Reading mode: Light Dark

Warning to EM-1 users :sunshine into EVF can create indeletable blotches, as confirmed by Olympus.

Go to last post
tt321 said:
Anders W said:
tt321 said:
Anders W said:
tt321 said:
Anders W said:
Its RKM said:
Anders W said:
luisflorit said:
Sorry for being late: is there any of the proportion of users in the forum experiencing this problem, and which diopter adjustment the affected users use?
Click to expand...
As to the diopter adjustment, the problem should be worst if it is set to zero, i.e., such that a person with perfect vision of perfect glasses can view the EVF with maximum convenience (as though it were at infinity).
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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?
tt321 said:
So, if I have my signs the right way round, -1 would be the most risky setting. If not, then its +1. ;-)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
As already indicated, I think it is 0, or close to zero.
tt321 said:
Is the VF shaped such that a cover could be quickly fashioned for it?
Click to expand...
I think a better idea than a cover would be the one I suggest here:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53852892
Click to expand...
I was thinking along the lines of self-build rather than involving Olympus.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Should be heavy-duty stuff of course. Speaking of laides' clothing, why not try the type they make burkas from. ;-)
 
Last edited:
Anders W said:
Its RKM said:
Anders W said:
Its RKM said:
Anders W said:
luisflorit said:
Sorry for being late: is there any of the proportion of users in the forum experiencing this problem, and which diopter adjustment the affected users use?
Click to expand...
As to the diopter adjustment, the problem should be worst if it is set to zero, i.e., such that a person with perfect vision of perfect glasses can view the EVF with maximum convenience (as though it were at infinity).
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
I just managed to grab my wife's EM-1 out of her hands for a couple of minutes and did a similar test on that at the dioptre setting she is using. Again, best focus was at 1.5m. Since she had ELRT some time ago, her eyesight is perfect, so I'm pretty certain that would be the nominal setting.

Of course, having just done the test, its all a bit moot anyway since the EM-1 doesn't have a marked "0" or other indicator, so you have no idea what it is actually set at.
Anders W said:
Anders W said:
Anders W said:
And why would they be set to anything but infinity? That's where the eye is most relaxed, right?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
How do you know that's what you are doing? Since infinity is as far as your relaxed eye can go, you'd have to set the adjustment as far as it can go towards infinity while you can still keep the image in focus.

Personally, I adjust it to be in the middle of the range that I can comfortably focus on, as I suspect most folks do, but that certainly isn't going to be at infinity. As I say though, its all a bit moot since the EM-1 doesn't have any indicators so who knows what zero is, or what dioptre setting they have dialled in?

Strangely enough, on the half dozen OM-3/4 bodies I have, half have markers and half don't, and it doesn't seem to be related to age. Never noticed that before! ;-)
 
Its RKM said:
Anders W said:
Its RKM said:
Anders W said:
Its RKM said:
Anders W said:
luisflorit said:
Sorry for being late: is there any of the proportion of users in the forum experiencing this problem, and which diopter adjustment the affected users use?
Click to expand...
As to the diopter adjustment, the problem should be worst if it is set to zero, i.e., such that a person with perfect vision of perfect glasses can view the EVF with maximum convenience (as though it were at infinity).
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
I just managed to grab my wife's EM-1 out of her hands for a couple of minutes and did a similar test on that at the dioptre setting she is using. Again, best focus was at 1.5m. Since she had ELRT some time ago, her eyesight is perfect, so I'm pretty certain that would be the nominal setting.

Of course, having just done the test, its all a bit moot anyway since the EM-1 doesn't have a marked "0" or other indicator, so you have no idea what it is actually set at.
Its RKM said:
Its RKM said:
Its RKM said:
And why would they be set to anything but infinity? That's where the eye is most relaxed, right?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
How do you know that's what you are doing? Since infinity is as far as your relaxed eye can go, you'd have to set the adjustment as far as it can go towards infinity while you can still keep the image in focus.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I do. I like to keep my eyes maximally relaxed. :-)

But perhaps I must deviate from that practice now in order to protect my EVF. ;-)
Its RKM said:
Personally, I adjust it to be in the middle of the range that I can comfortably focus on, as I suspect most folks do, but that certainly isn't going to be at infinity. As I say though, its all a bit moot since the EM-1 doesn't have any indicators so who knows what zero is, or what dioptre setting they have dialled in?
Click to expand...
Right. And I don't think we can be sure that the midpoint of the scale corresponds to zero. For example, my Pentax K100D eyepiece had a range from -2.5 to +1.5 (which probably satisfies more users than would -2 to +2).
Its RKM said:
Strangely enough, on the half dozen OM-3/4 bodies I have, half have markers and half don't, and it doesn't seem to be related to age. Never noticed that before! ;-)

