[gaweidert]

I'm a veteran Pentax user, starting with an Asahi Pentax S purchased before either the Nikon F or the Canonflex were released in the USA. I learned on, remain comfortable with, and greatly miss the all-microprism center spot. Switched my LX to such a screen very quickly, as I could not quite get used the split image circle. But, microprisms, like the split image wedge, don't work well when the aperture gets small. The deep downside of changing the screen of a DSLR: it can impact exposure accuracy, and may shut you out of some metering options.

Veteran Pentax user here too. I really miss the micro prism screen myself. A awesome focusing aid. Mastering auto-focus has been a bit of a challenge for me. I would love a K1 with an older full size viewfinder and no auto focus at all. Just those wonderful old focusing screens. I know it will never happen, but I can dream. In the meanwhile, I continue to learn to use the tools that I have.

[stevebrot]

I'd like to know personal experience with the screens I mentioned above. Is it possible to get very accurate focusing with the S-type screen? Or maybe for very accurate focusing, it's still better to get a screen with a split image section?

I apparently was not clear above. The S-type lives up to the claims. I owned one. Focus pops quite nicely. Unfortunately, it is tuned for use with lenses f/1.8 to f/2.8 maximum aperture and does not work very well with slower lenses (dark and grainy appearance). Several users on this site swear by the S-type screen. Split image screens on the K-1 and K-3 behave the same as on a film camera. They offer excellent sensitivity and high precision and are very usable from f/1.2 to about f/4, below which the split image blacks out. Note that the split-image requires a vertical line at right angles to the split for full precision and sensitivity.

Neither the S-Type or a split-image will be accurate if the calibration is bad.

I would like also to ask about the adjusting a screen. Is it true that because a screen is placed in a camera with matte side upwards, there is actually no need to adjust the screen?

Ummm...no...the matte side should be at the focal plane as reflected by the mirror (i.e. facing down). Adjustment to that point is provided by a shim located between the screen and the bottom face of the pentaprism. Adding thickness to the shim places the face of the screen closer to the lens. Removing thickness places the screen further away.

Only when an initial adjusting with a standard screen is poor then it is necessary to use some shims.

Ummm...no...The calibration of the original screen in the camera will only stay the same if the replacement screen is exactly the same thickness.

Sorry about all the "no" words, but based on your comments, I am not sure you will get the result you desire with a different screen. I have reviewed your posting history and found that you have plenty of experience with aftermarket screens on Pentax cameras that includes personal experience with the S-type screen as well as a split-image you were quite taken with. You can expect similar experience on your K-1 as on your K-3.

As for the overly large AF points...Try some controlled testing with the lenses in question using manual focus and magnified live view with the camera on tripod at 3m and 15m with a fixed subject and see if your results improve. Last year at this time you were perfectly happy with your FA* 80-200/2.8 on the K-1.

You Tube

You Tube

Steve

[skyer]

I apparently was not clear above. The S-type lives up to the claims. I owned one. Focus pops quite nicely. Unfortunately, it is tuned for use with lenses f/1.8 to f/2.8 maximum aperture and does not work very well with slower lenses (dark and grainy appearance).

I don't have lenses slower than f2.8, so it's OK to me.

Note that the split-image requires a vertical line at right angles to the split for full precision and sensitivity.

Of course, I'm aware of this, thank you!

Ummm...no...the matte side should be at the focal plane as reflected by the mirror (i.e. facing down).

You see, to me it's still not very clear. Some say a screen should be placed facing down, others - facing up. I asked the same question about calibration via the question form on a focusingscreen.com website. Here is the answer I received:
"Theoretically,changing focusing screen because matte face and split-image position is same focus will not any change."

Sorry about all the "no" words, but based on your comments, I am not sure you will get the result you desire with a different screen. I have reviewed your posting history and found that you have plenty of experience with aftermarket screens on Pentax cameras that includes personal experience with the S-type screen as well as a split-image you were quite taken with. You can expect similar experience on your K-1 as on your K-3.

