From: Paul Stenquist
On Oct 6, 2011, at 8:57 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
On 10/6/2011 5:33 PM, Stan Halpin wrote:
On Oct 6, 2011, at 4:43 PM, steve harley wrote:
on 2011-10-06 11:07 Bipin Gupta wrote
Someone suggested here on PDML use of good quality clear
packing tape on the LCD, like the one made by the 3M
company. CAUTION / ACHTUNG ! While removing it, considerable
force is required. Chances are you will pull the LCD screen
out if not careful. The LCD screen is stuck with double sided
tape to the camera body.
i use clear screen covers, fairly generic, with a much lighter
adhesive; there's no way they could pull as hard as packing
tape when removed; i also use this kind of thing on my phone
the one on my K200d was cut down from a larger piece, and has
worn slightly at the edges, but has lasted 28 months, so the
small expense was worth it, i think
I am not at all clear on the reasons for putting anything over
the LCD. Yeah, I know, it is for protection, but what is the
point? I put a protective screen on my iPhone when I bought it
3.25 years ago, and I may need to replace it in another year or
two. Probably replace the phone first. But that is a device that
I keep in my pocket along with car keys, coins, and other sharp
objects, and a device for which the screen is a primary
interface. I've never put anything of the sort on any of my
cameras, going back to my Optio 330, then *ist-D and on from
there. I don't treat my cameras with kid gloves but still have
never noticed any scratches etc. (other than nose grease). And if
there were a scratch, I can't see how it would affect the
functionality of the camera in any way. I just don't see why
anyone would bother with the mess and possible damage to the
camera.
Same reason people use UV filters, without any degradation to image
quality. Cheap insurance. A screen protector costs, at most, $5,
replacing an LCD is upwards of $150. It's a 1 in 30 payoff.
In regard to a UV filter, any piece of glass you put in front of the
lens degrades the image somewhat. And if it's a cheap UV filter, it
degrades it a considerable amount. Covering the LCD is kind of
pointless in that it's pretty hard to damage the LCD to the point
where it's not useable. I'm somewhat rough on equipment just because
I use it a lot in some tough environments, but I'e never noticed any
degradation of the LCD screen. Paul
OTOH, even a cheap UV filter doesn't degrade the image as much as a
scratched up front lens element. If the filter does get scratched up, a
filter is cheaper to replace than a lens.
That is not conjecture, it is bitter, hard learned, expensive experience.
Nor do you necessarily have to use a *cheap* UV filter. There are good
quality filters available for not that much greater cost than the cheap
ones, but it still costs less to replace a good quality UV filter than
it does to replace a lens.
I've never scratched up an LCD screen either.
I *have* scratched up the protective film I keep on the LCD. That's what
the protective film is there for.
Without the film I would likely have been paying to replace the LCD. A
scuffed up, scratched up LCD is difficult for me to read. It's not about
chimping the images, it's about can I read the damn menus and the
functional data.
When the protective film gets worn, I replace it, and I'm back to an LCD
screen I can read.
You gotta' do what works for you. I gotta' do what works for me. The
advantage of using the clear acetate tape has been that *IT WORKED* for
me. YMMV.
... and I've never had any problem with the LCD trying to pull out of
the body while I was replacing the protective film either.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
