luisflorit
Veteran Member
Finally an advantage of getting old and loosing my short range vision!! Mine is at +3, since I really hate to wear glasses ((this is another reason why I avoid using the LCD)).
L.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Warning to EM-1 users :sunshine into EVF can create indeletable blotches, as confirmed by Olympus.
- Thread starter babalu
- Start date
-
- Tags
- olympus om-d e-m1
L.
Anders W
Forum Pro
At close to -10 diopters without glasses, I don't have that option regrettably. ;-)
TrapperJohn
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 16,488
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 12,288
I assume the same scenario could happen to an EM5, for the same reason: sunlight, focused into a smaller circle by the diopter, could damage the EVF screen. Theoretically possible. But, in over 2 years of EM5 usage, most of that outdoors and in nature, and six months of EM1 usage, most of that outdoors and in nature, I haven't seen this happen.
Presumably, you'd have to leave it with direct sunlight in just the right position (diopter lens perpendicular to the sun) for quite some time. On many occasions, I've waved the EM1 and EM5 around in direct sunlight while using them - VF's look fine. Can't imagine how one could set a camera down, and have the diopter perpendicular to the sun when sunlight is at its brightest - the camera would be sitting on the lens. I don't tend to leave any of my camera gear, M43 or otherwise, sitting in direct sunlight anway, as that will heat up both body and lens, not good for them.
It's good to know that this might happen, if one were foolish enough to leave the rear of the camera pointed directly at the sun for a long period of time. But, I don't regard this to be a flaw, just a caveat that goes with any number of common sense caveats that apply to any high end photo gear, such as not letting sunlight hit the diopter or lens directly on a film or digital SLR for an extended period of time, or not leaving the camera sitting unattended where it might get stolen.
A similar situation was reported with Canon DSLR's, where direct sunlight into the lens could melt part of the mirror frame. It turns out that one had to point the camera directly at the sun with a telephoto lens mounted, for an extended period of time, to get it to happen. Actual incidents of this were quite rare, and never happened with experienced camera owners.
I hope Oly doesn't spend a lot of money to address this situation. I'd rather them spend R&D money on better lenses, than making the EM1 idiot proof.
Presumably, you'd have to leave it with direct sunlight in just the right position (diopter lens perpendicular to the sun) for quite some time. On many occasions, I've waved the EM1 and EM5 around in direct sunlight while using them - VF's look fine. Can't imagine how one could set a camera down, and have the diopter perpendicular to the sun when sunlight is at its brightest - the camera would be sitting on the lens. I don't tend to leave any of my camera gear, M43 or otherwise, sitting in direct sunlight anway, as that will heat up both body and lens, not good for them.
It's good to know that this might happen, if one were foolish enough to leave the rear of the camera pointed directly at the sun for a long period of time. But, I don't regard this to be a flaw, just a caveat that goes with any number of common sense caveats that apply to any high end photo gear, such as not letting sunlight hit the diopter or lens directly on a film or digital SLR for an extended period of time, or not leaving the camera sitting unattended where it might get stolen.
A similar situation was reported with Canon DSLR's, where direct sunlight into the lens could melt part of the mirror frame. It turns out that one had to point the camera directly at the sun with a telephoto lens mounted, for an extended period of time, to get it to happen. Actual incidents of this were quite rare, and never happened with experienced camera owners.
I hope Oly doesn't spend a lot of money to address this situation. I'd rather them spend R&D money on better lenses, than making the EM1 idiot proof.
aventine
Active member
Yes there was a problem with a Canon having an issue and Canon took responsibility for it. This was the only thing i found when searching for info about what had happened to my EM1. There didn't seem to be anyone having this issue at the time, so I was bewildered about what had happened. I have had this issue happen twice now, the first time i had my camera on a tripod and it was bright sunshine, not sure how long the EVF was exposed to the light, the second time could have only been seconds in a dark rainforest setting of some local gardens with some filtered light around and me being very aware of light entering the EVF. I asked Olympus how this could be prevented and never got an answer, although after getting the camera back from the first repair they claimed it was not a manufacturing fault.
My fix to this has been to use the lid from a 500ml iced coffee container which will fit over the eyepiece and i haven't had an issue since. A pain when taking bird photos and you need to get a couple of quick shots away for a bird you know will stay still for a few seconds only. I am getting used to using the cover, but can be overlooked when looking into the trees for things to photograph which adds to the paranoia of it all.
My fix to this has been to use the lid from a 500ml iced coffee container which will fit over the eyepiece and i haven't had an issue since. A pain when taking bird photos and you need to get a couple of quick shots away for a bird you know will stay still for a few seconds only. I am getting used to using the cover, but can be overlooked when looking into the trees for things to photograph which adds to the paranoia of it all.
Well, I'm sorry to tell you that this happened more than several times, and at least in one case even twice, after have been repaired. Most users didn't by any means leave their cameras to fry in the perpendicular sun standing on their lenses - they just used them normally slung on their necks, as you'd always use a camera , and ZAP it happened. And contrary to what you say, I'd really like to see Oly looking into this as seriously as possible, before it develops to another "Nikon Oil Issue".
This is by all means a technical flaw, and needs to be addressed ASAP!!!!
This is by all means a technical flaw, and needs to be addressed ASAP!!!!
