Hi Ross,
I have the similar finding as you, the Beattie does not work with my Zuiko
16mm so I sold it. I also found the corner darkening of OM 2 series screen
with long lenses.
Anyone interested to use a grid screen can try the Minolta 7000i "L" screen,
it works well with my OM4Ti without modification needed. Brightness similar
to Beattie and does not darken with wide lenses.
C.H.Ling
-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Waite <rmwaite@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: 'olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx' <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, July 07, 1999 6:53 PM
Subject: RE: [OM] Focusing screen characteristics: OM 2-x series vs.
Beattie?
>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.
>
>
< 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 >
|