It's good of you!
Yes, I tried the Canon EG-S and Nikon F6-A screens on my previous camera, K-3. I liked the F6-A screen much more. The only problem I had was that I couldn't calibrate it 100%. I was using it, as you say, with a matte side facing down.
Now I have a K-1. I could use the same F6-A screen but I don't sure it can fit the camera. Focusingscreen.com has both screens, F6-A and EG-S, for sale for K-3 but only EG-S for K-1. (By the way, all screens in this webstore are not already cut, they are cut only after an order is made.)
So it looks like that all it's left is the EG-S screen. And the reason I'm thinking of uding it on a K-1 is because now I can do manual focusing with a standard screen with some lenses (77 @1.8) quite easily. However with other lenses I can't focus at all (FA*85 @1.4-2.0, FA*80-200 @2.8). So I thought the EG-S on a K-1 can give a different experience than on a K-3.

As for the overly large AF points...Try some controlled testing with the lenses in question using manual focus and magnified live view with the camera on tripod at 3m and 15m with a fixed subject and see if your results improve. Last year at this time you were perfectly happy with your FA* 80-200/2.8 on the K-1.

Of course, manual focusing in LV will be more accurate. However, I don't like using LV with DSLR cameras, at least without a tripod.
As for good autofocus with my K-1 and FA*80-200, it is still true. Unfortunately, it almost always corresponds to shooting at rather close distances (~ up to 3m). (To be honest, I don't shoot at far distances very often.) Also there are situations when almost any AF system can fail but manual focusing can easily success. Yes, and I like the experience of focusing with my Pentax Super Program. I'd like to replicate it to my K-1 experience.

[Bengan]

You see, to me it's still not very clear. Some say a screen should be placed facing down, others - facing up. I asked the same question about calibration via the question form on a focusingscreen.com website. Here is the answer I received:"Theoretically,changing focusing screen because matte face and split-image position is same focus will not any change."

I found (and I think Steve will agree with me) that there is no point in trying to put any questions to focusingsscreen.com. Customer support is not their strong suite. You should trust Steve in his reply. He knows what he's talking about. You should also expect to have to switch shims (probably a thinner one) when you change to a cut down Canon or Nikon screen.


I'm using the S-type screen in booth my K-3 and K-5II and in my opinion it works well even with slower lenses. In fact I have increased my manual precision with the Adaptall 500 mirror f8 lens using the S-type ( I might be one of the sworn in S-type users).

[skyer]

I found (and I think Steve will agree with me) that there is no point in trying to put any questions to focusingsscreen.com. Customer support is not their strong suite. You should trust Steve in his reply. He knows what he's talking about. You should also expect to have to switch shims (probably a thinner one) when you change to a cut down Canon or Nikon screen.


I'm using the S-type screen in booth my K-3 and K-5II and in my opinion it works well even with slower lenses. In fact I have increased my manual precision with the Adaptall 500 mirror f8 lens using the S-type ( I might be one of the sworn in S-type users).

I trust Steve. He is a respected forum member who shared lots of valuable information with other members. I just say that some people claim that they somehow install their screens with a matte side facing up.
As for the shims, what would you say about an experience of some people who raise a thikness of their screens not by shims but by adhrsive tape? It looks like it would be easier with the tape.

[Bengan]

As for the shims, what would you say about an experience of some people who raise a thikness of their screens not by shims but by adhrsive tape? It looks like it would be easier with the tape.

I would definitely go with shims and with Pentax metal ones, not the plastic supplied from focusingscreen.com. The rather time consuming work that you will have to put in calibrating your screen is made easier with proper shims.

[stevebrot]

You should trust Steve in his reply. He knows what he's talking about.

I try my best. Skyer may remember from his last screen swap that it is not possible to install the screen upside down. The only time it becomes an issue is when one cuts their own screen.

As for the shims...The calibration should be the same for both matte and split-image screens, assuming screens are the same thickness. Such would be the case for any of the Canon-derived screens that focusingscreen offers for the K-1. They might not be the same thickness as the Pentax screen on the K-1. That is why the standard reply and conventional wisdom of the screen wizards on this site is to always evaluate focus calibration after screen installation and to not be surprised if adjustment is indicated.*

If the need to adjust shims is detected, that is where things get very strange. The good people at focusingscreen usually supply a small assortment of unmarked flexible plastic shims with the screen. My experience has been that those are very difficult to work with. A proper metal shim makes a world of difference, but such is not available for the K-1 as a part from Ricoh/Pentax, except perhaps, through an authorized repair shop.

