1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

First impressions of my new DK-17m eyepiece...

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Scott Sherman, Jun 21, 2005.

  1. Okay, I know many of you are keenly interested in this new gadget. My friend from UPS just handed me a new one purchased from Roberts about 7 days ago, (delayed due to slow ground shipping). So, here are some first impressions after having it for less than an hour.

    I only tried it on the D2x. First, the great debate over DK-2 vs DK-19. I have seen so many erroneous web postings on the difference, I have to laugh. I have done a critical comparison between the two rubber pieces. I have both. They are the same size, exactly in every way except one...

    The diameter of the hole in the DK-2 is greater than that of the DK-19. In other words the hole that fits over the rim of the DK-17x eyepiece is larger on the DK-2 than the DK-19. (Think, OJ Simpson and gloves...) The DK-2 fits but is looser. The DK-19 is snug but I can still imagine that it will not be entirely secure because the DK-17m protrudes a small amount away from the body of the camera so the metal rim instead of being seated against the camera body is simply hanging on the edge of the DK-19/17m. I saw a post somewhere, (possibly on the D1scussion Forum ) in which someone used 3 rubber washers to close the gap making it possible to seat the metal ring against something to secure it from falling off. If someone can find that post for me, I would appreciate it, I did not save it. The pamphlet that comes with the DK-17m recommends use of the DK-19 if you want to add a rubber eye cup.

    I wear glasses for distant vision. My sight is corrected to 20/20 with glasses. I prefer not to wear glasses when looking through the viewfinder only because it is (in my opinion) better to seal out extranneous light from the side which can not be done effectively when wearing glasses. The DK-17m has the same correction ability as the original eyepiece that comes with the camera. I have purchased a -3 diopter piece to give me a corrected image without glasses. The down side of the DK-17 is that it can not accept a corrective diopter. (I believe it could have been designed into this device easily by Nikon by just threading the eyepiece on the out side, but it was not. I believe it will be in the next generation of the DK-17m if we speak out to Nikon) but it was not done in this version, so if you wear glasses and do not like the diopter lense that came with the camera, don't get the DK-17m or be prepared to wear glasses to look through the eyepiece. If you are comfortable wearing glasses with the original diopter lens or your vision is correct with the original diopter, then you will find this device to be helpfull.

    Now for my observations on the DK-17m. First another correction. I have seen in several posts that this is a 1.5x magnification lens. It is a 1.2x magnification. It says so right in the pamphlet that comes with the DK-17m.

    I used several lenses including the 85 f1.4, a 60mm micro, and a 70-200mm. I put the camera on a tripod and exchanged the DK-17 with the original eyepiece and the -3 diopter eyepiece. Over and over and over and over and over again. Kind of like when you go to the eye doctor, "this one or this one?" "This one or this one?"

    With the DK-17m, the scene that you see through the viewfinder is the exact same scene that you see through the viewfinder with the original but magnified 1.2x. The edges fall in the same location on the scene with both diopters, it just looks bigger with the DK-17m. It seems to give you a 100% view of the scene, the same as it did with the original, it just looks bigger (or closer). One difference is that the information on the bottom and side of the viewfinder are pushed out farther to the side and bottom. This is a tiny bit distracting but not a deal breaker. I believe it will take a little bit of getting used to. It does not eliminate any information but it is farther from the scene that is seen in the viewfinder. In other words there is more black space between the scene and information in letters/numbers along the side and bottom when you look through the viewfinder.

    It is not brighter or dimmer, it looks to me to be the same brightness. I only looked at it in a brightly lit scene. The difference is most spectacular in extreme closeup and long distance. While there was a benefit with middle width lenses, the long and close lenses seemed to benefit the most.

    The protrusion is not that significant. It brings it out approximately the same width as the ring that goes on the DK-2/19 so I don't think this is a down side. It could catch on clothing or a bag if you are not careful especially with a heavy lens attached, but no more than if you have a rubber eyecup on it without the DK-17m

    My general impression is that I like it and will continue to use it. I recommend it with the exception of eyeglass wearers with extreme corrections that do not like to wear their eyeglasses when looking through the viewfinder. I think the O ring fix is probably going to be requried to retain the DK-19. As some of you know, I lost one on a trip (along with the diopter) and this was a bit of a problem. I will continue to carry a spare diopter in my bag as a result.

    I paid about $35 plus shipping from Roberts last week. They had 10 in and did run out right away but said they were going to get some more in. They are highly recommended to buy from. I never had a problem with them on several purchases.

    If you have any more questions, I will try to answer them for you. Hope this was helpful for you.
  2. Thank you this was very helpful, I can't wait to get a hold of one myself.