Lately I've been really looking at the M10 and thinking it's just exactly what I need...especially for the price. That's a lot of really great camera for not that much money. And then this situation rears it's ugly head and I'm wondering if it's also affected, even though it seems to have a different display in the EVF. Anyone have advice on this?
iSolo
Member
прогулки по городу я потерял Olympus видоискателя VF-2
начал искать место, несмотря на потерю фотографий
40 минут спустя нашел - лежа на солнце
после того, как появились зеленовато-желтые пятна внутри видоискателя
Read postings. Time to sun was perhaps 20 seconds, needed to replace a lense
Non-relevant comments and general contempt.
And this is directly insulting. What a pitiful posting.
I think you'll find that most non-adjustable SLRs had their viewfinders set to position the screen at around 1m viewing distance, not infinity, and that's what the "0" on most adjustable viewfinders corresponds to. So, if I have my signs the right way round, -1 would be the most risky setting. If not, then its +1. ;-)
mhmacdougall
Member
Well said, Elix! Those of us who have had this problem are weary of sanctimonious blah from those who haven't, and credit their lack of misfortune to superior camera handling skills. Perhaps our only consolation is that any day, the same thing can happen to them.
That's good to know, but it doesn't mean it won't happen. There could be variability in the build standard that makes some units more susceptible than others. There certainly will be variability in the dioptre setting that makes some units more susceptible than others. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Out of interest, though, what is your eye correction prescription, if any. Close and distant.
Don't presume, check the facts. Throughout this thread plenty of people have posted images of the damage they have experienced. Even to a casual observer it is obvious that those wavy patterns didn't happen with the camera left in a static position with the sun tracking across the sky. These patterns were caused while the camera was moving, so the time to cause damage was fairly short, in the order of seconds.
WOAH THERE!
This is a major screw up by Olympus, otherwise the future of the EVF is doomed. Fortunately other EVF cameras don't suffer, so the former is unquestionably the case here.
--
Its RKM
Last edited by a moderator:
Anders W
Forum Pro
I have never seen any test of what they are actually set to (if not adjustable) or set to at 0 (if adjustable). Have you? If so, I'd be grateful for a reference/link.
And why would they be set to anything but infinity? That's where the eye is most relaxed, right?
As pressures build, maybe Oly could suggest a diopter to avoid as a very temporary measure?
Would probably not be a good idea if it turns out to be 0 though.
Is the VF shaped such that a cover could be quickly fashioned for it?
I know I have seen this in various service manuals, but I no longer have access to any of those.
Here is one reference which suggests Nikon default is -1 dioptre: see note below the table of corrective lenses. https://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/639/~/viewfinder-diopter-adjustment
However what I did do, and you might be able do the same to check for yourself, is dug out my old OM-1 & OM-2 cameras, which don't have any eyepiece adjustment. I then used my OM-3Ti with 50mm lens to shoot into the eyepiece of the two older cameras. Best focus of the screen information was when the lens was focussed at 1.5m for the eyepiece of both cameras. At infinity the focus through the eyepiece was clearly off. This confirms what I believed, but you can probably do a similar check to confirm it for yourself.
It may be where the eye is most relaxed, but it is also at one extreme of the accommodation range. It makes more sense to put the image in the middle of that range.
--
Its RKM
Last edited:
Michael Meissner
Forum Pro
I believe the Stylus1, E-M5, E-M10, and VF-2 may share the same basic LCD from Epson, though there are probably differences in the final build that might affect this (*). Similarly, I would imagine the VF-4 and E-M1 share the same basic LCD.
While most users reporting the problem have been E-M1 users, I have corresponded to one user on another forum who had green blobs appear on his E-M5 and now had it on his E-M1. So it may be possible for it to occur, but perhaps it is a rarer occurrence. The E-M10 is new enough that we probably don't have a large enough sample size to say if it is affected or not.
Note, I recently had a different thing happen to my E-M5 that may or may not be related. I was on a trip to Disney World (i.e. bright sun), and in the middle of the trip, my refurbished E-M5's EVF went so dim, it was impossible to use. Fortunately, I had purchased the extended warranty, and Olympus did fix it (by the time we got back from the trip, the original 90 day warranty had expired), replacing both the CPU board for the camera, and EVF board.
* There are some differences, in that the VF-2 is nearly opaque when you look at it in landscape orientation with polarized sunglasses, while the Stylus1/E-M5 have some blobs I can't see, but it is usable enough to be able to frame the shot.
I think I need to fashion something that has something like velcro (tm) that sits over the EVF when not in use but is easily removed when shooting for both the Stylus1 and E-M5.
Anders W
Forum Pro
As already indicated, I think it is 0, or close to zero.
I think a better idea than a cover would be the one I suggest here:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53852892
I was thinking along the lines of self-build rather than involving Olympus.
Anders W
Forum Pro
OK. That's a good enough test. I don't have any old film SLRs left to play with and haven't yet tried to check what the midpoint or zero-point of my various MFT bodies actually corresponds to.
Why would that make more sense? The point where the eye is most relaxed is certaily the one that makes most sense to me. That's also where I personally set it when it is adjustable.
But what may explain your observation of how old non-adjustable eyepieces are set is that the manufacturers were opting for what is best on average rather than best for a person with perfect vision or perfect glasses. If you opt for a focus distance of one meter or so, you won't strain the eyes of people with perfect vision too much while still offering a good VF for the moderately myopic.
Anders W
Forum Pro
Well, self-build was at least partly what I had in mind as well. But as to covers, I would think that a piece of black cloth taped to the top of the eyepiece would work pretty well.
Yes, but some black cloths could be very transparent i.e. the various types that go into some ladies' clothing, and surprisingly one recent curtain we almost bought, until we found out.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum