On Feb 2, 2006, at 9:11, Charles Robinson wrote:
On Feb 2, 2006, at 8:57, Fred wrote:
Does anyone have any experiences (good and/or bad) to report
regarding
KatzEye screens (besides price, which is not a good) ?
I should know in a few days - I ordered one on Monday.
Will definitely
Hi
Every once in a while I look at the PUG archives, sometimes out of curiosity,
and other times to see if I can get some particular info.
This time a bit of both, but what caught my attention was the discussion on the
above subject.
I have an *istDS and would like to know if someone has
Also there was a company that made screens for the LX, does anyone know
whether they still exist, and whether they have made screens for the
*istD family?
For the LX screens, you're probably thinking of the Beattie Intenscreens
(as I think they were called) ( http://www.intenscreen.com/ ).
.
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MX screen in my istD - another question
Also there was a company that made screens for the LX, does anyone know
whether they still exist, and whether they have made screens for the
*istD family?
For the LX
Thanks Fred
A couple of years ago, I had to have my mirror screen in my LX replaced as
the insulation around the mirror liquidized - for
want of a better word . My understanding at the time, was that Pentax no
longer carried screens and the replacement was a
Beattie.
BTW - the last time I
-
From: Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MX screen in my istD - another question
Also there was a company that made screens for the LX, does anyone know
whether they still exist, and whether they have made screens for the
*istD family?
For the LX screens, you're probably thinking
On Feb 3, 2006, at 13:14, herb greenslade wrote:
Hi Kenneth
But if prism screens work in thses cameras, why haven't Pentax
introduced them? For my money I would rather spend even a
little more for a Pentax then give it to an iffy 3rd party.
I would, too. But since Pentax doesn't make
(roughly twice the cost of the Pentax screen)
excluded further consideration.
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: herb greenslade [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MX screen in my istD - another question
Hi Kenneth
But if prism screens work in thses cameras, why haven't Pentax
I may have missed some of this thread, but what are you seeking in a new
screen?
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: Charles Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: MX screen in my istD - another question
2006 20:04
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: MX screen in my istD - another question
I'm not familiar with the term Prism screen, is that what a
Beattie is? I used Pentax replacement grid screens to
assist in compositions trying to keep level horizons. When
I last checked out
further consideration.
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: herb greenslade [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MX screen in my istD - another question
Hi Kenneth
But if prism screens work in thses cameras, why haven't Pentax introduced
them? For my money I would rather spend even
Waller
- Original Message -
From: Charles Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: MX screen in my istD - another question
On Feb 3, 2006, at 13:14, herb greenslade wrote:
Hi Kenneth
But if prism screens work in thses
- Original Message -
From: herb greenslade
Subject: Re: MX screen in my istD - another question
I would want a screen that has a split prism that assists in the focusing,
especially in circumstances where lighting is poor, - e.i. in
clubs. I usually focus manually, and more recently
On Feb 3, 2006, at 14:05, Kenneth Waller wrote:
I may have missed some of this thread, but what are you seeking in
a new screen?
Better manual focusing aids.
Microprism/Split prism screens are great for this. And Pentax does
not offer such a product.
The product at katzeyeoptics.com
On 3 Feb 2006 at 20:17, Bob W wrote:
I had a few Beattie screens for my LXs - I might even still have them
somewhere - but I didn't particularly rate them over the Pentax screens. I
bought them used for almost nothing.
I had a Beattie screen for my LX that I bought used too, it didn't hold a
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: MX screen in my istD - another question
I'm not familiar with the term Prism screen, is that what a
Beattie is? I used Pentax replacement grid screens to
assist in compositions trying to keep level horizons. When
I last checked out Beattie screens years
From: Tomasz Machnik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2006/02/01 Wed PM 10:52:16 GMT
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: MX screen in my istD
Thibouille wrote:
Now, how did you do to have it cut exactly as it should?
I booked a visit to my dentist friend - she said it's
From: E.R.N. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2006/02/02 Thu AM 12:32:17 GMT
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: MX screen in my istD
Tomasz Machnik wrote:
Powell Hargrave wrote:
If you move your eye off centre the prism can black out. Wouldn't this
happen if you move
From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2006/02/02 Thu AM 02:54:17 GMT
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: MX screen in my istD
On 1 Feb 2006 at 17:43, Juan Buhler wrote:
The shiny side goes in the bottom... That's how I did it.
