I'm sure I wouldn't be able see the viewfinder readouts with a 1.36x magnifier with my glasses on if I look through the centre of the viewfinder, but could whoever posted the reply above (now deleted??) please confirm whether it's possible to see it with glasses on if you move your eye to the left?
I never did get a reply, or find any really sensible postings anywhere answering this question. In a flash of inspiration on day, I decided that if I was to look through the existing viewfinder from a distance then that would simulate the restricted view of a magnifier. I found that from a distance of several inches, I could still see the readout if I put my eye to the left of the viewfinder. So surely any magnifier will allow the same thing.
I took a chance and ordered a 1.36x KPS magnifier. I chose this one over the Tenpa because its mounting plate is screwed on, so you can attach it more firmly. The interchangeable mounting plates are also a better way to attach it than the adapter thingy that came with the Pentax magnifier I lost. The adapter adds distance between the viewfinder and the magnifier, causing more vignetting (I think).
Anyway, with the 1.36x KPS magnifier, while wearing glasses, I get a little vignetting in the corners, and can see the readout reasonably well. They claim their magnifiers have a better field of view than others, so either they're correct or they're fibbing about the level of magnification.
They recommend the 1.2x for glasses wearers, but I'm more than happy with this level of vignetting. I bought it on eBay for about $US40, and it came from Hong Kong to Australia in a few days.
E-620 users might not like this one, as it overlaps the LCD slightly, and might cause problems opening it out. My only objection is that the rubber eyepiece is so big that it catches on things when folder back for my glasses. A simple flat one would be better for me.
Does it help with manual focusing? I've read comments elsewhere that the magnification is so minimal that it doesn't seem to make much difference. I agree that it
seems to make little difference, but find that the end results are better. I guess when it's magnified you get pickier about how much detail is in focus without realising. Maybe my shots will be 36% more accurately focused now. Not sure if that's how it works, but if it is then that's worth the money.
I'll just mention this page I came across while researching:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/viewfinders.shtml
That site isn't responding at the moment, so here's the text only version out of Google's cache:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...finders"&hl=en&client=firefox-a&gl=au&strip=1
According to that page, many old 35mm film SLRs had quite small magnification. I never realised that, and many discussions seem to pine for the old days of 100% magnification. Perhaps they're confusing it with coverage. According to that article, coverage was generally 100%, but magnification was only around 0.75x. Apparently you can't have both with a full frame, because of limitations in the optics, but the E series can, because the frame is only half the size. I think only the E-3 achieves it.
