Greetings
As a newcomer to the list, I have not seen the previous discussion on this
subject. However, I offer the following information comparing Olympus 2
series & Beattie screens, based on my own observations. I have an OM-4
body fitted with an Olympus 2-4 screen, and an OM-4Ti fitted with a Beattie
"all matt plus grid" screen. (I cannot comment on the merits or otherwise
of the split image of the 2-13, or the Beattie with this option, although
the comments below would most likely apply to these screens also. I assume
that apart from the centre split image, the matt areas of the 2-4 & 2-13,
and both Beatties, are the same.)
With a 50/f1.8, the Beattie shows slight darkening in the extreme corners,
but the 2-4 seems even across the entire finder. The 2-4 has a warmer
colour tint than the Beattie, and presents what may be perceived by some as
a more "pleasant" finder image. It is very difficult to say which is the
brighter; I would probably vote for the 2-4, but this may only be a
perception. The matt surface "grind" seems finer on the 2-4 screen, and it
appears to be able to resolve more detail than the Beattie, but there is
not a huge difference between them when using a 50mm lens.
With a 35/f2.8, the darkening in the corners of the Beattie screen becomes
slightly more noticeable. With a 28/f2.8, the darkening extends up and
down from the corners to include a small part of the left and right sides
of the finder. It gets worse with a 24/f2.8, and with a 21/f3.5, extends
from each side towards the centre, for about a quarter of the total width
of the finder.
The darkening is of course most apparent when working in dim light. It also
becomes more apparent when trying to use the depth of field preview. With
the 21/f3.5, using the depth of field preview at f11, it is almost
impossible to see detail in the edges of the finder in anything but good
light. On the other hand, the 2-4 screen shows no noticeable darkening
with any of the lenses mentioned above. In particular, when used with the
21/f3.5 & depth of field preview at f11, the edges of the finder appear
virtually as bright as the centre, allowing DOF effects to be easily seen.
For users who include foreground interest in their wide angle shots, & who
frequent rainforests (as I do) and other dim places, this could be a
significant factor to consider. IMHO, the 2-4 screen is a much better
performer when used with wide angle lenses, especially extreme wide angles.
With a Tamron SP 90/f2.5 macro lens, used from infinity to maximum
magnification (1:2), both screens appear to perform the same, with neither
being noticeably superior to the other. With a Zuiko 80/f4 mounted on a
Telescopic Auto Tube at maximum extension (magnification ratio 1:1), the
situation becomes reversed, and it is the 2-4 screen that starts to show
some slight darkening in the corners and left/right sides of the finder.
When used with this lens, the Beattie seems even across the entire finder.
Brightness appears the same, but the "coarseness" of the Beattie screen
becomes more noticeable at this magnification, and the 2-4 screen seems to
offer more clarity and image detail than the Beattie.
With a 300/4.5, darkening in the corners and on each side is again evident
with the 2-4 screen. The Beattie screen seems even across the entire
finder, brightness appears the same, but again the "coarseness" of the
Beattie screen becomes more noticeable, and the 2-4 screen seems to offer
more clarity and image detail than the Beattie. With a Zuiko 1.4X-A
converter added to the 300/f4.5 (effectively 420/f6.4), the darkening in
the corners and on each side appears to be about the same as with the 300mm
by itself (no noticeable worsening). The Beattie seems even across the
entire finder, brightness appears the same, but the "coarseness" of the
Beattie screen becomes even more noticeable. The 2-4 screen seems easier
to focus when used with this long focal length and slow aperture, probably
because of (what I perceive as) its greater clarity and image detail when
compared with the Beattie.
Overall, my preference is for the 2-4 screen. However, in normal to bright
conditions, there is probably little difference between them (except for
the greater clarity/finer surface of the 2-4 which I don't think I am
imagining). The other plus for the 2-4 is price, at least in Australia.
I'm not sure about current prices, but a couple of years ago, when the 2-4
screen sold for A$65.00, the Beattie screen was A$109.00.
The real dilemma is for users like me, who prefer a screen with a grid for
all of my photography, not just architectural shots. For this reason, I
have not yet replaced the Beattie with a 2-4. My ideal screen would be a
2-10 (2-4 with grid). I spoke to the Australian Olympus dealer about a
special order to have the Olympus factory etch a grid on to a 2-4 screen
(similar to the 1-10 screen). His reply was that the screens are not
etched subsequent to the moulding, but the grid is part of the
manufacturing process. He indicated that the factory may consider
producing a 2-10 screen if 1000 units were ordered. Are there 998 users
out there that need a 2-10 screen?
Ross Waite
Queensland, Australia
PS. Please excuse my ignorance, but could someone please explain what
"bokeh" is.
-----Original Message-----
From: John Petrush [SMTP:petrush@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 1999 12:45 PM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [OM] Focusing screen characteristics: OM 2-x series vs.
Beattie?
An archive search will reveal quite a bit of discussion on this. My take
on
it is it's a matter of personal preference. Both screens brighten the
finder image, but tastes vary about the "snap" and "bokeh" or the image.
YMMV.
John P
______________________________________
there is no "never" - just long periods of "not yet".
there is no "always" - just long periods of "so far".
Chip Stratton <cstrat@xxxxxxxxx> wondered:
>If anyone has directly compared the OM 2 series focusing screens to the
>Beattie, particularly with regard to their respective suitabilities for
use
>with not-so-fast telephoto lenses, I I would love to be educated.
.........
>Whats the collective wisdom on this?
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|