Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,536   Posts: 1,544,190   Online: 863
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15
  1. #1
    hadeer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    172
    Images
    16

    Bronica ETRS diopter trouble

    Is there anyone who can help me with the following:
    I am nearsighted but wear contact lenses to correct this. So I have sharp vision from about 2 meters to infinity and use reading glasses for the rest.
    However, I prefer viewing the GG of my Bronica ETRSi using the flip-up magnifier without the reading glasses, because this enables me to see the whole area. But that leads to a problem:
    The standard -1.5 diopter magnifier (at least I think it is the standard magnifier, there is no inscription on it) does not permit me to see a sharp image. This simulates a viewing distance of 26.3" (66.8cm) according to an information page of Tamron (http://www.tamron.com/bronica/prod/etrsi_eye.asp) It has a focusing distance of about 7.5 cm. To correct the problem I sought and found on the internet a +3 diopter lens (focusing distance about 6cm) but this only made the problem worse. Apparently I drew the wrong conclusions from the Tamron site.
    Is it possible to calculate the right diopter for my situation?
    I appreciate any help that helps me avoid buying another useless corrective eyepiece.
    Have you seen the light..?

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Datchet, Berkshire UK- about 20 miles west of London
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    342
    I think that without knowing what your prescription is without your glasses you are going to struggle. I have no doubt that your optician could give you this information and help you translate Tamron's table. Ostensibly this last bit looks easy- looks like you need your prescription -1.5 dioptres.

    You then of course have an interesting issue- which is that given that there doesn't appear to be anything inscribed on the lens itself (and I've even unscrewed that on my SQ WLF) then how can you be sure that the existing lens is -1.5 and indeed how can you be sure - without assured original packaging- that any replacement you buy is what you think you're buying. Again you optician may have an easy way of testing this.

    These things do come up pretty cheaply on eBay. So trial & error whilst reselling what you can't use is another possibility. But think on this- on the lens you bought , how do you know its a +3 and how do you account for the fact that there isn't a +3 on the Tamron link you provide? If you were going down the trial & error route it sounds like you might be a very little long-sighted with your lenses but no glasses, and so if you could get a - 0.5 (again not listed) or a zero (again not listed) or even a + 0.5 then this might be the right area to start in. Best of luck

  3. #3
    hadeer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    172
    Images
    16
    Thanks for your suggestions. I forgot to mention that the replacement lens I bought has '+3' inscribed on it. I do have the prescription and that was the basis for buying the +3 lens, but I think I made a miscalculation because when wearing contact lenses the prescription might not have any meaning for an image on a ground glass at an apparent distance of 26.3".
    I agree that the trial and error route might be the easiest way to find the right correction lens. I think minus 2.5 would be my best bet as moving in the plus direction made things worse.
    Have you seen the light..?

  4. #4
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,595
    Images
    122
    You can work out what the Dioptre of your current lens is by using it to focus something such as a window onto a wall. Move it about until you get a sharp image and measure the distance in metres from the lens to the wall.

    One divided by this focal length will give you its strength in Dioptres.

    e.g. If you measure 0.6m (600mm), strength is 1/0.6 = 1.66D

    To work backwards, if you assume that you have a 1.5D lens, focal length is 1/1.5 = 0.666m or 666mm So if you get an image with the lens about 660mm from the wall then you do have a 1.5D lens as you suspect.

    Steve.
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Datchet, Berkshire UK- about 20 miles west of London
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    342
    "I think minus 2.5 would be my best bet as moving in the plus direction made things worse."

    Look, I'm no optician but I think that what happened is that moving in that direction -and to that degree- made things worse and that doesn't mean that you don't need a "plus" something - it means that +3 is further from what you need than -1.5. If the right answer was zero then you'd see worse with +3 than with -1.5.

    To opt for a -2.5 now would I think imply that your prescription is about -1 with lenses and no glasses. Which would mean a little short sighted. However you've told us that you can see well from 2 metres to infinity like this- which implies a little long sighted. Still if its trial and error its your trial and of course ----. Just trying to help.

  6. #6
    hadeer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    172
    Images
    16
    Steve, David,
    Thanks for your help. I tried to figure out the diopter of the original lens using the hint from Steve. The lens projects a sharp image at 6.5 cm. That would mean its diopter is 1/0.065=15.4D. The new lens has a sharp image at 6 cm which means its diopter would be 1/0.06=16.6D. On the lens it says +1.5D. Now I am confused.....
    Hans
    Have you seen the light..?

  7. #7
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,595
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by hadeer View Post
    Steve, David,
    Thanks for your help. I tried to figure out the diopter of the original lens using the hint from Steve. The lens projects a sharp image at 6.5 cm. That would mean its diopter is 1/0.065=15.4D. The new lens has a sharp image at 6 cm which means its diopter would be 1/0.06=16.6D. On the lens it says +1.5D. Now I am confused.....
    Hans

    Yes, that does seem confusing. Perhaps what is happening here is that the standard lens has a focal length equal to its height above the focussing screen i.e. 6.5cm which would be correct for viewing with your eye focussed for distance (infinity). It could be that the lens marked +1.5D is actually whatever strength the standard lens is plus an extra 1.5D which would reduce its focal length a bit as your results show.

    This would make sense if the +1.5D marking is seen as a correction rather than the overall strength of the lens.

    Steve.
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

  8. #8
    hadeer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    172
    Images
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Smith View Post
    This would make sense if the +1.5D marking is seen as a correction rather than the overall strength of the lens.
    I think this must be the explanation. It fits with the description on the Tamron site where they talk of corrective viewfinder eyepieces. I'll go with the -2.5 lens if I can find one.
    Hans
    Have you seen the light..?

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Willamette Valley, Oregon
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,684
    Quote Originally Posted by hadeer View Post
    ... I prefer viewing the GG of my Bronica ETRSi using
    the flip-up magnifier without the reading glasses,...
    I've the AEIII prism finder, the waist level, and the Rotary.
    The first is, for myself using a tripod, a pain in the neck.
    The waist level is good only for landscape mode. Some
    real relief came when I got the Rotary; bright, clear,
    and sharp. Makes the outfit very usable whenever
    tripod mounted and off-camera metering OK.
    A new bright screen was also a big +. Dan

  10. #10
    hadeer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    172
    Images
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by dancqu View Post
    Makes the outfit very usable whenever
    tripod mounted and off-camera metering OK.
    Does it have a variable diopterlens? I would like to give it a try if I can find one.
    Have you seen the light..?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin