> I'm aware that LX and MX screens can be swapped > across bodies (standard caveat: LX screen in > MX body- add +1/3 to EV). > > Are the PZ-1P and MZ-S screens the same size > and configuration? Are they brighter than > the LX screens? > -Lon
Hi Lon, the crosscompatibility is there, but not as great as you imagine. 1) LX screen #21 is worse in MX, because MX lacks the condenser lens of LX. Depending on lens used, there is more or less vignetting. With my 20-35/3.5-4.5 zoom, the vignetting made the lens unusable on the MX with LX screen. Dunno about other screens. 2) MX screen in LX doesn't make sense, and it doesn't fit anyway (it's teeney bit larger IIRC) 3) MX,LX screens don't fit in AF cameras, because AF cameras have loose finders (92% coverage, while MX/LX have almost 100% coverage) 4) AF screens fit in MX,LX just finely. Sometimes this makes lot of sense, with slower lenses. Or the MZ-M screen (C74) works in MX,LX,AF just fine. It does have a split-image-aid which works down to f/5.6-8 lenses (where already other screens split-image-aids are hopelessly dark). But AF screens have lot lower microcontrast, making critical focus with fast lenses harder than with manual focus screen like the LX's. The MZ-M screen measured as about 1/3 brighter than the MX screen, so I had to offset the ISO. But although it is brighter, it is harder to focus as it does have much less microcontrast. Same for other AF screens, they are all brighter than MX screens, but focus is quite harder. So I find their usefulnes only for slow lenses or slow zooms (remember, most consumer zooms are 4-5.6 apertures or even slower, so the AF screens are made with this in mind, they are optimalised for slow aperture. Old screens (especially K2 series and such) are optimalised for fast lenses like 1.4/50. With the old cameras you can really see the difference between 1.4 and 2 apertures. With the newer its harder. Fra