I'm surprised it didn't work for you
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, Juan Buhler wrote:
I now need to get one of those new bright LX screens...
The MZ-M screen should be brighter and need no trimming.
I am guessing you don't need spot-meter.
Kostas
The matt surface is the surface that the finder image is formed on and so
should be closest to the mirror.
That doesn't sound logical to me. The reference plane will be where the
screen beds against the body, which will be the upper surface. It
doesn't matter that the image goes through the
From: Cory Papenfuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2006/02/02 Thu AM 11:41:33 GMT
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Re: MX screen in my istD
The matt surface is the surface that the finder image is formed on and so
should be closest to the mirror.
That doesn't sound logical to me
The matte/prism side should be near the pentamirror/pentaprism,
not the mirror. It makes sense because that is a defined plane in the
camera the screen can be anything, so long as it's flat against that
surface.
That's what I said, didn't I?
Yes. I had just read all the posts
From: Cory Papenfuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So, you'd likely
not be able to change the thickness *too* much. I'd bet it works out that
it'd have to be significantly thicker to screw it up too much.
Depends on definition of significance. SMC has significant effect but is
~1/4
In a message dated 2/1/2006 8:11:36 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So the matte side is closer to the viewfinder, and the glossy side
faces the lens?
-Charles
Here's my reference.
http://www.camerahacker.com/Tools/Installing_Haoda_Screen.shtml
Neil K. Guy,
Does anyone have any experiences (good and/or bad) to report regarding
KatzEye screens (besides price, which is not a good) ?
Fred
On Feb 2, 2006, at 8:57, Fred wrote:
Does anyone have any experiences (good and/or bad) to report regarding
KatzEye screens (besides price, which is not a good) ?
I should know in a few days - I ordered one on Monday.
Will definitely report back with results. There's a thread about
this
I should know in a few days - I ordered one on Monday.
;-)
Will definitely report back with results. There's a thread about
this on DPReview as well. Seems a hot topic these days!
Yes, I've been reading the comments over there (although it's definitely a
different group of Pentaxers at
On 2 Feb 2006 at 8:28, mike wilson wrote:
That doesn't sound logical to me. The reference plane will be where the
screen beds against the body, which will be the upper surface. It doesn't
matter that the image goes through the screen - it's transparent/colourless.
As long as the gg is
Hi Fred,
While I've no experience with the KatzEye screens, I read a few comments
recently on another venue which were quite favorable. It may have been on
one of the Leica lists, and the screen may have been used in a Canon ...
sorry I can't be of any more help.
Shel
[Original Message]
- Original Message -
From: Fred
Subject: Re: KatzEye Screens [was: MX screen in my istD]
Yes, I've been reading the comments over there (although it's definitely a
different group of Pentaxers at the dpreview Pentax SLR Talk forum). The
people that have tried them seem pretty
Inspired by the thread about focusing screens, last night I went ahead
and took the screen out of my second MX (which needs a CLA anyway)
The resulting viewfinder is a little bit darker than it was with the
original screen, but the split prism makes it much easier to focus in
low light, and focus
Juan Buhler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Inspired by the thread about focusing screens, last night I went ahead
and took the screen out of my second MX (which needs a CLA anyway)
There's a German saying that goes somewhat like Good things don't
happen. They need to be done. (Es gibt nichts Gutes
Now, how did you do to have it cut exactly as it should?
How to be sure that the prism will be in the middle?
2006/2/1, Juan Buhler [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Inspired by the thread about focusing screens, last night I went ahead
and took the screen out of my second MX (which needs a CLA anyway)
The
Thibouille wrote:
Now, how did you do to have it cut exactly as it should?
I booked a visit to my dentist friend - she said it's not a problem to
cut the screen with her tools :)
But I am still waiting for the donor, hesitating over my nice P30t...
How to be sure that the prism will be
Actually I don't think there is any technical reason why the prism
should be in the middle.
Once I have more donors, I am going to cut one screen with prism
off-center - this will remind me of better composition :)
If you move your eye off centre the prism can black out. Wouldn't this
happen
On 2/1/06, Thibouille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, how did you do to have it cut exactly as it should?
