impossibly difficult.
    Are there any 'reading glass users' out there who ARE using a camera without a viewfinder?
    Thanks in advance for replies.
     
  2. Wayne, I am getting a little older, and I have tried holding cameras at arm's length to take photographs, but I have decided I will never buy a camera without a viewfinder.
    Reading LCDs is becoming more difficult, especially in sunlight, and most viewfinders have diopter adjustments, while LCDs do not.
    The Nikon V1 has a viewfinder, is about the same size as the J1, and, since the announcement of the V2, has been discounted heavily (now $349 with the 10-30 lens at Amazon).
    Another option might be the Sony NEX-6 - which is not much larger than the RX100, and has both a viewfinder and a larger, DSLR sized sensor. But it is significantly more expensive than the $648 RX100 ($998 with the 16-50 power zoom lens at Amazon).
    Hope this is helpful and best of the holidays,
    Bill
    Hybrid Camera Revolution
     
  3. I wear varifocals and have no problem. Depending whether they are off-the-shelf or prescription lenses, you may be able to get better function. If they are prescription ones you may be able to get them optimised at a bit closer than the standard distance. Explain your needs to the optician at the time of your examination. I got this done for my reading and middle distance.
     
  4. I wear my reading glasses all the time while photographing. I can see the LCD clearly and adjust the viewfinder to accommodate my glasses.
     
  5. I have a Sony RX100 and wear progressive lenses. It is no problem for me. I can hold the camera less than a foot from my eyes and see the screen clearly through the closest focus part of the lenses and at the same time see the actual scene over the top of the camera through the distant focusing part of the lenses. If for some reason I am not wearing my glasses then I have to do the "dirty diaper" thing and hold the camera at arms length.
     
  6. I am borderline " not able to see things"
    and if it is tricky I set up those tiny knobs and displays ahead of time.
    Hopefully the on-off button is separate and the rest can be done by feel or experience.
    My vision is such that I can still focus a MF camera..
    But the tendency is to be " all users read mouseprint" and design things that way.
    I suppose this is not new. My Argus A
    has tiny numbers on the settings.
    I see on several Canon cameras that some attempt has been made with color or bold or outlined letters to make it easier
    to set if not read the actual symbols. both with the film and digital cameras.
    I keep my strong glasses handy.
    I agree, my wife uses the LCD and I use the viewfinder.,
    one of my old SLR's is easy to use and easy to see everything.
    sometimes without glasses. it even works with gloves on.
    consider that we can still stand up type and talk about cameras.
    many of our classmates and younger ones cannot.
    Now, If I can only see to measure the developer and read the thermomnter.
    I can develop that roll of apx 100
     
  7. Like Mr. Sanford Edelstein, I tend to wear classes all the time now, so I have no problem using LCDs, and often prefer them for composition & exposure adjustments.
    When I first started wearing glasses mostly for reading and computer work, I had the problem of not being able to clearly see the camera settings or the LCD playback without putting on my 'cheaters'. Wearing glasses virtually all the time now allows me to see everything on the camera and on the LCD. For cameras with viewfinders I adjust diopter for my uncorrected vision as I generally look over the top of my specs to look through the viewfinder, which gives both an unobstructed view and doesn't smudge my glasses.
     
  8. Like Mr. Sanford Edelstein, I tend to wear classes all the time now, so I have no problem using LCDs, and often prefer them for composition & exposure adjustments.
    When I first started wearing glasses mostly for reading and computer work, I had the problem of not being able to clearly see the camera settings or the LCD playback without putting on my 'cheaters'. Wearing glasses virtually all the time now allows me to see everything on the camera and on the LCD. For cameras with viewfinders I adjust diopter for my uncorrected vision as I generally look over the top of my specs to look through the viewfinder, which gives both an unobstructed view and doesn't smudge my glasses.
     
  9. I'm another reading glasses wearer while using digicams with LCDs. Works fine. I bought the narrow reading glasses so I can peer over the top, since my far vision is good. I just need the 1.25x reading glasses for anything closer than arm's length.
    The only other issue I've encountered with using only the rear LCD for composing is that with polarizing sunglasses some LCDs are blanked out when held vertically ("portrait" orientation).
     
  10. Thanks for the replies so far. My cheaters are off-the-shelf (1.5-2.0) that pack in a little tube case in my pocket, and I don't think I want to transition to wearing bifocals or half frames full-time for the sake of being able to use an LCD camera. Altho I could of course put them on sometimes, when I had the time and inclination.
    I wonder about looking at the LCD at arms length to rough frame loosely (and focus?) and then hold the camera close for stability while looking at the scene/subject for timing and shooting. Kinda half-assed Rube Golbergish kludge, I know, but thought I'd thro it out there in hopes of learning from other's experiences without either a) giving up entirely or b) spending stupidly.
     
  11. The arm's length thing may work if your hands are steady or if the camera/lens offers good image stabilization. My mitts are shaky so I need good image stabilization to use any rear LCD-only camera.
    My technique for quickie candid snaps with rear LCD-only cameras is to raise the camera to around chin level, with arms tucked in normally, and snap without checking the finder. Works pretty well with wide angle lens settings. Sometimes the horizon is wonky, but it minimizes camera shake.
    Another option - if you don't mind the larger size - is the Nikon V1 which has an integral EVF. B&H has it on sale now with the 10-30mm kit zoom for $299 (black only, I think). I'm seriously considering this myself. But it won't be pocket sized like the RX100. I'm not sure the Nikon J1 is pocket sized either, unless you wear cargo jeans or can use a jacket pocket. The body is small but the lenses don't fully retract into the body. On the plus side, Nikon's in-lens VR is very effective, a must for me.
     
  12. Thanx Lex; your technique is what pretty much what I meant. I do want a flash as part of the camera, thus my rejection of V1. I don't count on carrying it in jeans pocket: jacket or cargo shorts pocket, or maybe a small belt pouch. Or of course I might go for a small waterproof camera.
     
  13. I use over-the-counter reading glasses and carry one with me all the time when photographing. I hang mine around my neck for convenience. Easier than fiddling with taking out and putting back the glasses all the time. They work fine on viewfinders and LCDs.
     
  14. I recently bought an Olympus E-PL5 and the tiny screen has just about pushed me over the edge. It does, however, have a tilt screen so I can use it like a TLR: close to my body but far enough away to see the screen. FWIW, the Olympus ZX-2 is a nice P&S with good sized tilt screen and an excellent lens. There's also an optional EVF that slips into the hot shoe.
     
  15. Part of my attraction to the Canon G15 was the fact it has an optical viewfinder, but now that I have it, I admit to mostly using the LCD. I wear progressive lenses and have no particular problem -- but then at 70+ I've had 25 or 30 years to get used to the idea! If I'm really after the ultimate, I use my (D)SLRs.
     

Share This Page