Short-sightedness and DSLR photography

[PostmanPot]

Good morning

Seeing as I have a big birthday coming up, I'm more interested than ever in getting into DSLR photography. I wear glasses all the time, I don't like contacts. I know that there are DSLRs with "prescription correction" - mine is about -2.5 to -3, I've seen Canons with up to -3 correction. Spoke to bwana briefly about it a while ago.

I would like to know how short-sightedness affects DSLR photography, use of the viewfinder etc. Is looking through the viewfinder going to be the "same" for me as looking at things normally? Will it just be a matter of placing my glasses on my head then snapping away? I'm thinking that live view will be a huge benefit for me when using the DSLR as a P&S - so I don't need to move my glasses up all the time when I just want to snap quick pics.

Please tell me everything you know.

Thanks

PP. :)

[Deenem]

Good morning

Seeing as I have a big birthday coming up, I'm more interested than ever in getting into DSLR photography. I wear glasses all the time, I don't like contacts. I know that there are DSLRs with "prescription correction" - mine is about -2.5 to -3, I've seen Canons with up to -3 correction. Spoke to bwana briefly about it a while ago.

I would like to know how short-sightedness affects DSLR photography, use of the viewfinder etc. Is looking through the viewfinder going to be the "same" for me as looking at things normally? Will it just be a matter of placing my glasses on my head then snapping away? I'm thinking that live view will be a huge benefit for me when using the DSLR as a P&S - so I don't need to move my glasses up all the time when I just want to snap quick pics.

Please tell me everything you know.

Thanks

PP. :)

Ummm, most DSLR's are auto-focus these days, so you don't really have to worry :D

I know what you mean though, and yes, my Pentax has a little adjustment slider on the viewfinder which can compensate of short-sightedness.

[bwana]

Maybe something like this? http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/547886-REG/Canon_3069B001_EP_EX15_II_Eyepiece_Extender.html

[PostmanPot]

Ummm, most DSLR's are auto-focus these days, so you don't really have to worry :D

But I'll struggle if I'm focussing manually, and the camera has no "prescription correction", right?


Maybe something like this? http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/547886-REG/Canon_3069B001_EP_EX15_II_Eyepiece_Extender.html

Thanks, will keep this in mind.

[marine1]

My Sony has a dial that can adjust the viewfinder to either extreme

[Deenem]

But I'll struggle if I'm focussing manually, and the camera has no "prescription correction", right?


You still focus manually? ;)

It will correct myopia (short sightedness) but not an astigmatism.

[arf9999]

Most DSLRs will have a viewfinder "dioptre" adjustment, but you'll need to check that it has the required range. Best thing to do is check in a shop.

Also, remember that you'll have to put on your specs to check the LCD! :)

[PostmanPot]

Most DSLRs will have a viewfinder "dioptre" adjustment, but you'll need to check that it has the required range. Best thing to do is check in a shop.

Also, remember that you'll have to put on your specs to check the LCD! :)

Yeah, that's what I've been talking about - "prescription correction". :p :o

I think the 400D (and I assume the 1000D and 450D) is up to -3, which will be fine for me.

Will be okay checking the LCD as I can see well closer-up. :D

[koffiejunkie]

The dioptre adjustment should do the trick. I'm near sighted, no idea what mine is set to (40D) since I can't see a marking on the wheel, but I can see an focus clearly through it. My dad is far sighted and the dioptre works for him too for the near shots (his near extends quite far.

And to those who ask, yes, there are times when you have to manual focus - low light or poor contrast situations. AF needs something sharp/contrasty to lock onto. If your image doesn't have that, AF can have a hard time.

[Pooky]

I am short sighted and have found the dioptre doesn't do the job very well, I wear contacts so it's fine with me, but I have used it with glasses and it doesn't pose much of a problem, but I would not recommend using the dioptre from personal experience.

[PostmanPot]

Cool, never saw these last time I was looking - http://www.sony.com.au/dis/dis/catalog/product.jsp?id=FDAECN30&section=prod&term=FDAECN40.

Anyone take pictures while having glasses on? Perhaps I could get away with keeping mine on. Perhaps I will need a viewfinder extender.

[Pooky]

Cool, never saw these last time I was looking - http://www.sony.com.au/dis/dis/catalog/product.jsp?id=FDAECN30&section=prod&term=FDAECN40.

Anyone take pictures while having glasses on? Perhaps I could get away with keeping mine on. Perhaps I will need a viewfinder extender.

