Digital SLR maual focus screens

Dave <nospam RemoveThis @nospam.com> wrote in news:J1Z6j.1255$sf.682@trndny04:

> My question is if anyone knows of a DSLR that has a really good manual
> focus screen - one that a manual 35mm film camera owner would love?

Like others have said though, if you have auto focus lenses, you won't find
much need to manually focus with a modern digital SLR. Since your existing
lenses are manually-focused and you want to keep them, you should read this
article before you plan on using them on a modern dSLR. Your new camera
might not even meter properly with those old lenses.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikkor.htm#mfrex.

If you want a modern camera with option focusing screens, Canon offers up
to 11 optional focusing screens for its EOS-1 series cameras. See here for
images of what these screens look like:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2lo24o
 >> Stay informed about: Digital SLR maual focus screens 

On 2007-12-10, Mardon <mgb72mgb RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> Since your existing
> lenses are manually-focused and you want to keep them, you should read this
> article before you plan on using them on a modern dSLR. Your new camera
> might not even meter properly with those old lenses.
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikkor.htm#mfrex.
>

Or, if you prefer not to base your decisions on vague, hand-wavy FUD,
just read the facts on your prospective new body.

For instance, I use a Nikkor 85/1.4 AI on a D200 with no loss of
metering.

--
Chris Savage Kiss me. Or would you rather live in a
Gateshead, UK land where the soap won't lather?
- Billy Bragg
 >> Stay informed about: Digital SLR maual focus screens 

"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd.DeleteThis@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:878x43458a.fld@apaflo.com...
> Dave <nospam.DeleteThis@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>> http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/
>
> Go back, and look at the listings for Nikon. (But just
> for references, as they don't have them yet for the D300
> or D3. But no doubt they will have them eventually.)
>
>>I guess I should have explained that I have been using a
>>completely manual 35mm for over 20 yrs.
>
> Really? I doubt it.
My very first SLR was a Praktica FX. It was about as completely manual as
they come.
It had a preset lens (nothing auto here). About half of the time, I forgot
to stop the lens down.
The mirror did not return until you wound the shutter.
And, I bought it in 1953.
Jim
>
> I've never seen one that didn't automatically flip the
> mirror up and down, for example. And I don't recall an
> SLR that didn't do automatic diaphragm stop down, though
> there might have been some.
>
> There was once upon a time when auto-diaphragm was a big
> deal..
>
>>I tried a Canon
>>AE-1 (I believe) in the 70's and hated the automatic
>>stuff.
>
> I'm not much into programmed exposure, if that's what
> you mean. Didn't it have a manual mode? I assure you
> that Nikon DSLRs can all be used in manual mode very
> nicely.
>
> But, note that the rest of that fancy stuff is just
> plain *nice*. For example, if you try auto focus for a
> couple of weeks, I'll bet you can't live without it.
> For anything where the subject moves (kids, dogs,
> sports, ...), it's the only way to go.
>
>>I would like to continue with a manual camera
>>since all of my lenses are manual as well.
>
> But when you invest in new gear, don't think so much
> about the past as you do about the future.
>
> The next lense you buy will have AF. You won't be
> sorry. That of course does not mean you need to discard
> all of your old favorites, because if you do it right
> they can be useful too.
>
>>So from what
>>some of you are saying I need to look for a DSLR that
>>has interchangeable screens. I did a very quick and see
>>that the D300 has interchangeable screens, but I didn't
>>find any Nikon brand screens for it.
>
> They probably only sell two (that is true of the D3, and
> if I remember right was true of the D1 and the D2 series
> too). Neither of those screens of course has a focusing
> aid like you are thinking of.
>
>>Not that I'm hung
>>up on Nikon, so other suggestions welcome.
>
> Go back and look at the Katzeye screens. I use one on a
> D2x, and as soon as they have them available for the D3,
> I'll order that too. It works great. And old manual
> lenses work great too.
>
> --
> Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.DeleteThis@apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: Digital SLR maual focus screens 

"Dave" <nospam DeleteThis @nospam.com> wrote in message
news:J1Z6j.1255$sf.682@trndny04...
> Yesterday I was looking at a couple of digital SLR's to replace my 35mm
> SLR (a 'mart store). I was disappointed at the two I looked at because
> the manual focus screen is not like a film 35mm (split ring focus or micro
> prism), and the cameras don't seem to get the focus right unless there is
> fairly good contrast in the subject. My question is if anyone knows of a
> DSLR that has a really good manual focus screen - one that a manual 35mm
> film camera owner would love?
>
> Thanks for your time and I'll wait to see what develops (ha! ha!)
>
> Dave (or is it just a picture?)
> --
> e-mail: d boland 9 (all 1 word) at fastmail period fm

The high-end Canon DSLRs have interchangeable focusing screens.
The low-end DSLRs don't have interchangeable screens - probably because
their users wouldn't appreciate their usefulness.
I bought a few screens for my EOS620 from a large photographic retailer in
the UK East Midlands and had to explain what they were and why they were
useful (comparing them to interchangeable lenses sort-of helped).

Regards,

Ian
Nottingham, UK.
 >> Stay informed about: Digital SLR maual focus screens 

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

>> I tried a Canon
>> AE-1 (I believe) in the 70's and hated the automatic
>> stuff.
>
> I'm not much into programmed exposure, if that's what
> you mean. Didn't it have a manual mode? I assure you
> that Nikon DSLRs can all be used in manual mode very
> nicely.
>
> But, note that the rest of that fancy stuff is just
> plain *nice*. For example, if you try auto focus for a
> couple of weeks, I'll bet you can't live without it.
> For anything where the subject moves (kids, dogs,
> sports, ...), it's the only way to go.
>
>> I would like to continue with a manual camera
>> since all of my lenses are manual as well.
>
> But when you invest in new gear, don't think so much
> about the past as you do about the future.
>
> The next lense you buy will have AF. You won't be
> sorry. That of course does not mean you need to discard
> all of your old favorites, because if you do it right
> they can be useful too.

The important thing is, with almost all auto-anything SLRs (digital or
not), ANY of the automatic features can be turned off. Manual exposure
is a given, and you're free to simply ignore the in-viewfinder light
metering if you want to go REALLY old-school. I don't know about Nikon,
but all Canon and Canon-mount AF lenses have a little switch on the side
that turns off the auto-focus.

There's really no sense in getting worked up about finding a camera that
DOESN'T HAVE these additional tools... just make sure the one you choose
lets you work without them if you so desire. As Floyd says, once you
use some of them, you may decide you can't (or don't want to) live
without them... or maybe you will... but either way, they're always
there if the situation demands.
 >> Stay informed about: Digital SLR maual focus screens 

Mr. Strat wrote:

> I never cared for split-image screens, but preferred microprisms. Those
> days are gone though with digital. But I don't really miss 'em.

They KatzEye screens have either, or both, for most cameras.
 >> Stay informed about: Digital SLR maual focus screens 

MaryL wrote:

> I have been following this thread because it discusses one of the features I
> would love to have. I have a Nikon 8800 and am considering a Nikon d40x or
> d70 (if I can still find one). I have found that some pictures are not in
> focus when I use the built-in telephoto, even when it is not extended to any
> great length. Years ago, I had a film SLR with split focus screen. I loved
> that. It was more difficult when I upgraded to a film SLR with microprism
> screen (not quite the term that was used then, if I remember correctly). I
> have astigmatism, and it was much easier for me to bring the split images
> together than to work with the prism. Of course, *neither* is necessary
> with digital as long as I am satisfied with auto-focus. However -- as I
> said earlier -- I have had instances when auto-focus simply does not seem to
> create a really sharp image, especially if lighting conditions are poor.

My first SLR was a sweet little Minolta X-700 with Tamron 70-210 lens.
It had both focus aids - the split-button in the middle, surrounded by a
microprism ring. It was nice having both, as there were always times
when one worked better than the other.
 >> Stay informed about: Digital SLR maual focus screens 

Fred Anonymous wrote:

> The high-end Canon DSLRs have interchangeable focusing screens.
> The low-end DSLRs don't have interchangeable screens - probably because
> their users wouldn't appreciate their usefulness.

Correction: they are interchangeable, just not as READILY so as with the
"high-end" cameras. Requires some minor surgery with small tools, but
nothing too extreme.

This guy just adapted the screen from a broken old Miranda dx-3 to a
Canon 300D:
http://web.abo.fi/~jskata/300Dfocus/
 >> Stay informed about: Digital SLR maual focus screens 

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:57:15 GMT, Matt Ion <soundy106 DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:

>Fred Anonymous wrote:
>
>> The high-end Canon DSLRs have interchangeable focusing screens.
>> The low-end DSLRs don't have interchangeable screens - probably because
>> their users wouldn't appreciate their usefulness.
>
>Correction: they are interchangeable, just not as READILY so as with the
>"high-end" cameras. Requires some minor surgery with small tools, but
>nothing too extreme.
>
>This guy just adapted the screen from a broken old Miranda dx-3 to a
>Canon 300D:
>http://web.abo.fi/~jskata/300Dfocus/

Well, that's about as stupid a thing as I've ever seen. No two camera model's
pentaprisms have the exact same eye-lens to focusing screen distance. Each
focusing screen has a micro-ruled fresnel lens embedded in it to account for the
camera's metering system and optimum visual brightness. How do I know? I used to
make custom focusing screens for my Olympus SLRs. By doing so I was able to
greatly improve on a commercial focusing-screen for microphotography work. My
own design providing nearly 2 stops more of light for viewing and composing.
(The light-metering had to be manually adjusted accordingly for my improved
light throughput.)

