Another way to describe it is that the difference between the in and out of focus areas is greater with a coarser matte. The screen in my 67II has a small circle in the middle with a coarse matte, surrounded by a finer matte over the rest of the screen. The center area jumps out at me when it's in focus, so I use that most of the time. The general matte is fine for landscapes and situations where precise focus distance isn't critical, but the center coarse matte seems to be clearer and more accurate.
chris On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Bruce Dayton wrote: > Hello Shel, > > Best description that I can give is that with a matte, when it is in > focus it is clear, when it is out of focus it is kind of opaque. The > finer the matte, the more translucent it is - this makes it harder to > tell between in/out of focus. > > The assumption with many AF cameras is that the user wouldn't normally > use manual focus, so they put in a finer matte that brightens up the > finder a bit and compensates for the smallness. The downside is that > it makes it harder to manually focus. > > Even so, I still prefer a matte - I find that the focusing aids get in > the way quite often. Not much different than AF in the middle. My > composition usually doesn't have the subject dead center, so using the > focusing aid requires me to recompose after focusing. At smaller > f-stops the focus aid (especially split prism) blacks out and is worse > than useless. > > -- > Best regards, > Bruce > > > Tuesday, February 17, 2004, 4:53:36 PM, you wrote: > > SB> Well, there y'go ... never used a straight matte screen ... > > SB> What do you mean by "finer?" > > SB> Bruce Dayton wrote: > >> > >> Hello Shel, > >> > >> Some of us always preferred a straight matte screen even in manual > >> focus bodies. Whenever I have had a camera that could change focusing > >> screens I have always replaced the standard with a matte screen. > >> > >> The bigger problem with the AF camera screens is that they are > >> brighter and finer which can make focusing with the matte more > >> difficult. > >> > >> So far, on the PZ-1p, MZ-S, *ist and *istD I have had no trouble > >> focusing manually - that is my norm. > >> > >> Size of viewfinder can also have a negative effect - the ZX-M even > >> with focus aids was rather small. > >> > >> -- > >> Best regards, > >> Bruce > >> > >> Tuesday, February 17, 2004, 4:21:04 PM, you wrote: > >> > >> SB> I understood (and recall from looking) that the viewfinders > >> SB> on AF cameras don't have focusing aids, like the screens in > >> SB> the LX, et al, and therefore aren't as good for manual > >> SB> focusing. Can't recall a single AF viewfinder that had such > >> SB> aids. > >> > >> SB> Christian wrote: > >> >> > >> >> The VF in the ist-D is surprisingly good. I had an LX before the D and was > >> >> pretty spoiled (by 35mm standards). Compare the D to the Olympus E-1 or > >> >> Nikon D-100 and the D is the big winner. > >> >> > >> >> With a bright lens like the 85/1.8, it's gotta be operator error because I > >> >> have no problems focusing the D with a 300/4 with a 2x TC... and my eyes > >> >> are bad! > >> >> > >> >> Christian > >> >> > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> >> From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> >> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> >> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 4:32 PM > >> >> Subject: Re: SMCT 85 struggling on *istD? > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > I'd say you screwed up the focusing ... let's face it, from > >> >> > what I understand the VF in the newer cameras are not > >> >> > designed for manual focusing. > >> >> > > >> >> > > > >