--
Its RKM
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Anders W said:
Its RKM said:
Anders W said:
Its RKM said:
Anders W said:
Its RKM said:
Anders W said:
luisflorit said:
Sorry for being late: is there any of the proportion of users in the forum experiencing this problem, and which diopter adjustment the affected users use?
Click to expand...
As to the diopter adjustment, the problem should be worst if it is set to zero, i.e., such that a person with perfect vision of perfect glasses can view the EVF with maximum convenience (as though it were at infinity).
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
I just managed to grab my wife's EM-1 out of her hands for a couple of minutes and did a similar test on that at the dioptre setting she is using. Again, best focus was at 1.5m. Since she had ELRT some time ago, her eyesight is perfect, so I'm pretty certain that would be the nominal setting.

Of course, having just done the test, its all a bit moot anyway since the EM-1 doesn't have a marked "0" or other indicator, so you have no idea what it is actually set at.
Anders W said:
Anders W said:
Anders W said:
And why would they be set to anything but infinity? That's where the eye is most relaxed, right?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
How do you know that's what you are doing? Since infinity is as far as your relaxed eye can go, you'd have to set the adjustment as far as it can go towards infinity while you can still keep the image in focus.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I do. I like to keep my eyes maximally relaxed. :-)
Click to expand...
So sometimes you pick up the camera and the eyepiece isn't in focus. That's what would happen if you adjust for one extreme of the range you can accommodate, the eyepiece isn't athermal. There seems no point in adjusting the viewfinder for that condition.
 
Anders W said:
tt321 said:
Anders W said:
tt321 said:
Anders W said:
tt321 said:
Anders W said:
Its RKM said:
Anders W said:
luisflorit said:
Sorry for being late: is there any of the proportion of users in the forum experiencing this problem, and which diopter adjustment the affected users use?
Click to expand...
As to the diopter adjustment, the problem should be worst if it is set to zero, i.e., such that a person with perfect vision of perfect glasses can view the EVF with maximum convenience (as though it were at infinity).
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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?
Anders W said:
So, if I have my signs the right way round, -1 would be the most risky setting. If not, then its +1. ;-)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
As already indicated, I think it is 0, or close to zero.
Anders W said:
Is the VF shaped such that a cover could be quickly fashioned for it?
Click to expand...
I think a better idea than a cover would be the one I suggest here:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53852892
Click to expand...
I was thinking along the lines of self-build rather than involving Olympus.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Should be heavy-duty stuff of course. Speaking of laides' clothing, why not try the type they make burkas from. ;-)
Click to expand...
I'd agree about a quick fix made from some heavy-duty cloth, (although I don't like the comparison to a burka, as it may sound offending .... ;-)) ) ; however that means that the EVF will automatically be switched on all the time, as the eye-sensor is very sensitive, and reacts even if only the lens part is covered ( I tested this) . That would meant that if you want to use the rear LCD screen, you'll have to somehow fix the cloth in the "uncovering" position by means of some welcro or a loop of thread or similar for the duration of the LCD usage. An alternative would be to set the automatic switching to OFF, and use the EVF button instead. This last option however will mean that you will not have the LCD Monitor function with its very useful touch-screen operation.

All in all, I regard the idea of a hot-mirror glass as the most promising one, and it could be relatively cheap to fix such a piece of glass externally to the eyepiece of the EVF ... provided of course that it would not interfere too much with the colors seen through the EVF, nor trigger the EVF / LCD switch.
 
Last edited:
Its RKM said:
Anders W said:
Its RKM said:
Anders W said:
Its RKM said:
Anders W said:
Its RKM said:
Anders W said:
luisflorit said:
Sorry for being late: is there any of the proportion of users in the forum experiencing this problem, and which diopter adjustment the affected users use?
Click to expand...
As to the diopter adjustment, the problem should be worst if it is set to zero, i.e., such that a person with perfect vision of perfect glasses can view the EVF with maximum convenience (as though it were at infinity).
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
I just managed to grab my wife's EM-1 out of her hands for a couple of minutes and did a similar test on that at the dioptre setting she is using. Again, best focus was at 1.5m. Since she had ELRT some time ago, her eyesight is perfect, so I'm pretty certain that would be the nominal setting.

