Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Russia,Moscow | Originally posted by mikesbike Welcome to the forum! Yes, the EVF can provide better viewing brightness in lower light conditions than an OVF. This can be useful. However, as you know, it is not an accurate representation. It really does not show what you are likely to get from your shot- it is an artificial enhancement. So just be careful in your metering based on that. You will learn the difference when downloading the results and viewing on your monitor, and even a greater difference when making a print. Experience teaches, so you can take that enhancement into account.
But the same is true when using a DSLR's rear screen for viewing, especially when using LV for your shots instead of the OVF. The newer Pentax camera models provide a significantly better LV experience than do older models, which might be a good alternative to use in your case when dealing with reduced lighting situations.
You mention your eyesight as you get older. Perhaps you are developing cataracts. Only by consulting an ophthalmologist, not an optician, will you know for sure. I go to one who does surgery, but does not push it until intervention is the best option. He has been my eye doctor for over 25 years, and is a highly-regarded surgeon. I finally had mine removed 7 years ago for my right eye, the worst one while the right eye was still vision-correctable with glasses. Then three years later for the right eye. The most stunning revelation for me when the first eye was done, was the considerable improvement in brightness of the viewed scene compared to the right eye, which was not yet done. So there's no telling how many years I had gone, having reduced brightness of my viewing due to advancing cataracts, even though my visual acuity was still being corrected by wearing glasses. I had been wearing glasses because of myopia (near-sightedness) since my teen years.
Another important revelation (in my case) was that since now my left eye was corrected, via the lens implant, for distant-viewing so I no longer needed much in the way of glasses, except for corrective bifocals for seeing up close and reading. (I began requiring bifocals when I was about 52 years old.) But if not needing the glasses for all-around vision including distance, I could still see fine up close without glasses, not even needing the bifocals- but that ability disappeared with the new lens implant correcting for distance. I had considered the more expensive multi-focal lens implant, but upon asking my doctor abut any possible downside, he said ghosting of lights at nighttime could be a factor in some cases, so I chose to resign myself to needing bifocals whenever having to see up close. However, since the right eye was not yet done, I could still see up close using no glasses with it! I found that between the differences each eye now provided, I was able to see both far distance and up close with no glasses! I could go swimming at the beach and see the location of my things while still in the water, yet I could also pick something up and examine it up close! I could drive without glasses, though I had a new pair ordered with my updated prescription. The only issue was the middle-range vision, which neither eye was well-suited for. Using the computer was problematic. This had been an age-old issue for me anyway, but now was worse.
But a light bulb went on in my head, as I now had new functional capability. 3 years later, when it was time to address the cataract in my right eye, I requested a special consultation to talk about a different approach for it. I knew my mother had decided to remain nearsighted when she had her cataracts removed and lenses implanted, because she wanted to still be able to read without glasses. This was successful, and she was satisfied, being already used to wearing glasses for seeing distance. We had our consolation in his office, where I explained my idea- to have my right eye remain near-sighted, so each eye would fill in the weakness of the other. He said in my case this is a plausible solution, but he also said the cataract causes myopia to be more severe, that now I had to hold reading material much closer up than I used to. That he wanted less descrepency between the two eyes. Therefore, he looked in his computer to find my old records of prescriptions going back some 15-20 years- before cataracts were part of my condition. He said he would designate an implant lens that would correct to being along the lines of a much older prescription. Once he had that information, he calculated the exact focus point in inches as it would be when implanted, probably the DOF as well. When my vision cleared the day after the operation, I went to my post-op appointment, which began with a quick vision exam by his technical assistant. Wow! Could I see- like I had not since I was a kid! I read the print card, then the wall charts, like nothing! Using both eyes, of course. When the doc came in, I was raving. I was looking around the room reading everything, wall charts and signs, print up close to me, and.... even at mid-distance, the words on his equipment! He just sat with a big smile, saying this is very impressive, even better than he himself expected.
I came back after several weeks, allowing my eyes to settle in, to get testing for my new glasses prescription, which of course is quite different for each eye. The bifocals are hardly anything for the right and quite strong for the left. But now at the computer I am perfectly fine using no glasses at all. The middle range is fine- for the first time since having a computer! My viewing through the OVF is better than it has ever been, with or without glasses! And I use none, via the right eye, and little if any departure from default OVF diopter correction.
it is interesting that even though my eyes are so different in one being good for closer, and the other for farther distance, there is no awareness of this difference, that each eye is doing something different. The brain is what puts together the image. If the detail is present, regardless of which eye presents that detail, it will fill in that detail across the whole visual field, as long as both eyes are being used, and with full stereo vision!. My glasses are now of a weak prescription. Even weaker for the right eye, which only needs some correction for distance, while the left eye needs it for farther and closer mid-range, and the stronger bifocal for up close. So when wearing glasses, these to fine tune the eyes together, it is somewhat better all-around, but not always, as my ditching them at the computer reveals.
My doctor said not everyone with myopia is a candidate for this approach for cataract removal corrective implants. In my case, myopia was not very great in severity, being that I had been quite able to read without glasses, so I am fortunate. I thought I would put my experience out there as a possibility to discuss with your doctor, if applicable, as well as for anyone else interested. Wow... does it mean that you have no DOF? you see everything sharp enough at all distance ? ---------- Post added 2020-12-21 at 09:10 ---------- Originally posted by fazalabbas Due to aging eyes, focusing and looking through viewfinder is not at its best. Recently I tested and bought Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark III kit, consumer entry level DSLR camera. The viewfinder was outstanding, very very clear and bright. Now whenever I reach for camera to take pic, I pick Olympus. I also like Olympus image stabilization better but thats a discussion for some other time
I currently have KX, K50 and two K5.
Question 1: Considering my Pentax bodies are older, Pentax bodies are SLRs where as Olympus is mirrorless. I like to understand/know that the dull viewfinders of Pentax bodies are because of older prisms? age? or its not as bright as Olympus because of mirrorless vs SLR?
Question 2: Which Pentax SLR APS-C has brightest viewfinder? Maybe this does some help? Pentax O-ME53 Magnifying Eyecup 30150 B&H Photo Video |