You are right about the "damage" of the cells, actually, it is not
mechanical damage, it is the original moulding problem, the defects
distributed on many parts of the screen. The OM707 screen was much better in
this area.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "ScottGee1" <scottgee1@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> First of all, excellent pix! Thanks for the effort!
>
> HATE it when I know I have something but can't find it.
> Coincidentally, I'm looking for a Haoda screen I bought for my dSLR
> and can't find it -- again.
>
> I wonder if the 2-13 screen is a bit damaged. There seems to be a bit
> of wear/breakdown on a lot of the hexagonal cells. The 1-1 is
> certainly the odd man out.
>
> Cheers!/Scottgee1
>
> On 3/2/07, C.H.Ling <ch_photo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> After spending two hours I still cannot locate my OM40 (it is a faulty
>> one).
>> I can only take the screen from OM707, it could have similar construction
>> as
>> the OM40, here is the comparison to the 2-13:
>>
>> OM707
>>
>> http://www.accura.com.hk/OM707a.jpg
>> http://www.accura.com.hk/OM707b.jpg
>>
>> 2-13
>>
>> http://www.accura.com.hk/2-13a.jpg
>> http://www.accura.com.hk/2-13b.jpg
>>
>> On the matte side they share the same cell size but look slightly
>> different
>> in shape even they are both hexagon. On the fresnel ring side the space
>> in
>> 2-13 is a little dense. I can't check them on one camera as the OM707
>> screen
>> does not fit to my OM4.
>>
>> And here is the 1-1 screen.
>>
>> http://www.accura.com.hk/1-1a.jpg
>> http://www.accura.com.hk/1-1b.jpg
>>
>> If I found my OM40 I will do it again.
>>
>> C.H.Ling
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
