carstenw wrote:
Nice, if a bit bright near the top!
Well, the wall was bright, so why not make it bright?
KatieInTexas wrote:
Need a portrait/macro lens for that Hassy? I listed my 120mm in the classifieds...
I think I'll be pleased with just the 80/2.8 for a while. I like the thought of old school photography and minimalism. But I'm gonna get myself a better screen (on its way) and a prism finder for some occasions.
Congrats, Martin! I just got mine a couple of months ago, and I've been shooting it and little else since. The split-prism accu-mat is just outstanding.
Just got the accu-matte screen and I'm really disappointed. It's much, much more difficult to see where focus is. It's just brighter, like a modern stock screen in any dSLR that was never meant for manual focus and that shows a DOF corresponding to ~f/5.6 instead of f/2.8.
Oh well, just one more reminder not to follow advice seen on the internet.
I researched the hell out of screens, got confused, and just used the stock screen in my 500cm. I use the critical focus aide in the WLF or just the nc2 prism thingy. Works well enough I guess.
KatieInTexas wrote:
I researched the hell out of screens, got confused, and just used the stock screen in my 500cm. I use the critical focus aide in the WLF or just the nc2 prism thingy. Works well enough I guess.
Yeah, the stock screen is much more accurate, so if you're alright with it being a bit dim, I'd stick with it too. I guess the accu-matte is better for composition and stopped down use on a tripod.
With the stock screen I don't need the loupe for anything closer than ~5 meters, while I seem to need it ALL of the time with the new screen.
For instance, if I'm trying to focus on my bookshelf 3 meters away, with the new screen I can't see any difference without the loupe between focus set at 2 meters and 5 meters. That's terrible.
I'll hopefully get a PM5 prism tomorrow or the day after, which might change things. For now I'll bring both screens and switch when one or the other fits the purpose best.
Edit: I compared the screens with my Pentax 67II stock screen, and it's better than both. It's about as accurate for focus as the stock HBL screen and almost as bright as the accu-matte.
This is really weird, I couldn't focus at all with my old 500C screen, similar to the 500C/M stock screen, but with the Acute Matte it was awesome, easy and bright. I wonder if there is a shimming issue or something? I have never ever heard anyone say anything bad about the Acute Matte. Is it possible you got a non-Hasselblad item?
My experience is similar to carstenw. When I had my RZ67 with the stock screen, focusing was hit and miss. I updated to a bright screen, with a split image, which was a significant improvement. The acute matte screen that my 501CM came with is awesome. I have shot about 20 rolls, and of the three miss-focuses, two were due to movement, and the third was shot in twilight (read- user error).
Silly question- but are you sure the screen is in the right way (the notches on the sides face down), and if this was a used screen, could it be that someone took it apart (It's really easy to do) and didn't put it back correctly? Just curious, as these are supposed to be some of the better focusing screens made.
And I don't understand why a brighter screen should be easier to focus. Most people here seem too agree that you should replace your stock screen in a Canon 5D, for a LESS bright one if you want to be able to focus manually. Exchanging the HBL stock screen to a brighter one is the opposite, which doesn't make sense at all.
There's nothing wrong with the screen, but it's one without any focusing aid, which makes it useless. It's like trying to focus at f/5.6, just like with your modern dSLR. Bright, but not accurate at all.
Makten wrote:
And I don't understand why a brighter screen should be easier to focus. Most people here seem too agree that you should replace your stock screen in a Canon 5D, for a LESS bright one if you want to be able to focus manually. Exchanging the HBL stock screen to a brighter one is the opposite, which doesn't make sense at all.
There's nothing wrong with the screen, but it's one without any focusing aid, which makes it useless. It's like trying to focus at f/5.6, just like with your modern dSLR. Bright, but not accurate at all.
I also had the gadget-less one. It wasn't so much a question of being brighter, for me at least, but more of being able to see anything at all It had more bite to it than the old screen, which was just really dim and didn't catch the focus point well.
Hmm, well, something is different here, but I don't know what.
carstenw wrote:
I also had the gadget-less one. It wasn't so much a question of being brighter, for me at least, but more of being able to see anything at all It had more bite to it than the old screen, which was just really dim and didn't catch the focus point well.
Hmm, well, something is different here, but I don't know what.
I have no problems focusing or seeing through the original screen, if light isn't too low. It's just a bit dull compared to the Pentax, for example. But my eyesight is very good, so that might be the difference. Anyhow, I found this comment on an other forum, so I'm obviously not alone...
"Just to show that 'to each his own' is quite sensible, i switched from Acute Matte screens to the old, non-Acute Matte screens. I find that focusing the Acute Matte screens is quite a task, and do not like how they show out of focus bits very much. The plain old diffusing screens are much betters, though darker. But brightness may be a selling point, it isn't the begin all - end all of focusing."
I've been offered an acute matte (seems to be a thousand different spellnings) screen with a split prism from the seller, at twice the price (~120 Euros) of the non-gadget one. But I don't know if it's worth it.
Edit: Just checked the prices on Ebay, and 120 Euros seems really cheap!
Anyhow, I found this comment on an other forum, so I'm obviously not alone...