Of course, having just done the test, its all a bit moot anyway since the EM-1 doesn't have a marked "0" or other indicator, so you have no idea what it is actually set at.
Its RKM said:
Its RKM said:
Its RKM said:
And why would they be set to anything but infinity? That's where the eye is most relaxed, right?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
How do you know that's what you are doing? Since infinity is as far as your relaxed eye can go, you'd have to set the adjustment as far as it can go towards infinity while you can still keep the image in focus.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I do. I like to keep my eyes maximally relaxed. :-)
Click to expand...
So sometimes you pick up the camera and the eyepiece isn't in focus.
Click to expand...
No. That never happens. Accomodation is instant.
Its RKM said:
That's what would happen if you adjust for one extreme of the range you can accommodate, the eyepiece isn't athermal. There seems no point in adjusting the viewfinder for that condition.
Click to expand...
I have never noticed any temperature variations in this regard. If they exist, they are too small to matter.
 
babalu said:
Anders W said:
tt321 said:
Anders W said:
tt321 said:
Anders W said:
tt321 said:
Anders W said:
Its RKM said:
Anders W said:
luisflorit said:
Sorry for being late: is there any of the proportion of users in the forum experiencing this problem, and which diopter adjustment the affected users use?
Click to expand...
As to the diopter adjustment, the problem should be worst if it is set to zero, i.e., such that a person with perfect vision of perfect glasses can view the EVF with maximum convenience (as though it were at infinity).
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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?
babalu said:
So, if I have my signs the right way round, -1 would be the most risky setting. If not, then its +1. ;-)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
As already indicated, I think it is 0, or close to zero.
babalu said:
Is the VF shaped such that a cover could be quickly fashioned for it?
Click to expand...
I think a better idea than a cover would be the one I suggest here:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53852892
Click to expand...
I was thinking along the lines of self-build rather than involving Olympus.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Should be heavy-duty stuff of course. Speaking of laides' clothing, why not try the type they make burkas from. ;-)
Click to expand...
I'd agree about a quick fix made from some heavy-duty cloth, (although I don't like the comparison to a burka, as it may sound offending .... ;-)) ) ; however that means that the EVF will automatically be switched on all the time, as the eye-sensor is very sensitive, and reacts even if only the lens part is covered ( I tested this) . That would meant that if you want to use the rear LCD screen, you'll have to somehow fix the cloth in the "uncovering" position by means of some welcro or a loop of thread or similar for the duration of the LCD usage. An alternative would be to set the automatic switching to OFF, and use the EVF button instead. This last option however will mean that you will not have the LCD Monitor function with its very useful touch-screen operation.
Click to expand...
Yeah. You'd probably have to disable the eye sensor.
babalu said:
All in all, I regard the idea of a hot-mirror glass as the most promising one, and it could be relatively cheap to fix such a piece of glass externally to the eyepiece of the EVF ... provided of course that it would not interfere too much with the colors seen through the EVF, nor trigger the EVF / LCD switch.
Click to expand...
It might well be doable yes. But let's hope Oly beats us to the task of providing it.
 
Last edited:
Maybe we can have more protection with EP-13 eyecup for EM -1 ? we can use all the 4/3 eyecups but you lose the sensor.

--
My 4/3 System : Olympus E-1,E-5, Leica DigiLux 3, EC-2.0X, EC-1.4X, DZ 14-35mm/2, DZ 50-200mm/2.8-3.5 SWD, DZ 25mm/2.8, DZ 50mm/2.0 macro, Samyang 85mm/1.4, DZ SWD 150mm/2.0, Lensbaby 3G, Flash FL50R, MacroFlash STF-22.
My OM system: Olympus OM-2N, OM-4 .
My m4/3 system: Olympus E-M1,E-M10, Panasonic G3, Lumix 7-14mm/4.0, Lumix 12-32mm/3.5-5.6, Lumix 35-100mm/2.8, PLeica 25mm/1.4, mzD 12-40mm/2.8, mZD 60mm/2.8 macro, Sanyang 7.5mm/3.5, Flash FL-20, FL-600R.
 
Last edited:
kbouk said:
Maybe we can have more protection with EP-13 eyecup for EM -1 ?
Click to expand...
I don't see how that would help here, regrettably. The problem is with sun directly from behind. No eyecup can shield against that.
kbouk said:
we can use all the 4/3 eyecups but you lose the sensor.