There's no should :)
How to be sure that the prism will be in the middle?
I just cut a bit from each side at a time. The circle is not perfectly
aligned with the central af confirm point,
Powell Hargrave wrote:
If you move your eye off centre the prism can black out. Wouldn't this
happen if you move the prism off centre?
You're right. I am over-enthusiastic :)
tm
Congrats on the modification. As I mentioned before, it's like
I've got a whole new camera with this addition doesn't help that it
was inexpensive, too!
On 2/1/06, Thibouille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, how did you do to have it cut exactly as it should?
There's no should :)
I
Tomasz Machnik wrote:
Powell Hargrave wrote:
If you move your eye off centre the prism can black out. Wouldn't this
happen if you move the prism off centre?
You're right. I am over-enthusiastic :)
tm
Well, I tried cutting down an LX screen for my *istD last night.
I got it to fit
On 1 Feb 2006 at 19:03, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
I should have taken more pictures of the process but I was
skeptical as to whether or not it would work. I'll try to take some when
my friend (with a Canon 350) does it... real soon now that he's seen mine.
He's got an old screwmount
On 1 Feb 2006 at 18:32, E.R.N. Reed wrote:
Got nice and close to my keyboard with an f/1.7 lens ... focused nicely
on the word Enter on my Enter key ... took the picture ...
The Enter is SO not in focus in the image. As a matter of fact you
can't read it. I do have some keys nice and sharp
On 2/1/06, Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm just amazed that with all the sanding etc everyones screens are still
appear to be usable, how did you (or anyone else who has successfully cut a
screen down) keep the Fresnel lens clean and the matt surface scratch free?
Mine had a couple
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 1 Feb 2006 at 18:32, E.R.N. Reed wrote:
Got nice and close to my keyboard with an f/1.7 lens ... focused nicely
on the word Enter on my Enter key ... took the picture ...
The Enter is SO not in focus in the image. As a matter of fact you
can't read it. I do have
You did have it installed the correct way up?
should *think* so as I marked it relative to the original before cutting
down to size
The shiny side goes in the bottom... That's how I did it.
I'm surprised it didn't work for you. I'll probably be trying with
other screens as soon as I get my
On 1 Feb 2006 at 19:39, E.R.N. Reed wrote:
should *think* so as I marked it relative to the original before cutting
down to size
Why I asked is that with the tab it's impossible to mount it up-side down and
what you experienced could be caused by the screen being put in the wrong way.
The
On 1 Feb 2006 at 17:43, Juan Buhler wrote:
The shiny side goes in the bottom... That's how I did it.
I'm surprised it didn't work for you. I'll probably be trying with
other screens as soon as I get my hands on them. I will report.
The matt surface is the surface that the finder image is
Juan Buhler wrote:
You did have it installed the correct way up?
should *think* so as I marked it relative to the original before cutting
down to size
The shiny side goes in the bottom... That's how I did it.
I'm surprised it didn't work for you. I'll probably be trying with
In a message dated 2/1/2006 6:01:52 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I just checked it again to be totally sure, and with the shiny side on
the bottom, the focus is off (the in-focus area is closer in the picture
than in the viewfinder) if the camera is in horizontal
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 1 Feb 2006 at 19:39, E.R.N. Reed wrote:
should *think* so as I marked it relative to the original before cutting
down to size
Why I asked is that with the tab it's impossible to mount it up-side down and
what you experienced could be caused by the screen
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 1 Feb 2006 at 17:43, Juan Buhler wrote:
The shiny side goes in the bottom... That's how I did it.
I'm surprised it didn't work for you. I'll probably be trying with
other screens as soon as I get my hands on them. I will report.
The matt surface is the
On Feb 1, 2006, at 20:32, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I read up on this for doing it on a Canon. In that case, the matte
surface
should be down, toward the pentaprism. I don't know about Pentax,
but I suspect
it is the same.
DOWN towards the pentaprism?
Is this with the camera upside-down,
On 1 Feb 2006 at 21:50, E.R.N. Reed wrote:
Rob Studdert wrote:
The matt surface is the surface that the finder image is formed on and so
should be closest to the mirror.
But the original goes in shiny side down.
You are quite right, I just checked, I'd just assumed No wonder some lenses
53 matches
Mail list logo
