|
|
Post by bobs on Dec 20, 2020 16:40:42 GMT
Ok, first decision was whether to put this under 'General Discussion' or 'Your Aviation Photos', so here we are:
Does anyone of our illustrious and knowledgeable members have any experience of using a protector on their display screen?
Whether it's Plastic or Glass, I'm interested to know if anyone's tried any for protecting the screen. As it's on the back of the camera (assuming it's been rotated for easy post exposure viewing), it can be vulnerable to scratches etc., my old Ixus shows this problem, so I'd like to hear from other members' experiences.
If you have no knowledge or experience, please say - it can be like talking to an empty room otherwise (witness the 33 views of the Poll and one reply!)
|
|
|
|
Post by richardl on Dec 23, 2020 21:51:01 GMT
Bob
My early DSLRs (Nikon D70, D200, D300) all had as standard a plastic clipon screen guard. This protected against the scratches, and didn't degrade the screen view significantly. However these had the drawback that it was easy, when having the camera hanging around your neck, for the screen to catch on clothing etc and detach, usually unnoticed until you went to take the next photo. Replacement screens were available, but were pricey, at least in the UK. I bought three spares from a Nikon dealer in the US for little more than the price of one in the UK! There are cheaper generic replacements available but I found these diid not always fit properly. In an emergency I also tried a stickon transparent protector, but found these very tricky to fit properly - no air bubbles or folds - , and it had a tendency to become unstuck around the edges quite quickly. Since screen quality of the earlier cameras was not of particularly high resolution, the stickon reduced the viewed image quality.
My more recent cameras (Nikon D3X, D500, D850) have no fitted screen protector. Certainly, based on over 9 years active use of the D3X, this does not seem to have suffered and screen damage or marking, although I have yet to use the other two more recent bodies as much, so that time will tell. Presumably Nikon are using a tougher spec glass and surface treatment more recently combined with much denser screen resolution for a better image. Also the D500 and D850 have the ability to carry out some cameras functions using the screen as a touch screen, like a smartphone, which a guard would complicate. There are lots of third party screen protectors available, some plastic and some glass. These may involve quite an obstructive frame that has to be stuck or attached to the body, to which the protector is then fitted, which can make them quite cumbersome to use, and also steam up in cold conditions. My last two bodies also have articulating screens, rather than fixed back screens, so adding a contraption of some sort to these might limit adjustment and use. Unfortunately in these Amazon days, you no longer have the luxury of making the lad at Jessops accessory counter's afternoon by trying all he has in stock on your camera to see which suits best!
Hope this helps, have a Jolly Yule
Richard
[Note to Admin/WebWizard - This is the second attempt at posting a reply. Last night's seemed to vanish into the ether. An error message did flash up but went so rapidly before I could properly read and understand it. Is it me or something in the system? - RL
|
|
|
|
Post by bobs on Dec 24, 2020 19:06:59 GMT
Richardl
Thanks for that - more grist to the mill, as it were.
As I look forward to next year, hopefully without passing through the hole in doughnuts, I can get some more exercise and use this as an excuse to re-develop my photo skills (such as they were!).
Hence the better utilisation of the view screen to see what wondrous I've captured, or otherwise, in the time frame before the recorded image disappears and you have to recall it!
The aforementioned Amazon flogs 0.3mm thick glass ones that allegedly allow the touch screen to be used as well, and it can be folded closed as well (0.3mm being 0.012" approx.), and at about 8 quid may be worth a punt, I'm thinking. This is going to be especially useful when I get my old EF 500mm mirror lens working (nearly there) which will give me an equivalent 500mm f8 (or is that f10?) to play with!
Maybe I shall see what comes up in the January Sales, assuming COVID doesn't get to them as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 24, 2020 19:11:07 GMT
Richardl
I suspect it's a Proboard thing.
It took me a few attempts just to log on, perseverance and using a different browser helped, but I think that may have been fortune.
Incidentally, I'm finding Chrome is getting awfully picky of late, and I've been finding the latest version of Edge or Vivaldi are working better. They have the advantage also, that Google aren't tracking you either.
Nevertheless, I'm keeping an eye on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by dareneaton on Jan 3, 2021 14:10:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by bobs on Jan 3, 2021 18:33:45 GMT
Thanks dareneaton, I am pondering on the options, and the glass ones seem more suitable than plastic. Some are only 0,2-0,33mm thick (!!!) and retain themselves by (probably molecular) bond. They're not overtly expensive - watch this space!
Just thought you might be interested in my research into the using an FD lens on an EF camera using an adaptor:
I mentioned earlier that I wondered whether the 500mm f.8 was really f.10 when on an EF camera. Well, 1,6 times really means f.12.8.
The real point is, that there are some people out there telling you that this is the case.
I do not believe this to be true! The f-stop is a function of the focal length. NOT the effective focal length. Since an FD 500mm with a crop factor of 1,6 would make it an 800mm. then the aperture of f.8 would remain unchanged since the only thing that has changed is the image area on the sensor. If the sensor were bigger, there would be no crop factor, and thus no aperture change. It doesn't make any sense.
A lens is already cropped onto a full size sensor, since the sensor (or file frame) crops the circular image from the lens. Having a smaller sensor merely means the usable area is reduced, not the focal length. It's an 'Effective Focal Length' not true focal length. So the f.8 remains.
As a comparison if you put (in Canon terms) an EF full frame f.4 lens onto an EF-S body (1.6 crop), it's still an f.4 lens. No difference.
One smarta**e has a video attempting to demonstrate this, but it doesn't really convince, since he's not comparing eggs with eggs. He also maintains the depth of field alters when cropped, but I really cannot see why; since it's still a cropped image not a different focussed image - unless, because he's using different camera systems the focussing point has changed because of the adaptor thickness.
Never gets easier, does it?
|
|
|
|
Post by alisdairmclean on Jan 9, 2021 19:25:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by bobs on Jan 13, 2021 16:41:55 GMT
Alisdair
Yes, this was one of the sites that convinced me that quite a few smart-arses out there expounding the other theories just ought to stick to their smartphones for pictures and leave Photography to those who understand it!
Thanks anyway for putting the link on for those that might want to know more!
|
|
|
|
Post by bobs on Oct 8, 2021 19:05:36 GMT
A short time ago, well a bit longer than that, I was asking about screen protectors. Much water has passed under the bridge, and other things got in the way (my Henri Coandă article(s) in the newsletter may tell you why, when you get to the end!) and eventually did some research. I ended up, with trying to avoid anything made in China, almost impossible, especially after my Adaptor issues (see the other thread...) and i felt a thin glass approach looked worth a look. So I got a screen that protects the viewing screen on my Canon 77D (other cameras catered for). Once in place, it's undetectable (unless you knew), doesn't come off, and the touch screen still works as normal. So here's the, from my experience, knowledge: My one is from 'Expert Shield' in Leeds ( www.expertshielduk.com/) and is in the 'GLASS' range. it's about .25 mmm thick (10 thou in old money, incredible fragile, but robust enough if you're careful. The instructions, both in the pack, and online, are comprehensive. FOLLOW THEM! And you can't go wrong. Don't rush - you'll need masking tape (use fresh - not the one you used on the windows in 1988), they give you a microfibre cloth with it as well, and just be sensible. It works, does the job, and I don't need to worry about damaging the screen when I review the pic that's just been taken. Win-win. The downside, although from Leeds, it was made in China. B*gger!!!! |
|