I do sometimes although I mostly wear contacts. The dioptre doesn't work for me I have astigmatism. I find it easy enough.

[PostmanPot]

I do sometimes although I mostly wear contacts. The dioptre doesn't work for me I have astigmatism. I find it easy enough.

What's your prescription?

[ldmelsa]

live view will be a huge benefit for me when using the DSLR as a P&S

not at a birthday party?
I think lice view is for still subjects
maybe KJ can comment (I don't know much about live view)

[Pooky]

-2.5 left and -3.0 right I think.

[PostmanPot]

not at a birthday party?
I think lice view is for still subjects
maybe KJ can comment (I don't know much about live view)

It could be. What I meant at the time I created this thread was that I was going to put birthday money towards a DSLR. [Un :p]fortunately I had to invest that money into my future, and so had to postpone getting a DSLR.

Live view is very attractive to me for casual photography. I kind of dread the thought of having to use the viewfinder every time. Bad habits, I know. I want to use both.

Also, short-sightedness really worries me, and I know that live view means that I won't always have to adjust spectacles and dioptres.

Also, I'm starting to seriously side with Sony's A3xx with the swivel LCD. Makes live view even more attractive.

However I must say though that if Canon/Nikon were to bring out a live view camera with swivel LCD, and the price was fair, I'd probably side with them.

I constantly wonder if Canon/Nikon will bring something like this out in their next "range". In any case, it will still be a while until I get my DSLR.

[ldmelsa]

Live view is very attractive to me for casual photography. I kind of dread the thought of having to use the viewfinder

The viewfinder is very attractive to me for all photography. I kind of dread the thought of having to use live view.

And I have live view. You'll learn. :p

[PostmanPot]

The viewfinder is very attractive to me for all photography. I kind of dread the thought of having to use live view.

And I have live view. You'll learn. :p

Yip I will one day.

[koffiejunkie]

Anyone take pictures while having glasses on? Perhaps I could get away with keeping mine on. Perhaps I will need a viewfinder extender.

I really struggle with that. I used to not wear my glasses when I go out sight-seeing but lately my short sightedness have progressed to the point where I really need to. Last time I checked my perscription wasn't strong enough to get contacts (I didn't even know that a prescription could be to weak) but this might change soon.

I guess the thing that bothers me the most is that, if I don't wear my glasses all the time, the skin sweat/oil deposits on the rubber around the viewfinder smears off on the glasses. My sight is not bad enough yet that marks/smears on the glasses don't bother me.


I think lice view is for still subjects
maybe KJ can comment (I don't know much about live view)

There are a couple of problems with live view. For one, holding a DSLR in the position required for non-tripod live view shooting for any length of time is a pretty uncomfortable business. I don't think you can hold a DSLR in front of your face anywhere near as steady as when it rests against your eye socket.

Another thing is that, and this is a subjective observation which may be completely incorrect, the shutter response isn't as quick as when you shoot with the optical viewfinder. I think what happens is when you squeeze the shutter, the mirror is lowered first to meter, then takes the shot.

Lastly, it sucks battery. I have used it on the odd occasion when I wanted to take a picture at an odd angle, but I don't think there was a single time that I couldn't have used the viewfinder instead.

[arf9999]

The viewfinder is very attractive to me for all photography. I kind of dread the thought of having to use live view.

And I have live view. You'll learn. :p

To be fair, the Canon live view is painful to use unless you're shooting landscapes. The Sony implementation is far more friendly and much faster with better AF performance. You can even shoot moving subjects! So PP may well be happy.

That said, I'm no fan of live view in general. It is difficult to confirm focus and a good viewfinder is more "natural" to use. Unfortunately I've been spoiled with the use of an A900 for a couple of days and now dread going back to a tunnel vision tiny VF...

[arf9999]

There are a couple of problems with live view. For one, holding a DSLR in the position required for non-tripod live view shooting for any length of time is a pretty uncomfortable business. I don't think you can hold a DSLR in front of your face anywhere near as steady as when it rests against your eye socket.

Another thing is that, and this is a subjective observation which may be completely incorrect, the shutter response isn't as quick as when you shoot with the optical viewfinder. I think what happens is when you squeeze the shutter, the mirror is lowered first to meter, then takes the shot.All valid concerns with the Canon implementation of Live View. However, as PP is looking at the Sony A300/350, these are not valid. The LCD swivels, so you can shoot "waist height" comfortably and using a separate imager for LV means that thee is no lag for focus and metering.