--
My 4/3 System : Olympus E-1,E-5, Leica DigiLux 3, EC-2.0X, EC-1.4X, DZ 14-35mm/2, DZ 50-200mm/2.8-3.5 SWD, DZ 25mm/2.8, DZ 50mm/2.0 macro, Samyang 85mm/1.4, DZ SWD 150mm/2.0, Lensbaby 3G, Flash FL50R, MacroFlash STF-22.
My OM system: Olympus OM-2N, OM-4 .
My m4/3 system: Olympus E-M1,E-M10, Panasonic G3, Lumix 7-14mm/4.0, Lumix 12-32mm/3.5-5.6, Lumix 35-100mm/2.8, PLeica 25mm/1.4, mzD 12-40mm/2.8, mZD 60mm/2.8 macro, Sanyang 7.5mm/3.5, Flash FL-20, FL-600R.
Click to expand...
 
Michael Meissner said:
* 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.
Click to expand...
When I tried my VF-2 with sunglasses, I found that it got the same kind of "blobs" that my GH2 and E-M1 got. I'm pretty sure all these EVFs incorporate plastic optics, and that the plastics exhibit some variation in how they're molded under polarization.
 
Klarno said:
Michael Meissner said:
* 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.
Click to expand...
When I tried my VF-2 with sunglasses, I found that it got the same kind of "blobs" that my GH2 and E-M1 got. I'm pretty sure all these EVFs incorporate plastic optics, and that the plastics exhibit some variation in how they're molded under polarization.
Click to expand...
Maybe its sample variation, but my VF-2 is completely opaque with polarized glasses. The E-M5 and Stylus1 have some blobs, but it is enough to allow me to frame the shot with polarized glasses on.

While the LCD is fine in landscape orientation mode, but it gets darker in portrait orientation (no blobs however).
 
MayaTlab0 said:
MayaTlab0 said:
And given that there are hardly any report of such damage for most EVFs apart from a Canon camcorder several years ago (XL1 I believe) and so far an E-M5 and several E-M1 (exact same problem),
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
When I Google "'sun damage' EVF", I get lots of apparently relevant hits, suggesting that this phenomenon is far from being unknown on other cameras.
 
Anders W said:
Its RKM said:
Anders W said:
Its RKM said:
Anders W said:
Its RKM said:
Anders W said:
Its RKM said:
Anders W said:
luisflorit said:
Sorry for being late: is there any of the proportion of users in the forum experiencing this problem, and which diopter adjustment the affected users use?
Click to expand...
As to the diopter adjustment, the problem should be worst if it is set to zero, i.e., such that a person with perfect vision of perfect glasses can view the EVF with maximum convenience (as though it were at infinity).
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
I just managed to grab my wife's EM-1 out of her hands for a couple of minutes and did a similar test on that at the dioptre setting she is using. Again, best focus was at 1.5m. Since she had ELRT some time ago, her eyesight is perfect, so I'm pretty certain that would be the nominal setting.

Of course, having just done the test, its all a bit moot anyway since the EM-1 doesn't have a marked "0" or other indicator, so you have no idea what it is actually set at.
Anders W said:
Anders W said:
Anders W said:
And why would they be set to anything but infinity? That's where the eye is most relaxed, right?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
How do you know that's what you are doing? Since infinity is as far as your relaxed eye can go, you'd have to set the adjustment as far as it can go towards infinity while you can still keep the image in focus.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I do. I like to keep my eyes maximally relaxed. :-)
Click to expand...
So sometimes you pick up the camera and the eyepiece isn't in focus.
Click to expand...
No. That never happens. Accomodation is instant.
Click to expand...
Anders W said:
I have never noticed any temperature variations in this regard. If they exist, they are too small to matter.
Click to expand...
Then you're not doing what you think/claim you are doing when you set it up, which is what I previously suggested.
 
Good advice all - thanks I'll be careful. At first I thought it was meant "shining into the lens" which may not be too good for sensors, either.
.
Seeing Sam, Pan and Son probably male ALL the EVF chips, I's see the rest also have this problems when they use a chip od this sensitivity.
.
Not nearly as instantly disastrous as laser shows at music venues, though. Laser shows can render your camera nigh useless!
.
If you're a 'tog there, meet with the light show programmer, they usually have a few "dark" safe spots programmed in and will often share the info ...
 