Sigh ... more inept morons at the wheel handing out advice on usenet. The parade
role-playing wannabe photographer fools never ends.
 >> Stay informed about: Digital SLR maual focus screens 

Chris Malcolm wrote:
> Mr. Strat <rag DeleteThis @nospam.techline.com> wrote:
>> In article <dqZ6j.652$1p.33@trndny01>, Dave <nospam DeleteThis @nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>> I guess this situation begs the question of why DSLR's don't have the
>>> focusing aides of 35mm cameras?
>
>> They're not needed. Once you use autofocus, you won't want to do it
>> yourself.
>
> So you never took photographs in conditions where the autofocus didn't
> work precisely enough.
>
Sure, but for 99% of my photographs, autofocus works splendidly, and
much faster than I could manage.
 >> Stay informed about: Digital SLR maual focus screens 

In article <0OudnWkFo6He1cPanZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d.RemoveThis@giganews.com>, Ron Hunter
<rphunter.RemoveThis@charter.net> wrote:

> > So you never took photographs in conditions where the autofocus didn't
> > work precisely enough.
> >
> Sure, but for 99% of my photographs, autofocus works splendidly, and
> much faster than I could manage.

Same here. When I went from film to digital, I didn't think I'd like or
use autofocus. But it's a lot faster than I could ever be, and it
removes one more thing that I have to think about and do. It gives me
more freedom to concentrate on the image.
 >> Stay informed about: Digital SLR maual focus screens 

"Alex Clauster" <nothanks.RemoveThis@mailunwanted.net> wrote in message
news:pdsrl318jqu9g2ai8i8641l9ncc6pn0kjd@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:57:15 GMT, Matt Ion <soundy106.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Fred Anonymous wrote:
>>
>>> The high-end Canon DSLRs have interchangeable focusing screens.
>>> The low-end DSLRs don't have interchangeable screens - probably because
>>> their users wouldn't appreciate their usefulness.
>>
>>Correction: they are interchangeable, just not as READILY so as with the
>>"high-end" cameras. Requires some minor surgery with small tools, but
>>nothing too extreme.
>>
>>This guy just adapted the screen from a broken old Miranda dx-3 to a
>>Canon 300D:
>>http://web.abo.fi/~jskata/300Dfocus/
>
> Well, that's about as stupid a thing as I've ever seen. No two camera
> model's
> pentaprisms have the exact same eye-lens to focusing screen distance. Each
> focusing screen has a micro-ruled fresnel lens embedded in it to account
> for the
> camera's metering system and optimum visual brightness. How do I know? I
> used to
> make custom focusing screens for my Olympus SLRs. By doing so I was able
> to
> greatly improve on a commercial focusing-screen for microphotography work.
> My
> own design providing nearly 2 stops more of light for viewing and
> composing.
> (The light-metering had to be manually adjusted accordingly for my
> improved
> light throughput.)
>
> Sigh ... more inept morons at the wheel handing out advice on usenet. The
> parade
> role-playing wannabe photographer fools never ends.
>
>
>
Please note that it was Matt Ion who wrote the part about adapting a Miranda
screen for a 300D.

I made the comment about only Canon's high-end DSLR bodies having
interchangeable screens because I believe the original poster didn't want to
do any "surgery" on his DSLR.

Regards, Fred.
 >> Stay informed about: Digital SLR maual focus screens 

Alex Clauster wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:57:15 GMT, Matt Ion <soundy106.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Fred Anonymous wrote:
>>
>>> The high-end Canon DSLRs have interchangeable focusing screens.
>>> The low-end DSLRs don't have interchangeable screens - probably because
>>> their users wouldn't appreciate their usefulness.
>> Correction: they are interchangeable, just not as READILY so as with the
>> "high-end" cameras. Requires some minor surgery with small tools, but
>> nothing too extreme.
>>
>> This guy just adapted the screen from a broken old Miranda dx-3 to a
>> Canon 300D:
>> http://web.abo.fi/~jskata/300Dfocus/
>
> Well, that's about as stupid a thing as I've ever seen.

<mindless rant trimmed>

Uh, yeah... the point was, changing the focusing screen in a "low-end"
Canon DSLR is not a particularly difficult thing...
 >> Stay informed about: Digital SLR maual focus screens