Lastly, it sucks battery. I have used it on the odd occasion when I wanted to take a picture at an odd angle, but I don't think there was a single time that I couldn't have used the viewfinder instead.
This is true tho'...

[PostmanPot]

Thanks for the responses.


I really struggle with that. I used to not wear my glasses when I go out sight-seeing but lately my short sightedness have progressed to the point where I really need to. Last time I checked my perscription wasn't strong enough to get contacts (I didn't even know that a prescription could be to weak) but this might change soon.

I guess the thing that bothers me the most is that, if I don't wear my glasses all the time, the skin sweat/oil deposits on the rubber around the viewfinder smears off on the glasses. My sight is not bad enough yet that marks/smears on the glasses don't bother me.

There are a couple of problems with live view. For one, holding a DSLR in the position required for non-tripod live view shooting for any length of time is a pretty uncomfortable business. I don't think you can hold a DSLR in front of your face anywhere near as steady as when it rests against your eye socket.

Another thing is that, and this is a subjective observation which may be completely incorrect, the shutter response isn't as quick as when you shoot with the optical viewfinder. I think what happens is when you squeeze the shutter, the mirror is lowered first to meter, then takes the shot.

Lastly, it sucks battery. I have used it on the odd occasion when I wanted to take a picture at an odd angle, but I don't think there was a single time that I couldn't have used the viewfinder instead.

Good points, have been taken it into consideration.

[PostmanPot]

To be fair, the Canon live view is painful to use unless you're shooting landscapes. The Sony implementation is far more friendly and much faster with better AF performance. You can even shoot moving subjects! So PP may well be happy.

That said, I'm no fan of live view in general. It is difficult to confirm focus and a good viewfinder is more "natural" to use. Unfortunately I've been spoiled with the use of an A900 for a couple of days and now dread going back to a tunnel vision tiny VF...

Sony live view does look good. Pricey though when the A200 is so similar for so much less.

Concerns about the A350 for be are that the LCD protrudes out, making it difficult to use the viewfinder; also, the viewfinder is incredibly small, one of the smallest on any DSLR IIRC.

[PostmanPot]

Today, I'm thinking that maybe it'll just be best to go for non-live view to gauge how my short-sightedness will affect me, and to perhaps wean myself off the idea of live view for now. Perhaps there are big improvements coming in terms of live view, and it would be favourable to wait for better implementations of it.

The A200 looks to be fantastic value.

[bwana]

Today, I'm thinking that maybe it'll just be best to go for non-live view to gauge how my short-sightedness will affect me, and to perhaps wean myself off the idea of live view for now. Perhaps there are big improvements coming in terms of live view, and it would be favourable to wait for better implementations of it.

The A200 looks to be fantastic value.Live view looks like it could have it's uses (I'm thinking primarily in the studio) but also it's drawbacks. Unless you're going to be using it on a tripod arent there going to be inherent stability issues - optical stabilisation can only cope with so much, right?

Of course maybe that's just me - I wont even buy a P&S unless it has a viewfinder :)

[arf9999]

Live view looks like it could have it's uses (I'm thinking primarily in the studio) but also it's drawbacks. Unless you're going to be using it on a tripod arent there going to be inherent stability issues - optical stabilisation can only cope with so much, right?


Why do you say this?

[bwana]

Why do you say this?I've got some heavy lenses and holding my smallish camera away from my body with one makes be question the viability of it - now I can only imagine the added weight of a flash and my grip.

EDIT - can you see yourself holding this away from your body?

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/picture.php?albumid=19&pictureid=1435

[ldmelsa]

Andrew: Yes, I hear Sony has a very good live view implementation. And it's not just Canon that sucks at it. Nikon sucks too. The only time I use LV is when the camera is over the neighbour's wall, and I can't see the viewfinder. Just kidding (God, I hope they don't read this).

Sony are doing a lot of things right with their still cameras. I'd expect nothing less from the people who make the world's best video cameras. Who knows, maybe my next camera is a Sony.

[koffiejunkie]

All valid concerns with the Canon implementation of Live View. However, as PP is looking at the Sony A300/350, these are not valid. The LCD swivels, so you can shoot "waist height" comfortably and using a separate imager for LV means that thee is no lag for focus and metering.

