Re: Eyepoint

2001-02-13 Thread Alexander Krohe
Rob Studdert wrote: On 13 Feb 2001, at 14:05, Wieland Willker wrote: > Alexander Krohe wrote: > > Speaking about the MX, this distance is definitely too > > short. The viewing distance of the aperture indication > > is way too short. > > > What is too short? I don't understand this.

Re: Eyepoint

2001-02-13 Thread Rob Studdert
On 13 Feb 2001, at 14:05, Wieland Willker wrote: > Alexander Krohe wrote: > > Speaking about the MX, this distance is definitely too > > short. The viewing distance of the aperture indication > > is way too short. > > What is too short? I don't understand this. Should it be farther away? Why? I

Re: Eyepoint

2001-02-13 Thread Wieland Willker
Alexander Krohe wrote: > Speaking about the MX, this distance is definitely too > short. The viewing distance of the aperture indication > is way too short. What is too short? I don't understand this. Should it be farther away? Why? I can see and read it perfectly. > People on this list tend to

Re: Eyepoint

2001-02-13 Thread Alexander Krohe
Weiland wrote: --- "I am wearing glasses, and I have ABSOLUTELY NO problem with the MX viewfinder. I can see the aperture very easily. And everything else. Either you folks have a different MX, or never had an MX or you have very different glasses. :-) Best wishes Wieland ---