    I'm a bit disapointed at the 1.2 magnification (not having seen it that is :)  What I wanted was a a bigger viewfinder like the old F cameras. And I like that it is protruded a bit that means my nose wont get squished, but I hadnt thought of the fact that it can hook on to things...

    Let us knwow if you have more observations... and thanks again for the thurough report
  3. Glad to do it Andreas. I think it is interesting but truth be known, I seriously doubt that it will make anyone a better photographer. I would put it in the catagory of a gadget and not a necessity. I suppose that if you are manually focusing especially at close up (micro) range it will be much more helpfull.

    It is kind of like if you were to put on glasses that magnified everything you see by 1.2x. It sort of takes a bit of getting used to.
  4. MontyDog


    Jan 30, 2005
    #1064 - You have an error in your SQL syntax;
  5. Thanks Paul,
    You're becoming my go to guy. Whenever I have a quandry or question, I know you are there with a a common sense or practical answer. Thanks for taking the time to post the answer to my question with images no less. Your one of the good guys and we are lucky to have you here.

    Thanks again.
  6. GeeJay


    Jan 26, 2005
    Thanks, Scott, for all the information.. My DK-17 came today and it works fine on my D2X but know I"ll have to get used to it...Now thinking of the eyecup DK-19.. I'm having trouble visualizing how it fits on the DK-17 but because I wear glasses to view the camera I want to try it...so I"ll get the DK-19 and the O rings- #14 and #15...

    From the picture I can't tell where the O rings go.. Do they go next to the camera and then the DK-17 goes into the O rings so that the rings are between the camera and the DK-17??? Or do the rings go between the DK-17 and the DK- 19??

    I know very little about hardware so I have lots to learn about O rings.

    Thanks for your great thread,

  7. bpetterson

    bpetterson Guest

    From discussion;

    I remembered reading a post from someone on this list who gave different
    instructions for putting together whatever eyepiece glass you're using
    with an eyecup. He specified NOT to follow the instructions that come
    with the eyecup. I've followed his instructions and have been using my
    D2X heavily with the assembly; added a second assembly to D2H that I
    borrowed today to assist another photographer in an Event Shoot. Both
    cameras were hanging somewhere on me rubbing against my vest while I
    walked, sprinted, worked. Both held like the Rock of Gibraltar. Neither
    of them requires additional "O" rings.

    On one camera I am using a DK2 eyecup with the DK17M eyepiece. On the
    other I am using a DK19 eyecup with the DK17M eyepiece. The instructions
    for both are the same:

    1. Remove the default eyepiece from the camera after closing the
    eyepiece cover with the little lever on the viewer window.

    2. DO NOT discard the rubber ring from the DK17M. Put the whole DK17M
    assembly (or whichever eyepiece glass you're using) through the DK2 or
    DK19 eyecup. Work the eyepiece through as far as you can.

    3. Slip the metal retaining ring from the eyecup over the rear of the
    eyecup/eyepiece assembly as far as possible.

    4. Screw the threaded metal part of the eyepiece (projecting from the
    rear) into the threads of the viewfinder. Don't force it but make sure
    it's screwed in as far as possible (without stripping the threads).

    5. Throw the lever that opens the viewfinder window.

    It is virtually impossible for the eyecup to slip over the eyepiece
    glass with the rubber ring in place. It just won't stretch that far. It
    would take a break-away failure of the viewfinder or eyepiece metal to
    lose this assembly. Neither needs extra retaining rings.


  8. bpetterson

    bpetterson Guest

    I have three coming tomorrow Friday. So I'll verify the above.

  9. This thread really confused me. I went out and bought three #14 "O" rings and also a #15 "O" ring. I didn't find any of them useful. Originally when I used the DK-17m with the DK-2 eyecup, it worked well and stayed on good but because I left the rubber outer ring on the DK-17M the eyepiece protruded too far into the eyecup and thus reduced the effectiveness/comfort of the eyecup for me. Now I have the DK-19 eyecup and as stated above it does have a smaller diameter hole than the DK-2. It wa now necessary to remove the "rubber" ring that goes around the eyepiece to get it to properly fit through the DK-19 eyecup. Then I place the between the eyecup and the camera and screw in the eyepiece tight. I don't see any value to using the "O" rings, in fact they seem to make it much more difficult to screw in the eyepiece tight?? Anyway, the eyepiece without the rubber outer ring and with the DK-19 eyecup and metal ring seems to fit perfectly (per the instructions) and I don't see how the DK-19 eyecup can be pulled off over the eyepiece. The fit is very good and now the eyecup has sufficient depth to be more effective and comfortable. I didn't use the "O" rings at all.
  10. Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2017
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.