Please elaborate on this? What do you mean by "separate imager"?


The only time I use LV is when the camera is over the neighbour's wall, and I can't see the viewfinder. Just kidding (God, I hope they don't read this).

LOL! :D

[PostmanPot]

Please elaborate on this? What do you mean by "separate imager"?

I think he means that there are two sensors, one for the viewfinder and a smaller one for live view. I remember reading about this, perhaps he's referring to it.

[arf9999]

Please elaborate on this? What do you mean by "separate imager"?


As PP mentioned, Sony has full time liveview with the mirror down by using a separate imager next to the pentaprism. Thus normal focussing, and exposure takes place with the mirror down.

see an article here which explains it: http://www.anandtech.com/digitalcameras/showdoc.aspx?i=3213&p=3

This has a big impact on the speed of operation.
For Canon and Nikon the process of shooting with Live View is as follows:
In LV mode Mirror locks up, shutter is open and Main Sensor is used to feed image to LCD. Focus is slow because only contrast detection is used. When the shutter release is pressed, the camera drops the mirror in order to set focus with phase detection and sets the exposure. Mirror is then lifted, shutter opens and the exposure takes place. Thus there is a significant lag between shutter release and actual exposure. In addition, while in LV mode the focusing and exposure settings are not optimal until the mirror drops.
Process = Shutter release, mirror down, AF/Exposure Set, Mirror Up, Shutter open, Shutter close.

The Sony, by contrast, uses a lower resolution sensor to feed the LCD, keeping the mirror down until the actual exposure. Thus AF and Exposure are calculated before the mirror lifts for the exposure.
Process: Shutter release, mirror up, shutter open, shutter close, mirror down.

[arf9999]

I've got some heavy lenses and holding my smallish camera away from my body with one makes be question the viability of it - now I can only imagine the added weight of a flash and my grip.

EDIT - can you see yourself holding this away from your body?

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/picture.php?albumid=19&pictureid=1435

aaah, I see. I was visualising medium telephotos and wider. These are quite comfy to shoot waist height, especially with a camera strap.

[koffiejunkie]

As PP mentioned, Sony has full time liveview with the mirror down by using a separate imager next to the pentaprism. Thus normal focussing, and exposure takes place with the mirror down.

see an article here which explains it: http://www.anandtech.com/digitalcameras/showdoc.aspx?i=3213&p=3

Right, I see. Interesting idea!


This has a big impact on the speed of operation.
For Canon and Nikon the process of shooting with Live View is as follows:
In LV mode Mirror locks up, shutter is open and Main Sensor is used to feed image to LCD. Focus is slow because only contrast detection is used. When the shutter release is pressed, the camera drops the mirror in order to set focus with phase detection and sets the exposure. Mirror is then lifted, shutter opens and the exposure takes place. Thus there is a significant lag between shutter release and actual exposure. In addition, while in LV mode the focusing and exposure settings are not optimal until the mirror drops.

This is what I was explaining earlier on. It's less lag than any P&S I've ever tried. But still, I prefer a real viewfinder.

[chau]

I've fooled around with the 1000D's live view and i got put off by its slow autofocus.
Also holding the camera in front of you means you need to take a step back when trying to fit people in for a shot :/


I've got some heavy lenses and holding my smallish camera away from my body with one makes be question the viability of it - now I can only imagine the added weight of a flash and my grip.

EDIT - can you see yourself holding this away from your body?

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/picture.php?albumid=19&pictureid=1435

is anyone's arms long enough to hold the camera and lens away from your face :confused: :D

[PostmanPot]

Just an update from my side.

Considering a second-hand Nikon D60. Been reading and watching reviews and it looks great (as all the similar contenders do).

Any objections? :p

[bwana]

Just an update from my side.

Considering a second-hand Nikon D60. Been reading and watching reviews and it looks great (as all the similar contenders do).

Any objections? :pMore of a question but what happened to the live view you deemed so important?

[PostmanPot]

More of a question but what happened to the live view you deemed so important?

Too pricey for me at the moment :( and I think I must rather get used to using the viewfinder. I've decided to rather look for a decent second-hand entry level at a good price. Found a D60 and Sigma 18-200 mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM at a good price.

Also considering a 400D + kit lens + Canon 70 - 300mm, waiting for seller to respond.

[koffiejunkie]

Found a D60 and Sigma 18-200 mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM at a good price.

That's not a bad lens either - I've spent some time shooting with it.