Last edited:
I'm still in the process of trying out the VF-4 on the E-P5. the first thing I noticed when placing the evf to my eye was that as my eye got closer to the eyepiece I could see some sort of a haze semi-obscuring the view inside the EVF. Then when I actually put the eyepiece to my eye so that I could see the LCD the haze seemed to disappear! I've tried this several times and it's the same each time? When closing in on the eyepiece the image looks hazy but when I get up to the viewing position it has cleared up.

The first time I tried this I thought there must be some plastic film protecting the eyepiece lens but after looking carefully I can only see glass at the eyepiece.

Can anyone here who's familiar with the VF-4 chime in with their experiences? Does your EVF look a little hazy getting close only to clear up once your eye is in the correct position? Do you think Olympus may have put something behind the VF-4 eyepiece for protection that's causing this phenomena? Am I crazy?

Maybe the haze is light reflecting off the glass eyepiece and when I'm in the correct position I'm blocking the reflection?

--
Bobby
 
Last edited:
Zensu11 said:
I'm still in the process of trying out the VF-4 on the E-P5. the first ...
Click to expand...
What all that has to do with the topic? Wouln't be better to start a new thread ?
 
joergzielosko said:
rscott said:
Yes that is optics, but if I leave my camera on a tripod with the sun in the frame I don't end up with a burn on the sensor chip.....
Click to expand...
You surely tested that with your camera?

You know that the sun's energy reaches the atmosphere with 1.367 kW/m² (solar constant)?

In central Europe (no we are not the sunniest place in the world!) about 700 W/m² get to the earth's surface, that is 70 mW/cm² (the eyepiece may be about 1 cm² large). 70 mW doesn't sound as high energy, but I can imagine that when focused to a very small surface (read: point), it may destroy some pixels of the 0.48 inch / 1.2 cm LCD panel within a few seconds.

Note that the front element of most lenses is considerably larger than 1 cm² (think of lenses with 72 mm filter size). You can easily calculate the energy hitting your camera's sensor, and imagine what happens when the sun is focused to a very small surface...
Click to expand...
So I must not include the sun in any of my photos, especially time lapse where the sun traces a line across the chip?

If that were the case every camera including the millions of ccd security cameras out there would have burnt sensors.

Sorry if I sound blunt but I'm not happy this has happened and will provide followup once Olympus have repaired the camera.
 
To keep light out of the film plane. But now, you've got sensors, plastic optics and cemented optics, all susceptible to damage by concentrated sunlight.
 
rscott said:
joergzielosko said:
rscott said:
Yes that is optics, but if I leave my camera on a tripod with the sun in the frame I don't end up with a burn on the sensor chip.....
Click to expand...
You surely tested that with your camera?

You know that the sun's energy reaches the atmosphere with 1.367 kW/m² (solar constant)?

In central Europe (no we are not the sunniest place in the world!) about 700 W/m² get to the earth's surface, that is 70 mW/cm² (the eyepiece may be about 1 cm² large). 70 mW doesn't sound as high energy, but I can imagine that when focused to a very small surface (read: point), it may destroy some pixels of the 0.48 inch / 1.2 cm LCD panel within a few seconds.

Note that the front element of most lenses is considerably larger than 1 cm² (think of lenses with 72 mm filter size). You can easily calculate the energy hitting your camera's sensor, and imagine what happens when the sun is focused to a very small surface...
Click to expand...
So I must not include the sun in any of my photos, especially time lapse where the sun traces a line across the chip?

If that were the case every camera including the millions of ccd security cameras out there would have burnt sensors.

Sorry if I sound blunt but I'm not happy this has happened and will provide followup once Olympus have repaired the camera.
Click to expand...
No. The topic is about the Sun shining through the EVF viewport onto the LCD, NOT about your camera lens being aimed at the Sun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

NowHearThis
  • User review User review
Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark III – This Photographer’s Full Review (1/7)
2
Replies
27
Views
38K
mattbodin
M
lokatz
G9II vs OM-1 compared for bird shooting - Final thoughts
2
Replies
23
Views
36K
MtnBikerCalif
M
evoprox
E-M1 Mark 1 - Spots on EVF LCD (sun damage)
Replies
2
Views
3K
evoprox
evoprox
F
  • Question Question
Lenses for Olympus OM-D E-M1
2
Replies
27
Views
14K
Crazy Micro Four Thirds Dude
C
C
Why the OM-5 and not the PEN-F mark ii?
2 3
Replies
44
Views
15K
Crazy Micro Four Thirds Dude
C

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top