Perhaps some day someone will accidentally drop and kill their K-1 in the parking lot and will have the presence of mind to salvage the shim before disposing of the carcass. A proper machinist could craft a die using that factory shim as a template so that quality metal shims might be made available independent of Pentax channels.


Steve

* Sometimes the screen has not been properly seated in the carrier frame. That may also result in poor performance. If initial checks against live view are bad, always re-seat the screen and check again before pulling the shim from its carrier.

[skyer]

Steve, can it be that your knowledge on mounting a focusing screen may be not correct?
I found another post where it is said that a focusing screen should be placed with a matte side facing up - split prism focusing screen for Z-1p / PZ-1p - PentaxForums.com

Some say that some focusing screens from different generations of Pentax cameras are perfectly interchangeable. I'm wondering, maybe a focusing screen from LX or MZ-M could easily fit my K-1?..

[KX-Digital]

...

Some say that some focusing screens from different generations of Pentax cameras are perfectly interchangeable. I'm wondering, maybe a focusing screen from LX or MZ-M could easily fit my K-1?..

Well I know my answer here is a bit late. I am a Pentax user since 1993 when I bought a Z-1, that is the non-US version of th PZ-1. Before that I was using a Ricoh KR-10super (since 1987) which having a K-mount is one reason I got the Z-1 in the first place (as I could keep using my lenses which at that time included a Vivitar 400/5.6, a Panagor 24/2.5 and an M42-lens) and the other reasons were that I wanted depth-of-field-preview, AE-lock button, spotmetering (for using with the zone system) shutterspeedpriority-AE, mostly for use with long lenses, and preferably half-stop shutterspeeds all of which the Z-1 offered and the Ricoh didn't. Most of these the Ricoh XR-X offered also but I had heard bad things about it. The Z-1 did have one negative aspect which is the built-in Motortransport (I'd rather have a separate winder/motordrive) and I had no use for the autofocus as building quality of manual-focus lenses was way better (and I had 2 failing on me too, both Sigma brand) and I could perfectly focus with manual-focus camera's I'd used before.

Now where the Z-1 disappointed is that it was impossible to focus manually with the built-in focusing-screen. I did buy the screen with the marking for the spot-metering but as for focussing it was no better. For years I used the focus-indicator-led but that was awkward and slow.

Now about half a year later I got a KX, mostly because it is a mechanical camera and j loved it because it had a proper focusing-screen.

In 2009 I finally made the step to digital with a K200d which did disappoint me for the focussing and when I read about alternative focusing-screens, from eBay, Katz-Eye and Focusingscreens.com I purchased an Ec-L type from the last one which I have been happy about ever since.

Now over time I also got me a worn-out MX and an LX and i read the screens if the MX fit in the LX too. This was officially supported by Pentax but the older MX screens are a bit darker and the newer were available in more and better variants.

Now over time i started to realise i did no longer like the K200d so much, not only because of the unreliable autofocus, but also because I couldn't use my lenses the way I did before and because the aps-c viewfinder is so small.

Last year I was reading here on Pentax forums about people cutting screens from defect ME-super to fit them in their aps-c Pentaxes.

Now last December I realized that what I didn't like about the Z-1 was in the first place the focusing-screen and that I did have a good screen in my defect MX, wondered if it might fit in the Z-1and wouldn't lose even if it didn't.

And to my surprise the MX screen perfectly fits the Z-1. I don't know if the light-meter is affected (the LX is holy in this respect) but that can be compensated for (or one can use another meter) and so far I have not found any noticeable difference in the exposure.

Now all the Pentaxes basically have the same system of replacing the focusing-screen so I wouldn't be surprised if these screens also fit the K-1.

[skyer]

KX-Digital, I guess your assumption onl focusing screens, relating the K-1, is wrong.
What I found in various posts on different forums is the following:

Pentax K-1: 38,25x26 mm
Canon Ee-S: 38,5x26,3
Leica R4-R7: 37x24
Pentax LX: 35,2x25 (36х25)
Pentax MZ-M: 35x24,5
Nikon F6: 38x27
Minolta X-700: 37x25
Zenit 19: 37х25

[KX-Digital]

...
Now last December I realized that what I didn't like about the Z-1 was in the first place the focusing-screen and that I did have a good screen in my defect MX, wondered if it might fit in the Z-1and wouldn't lose even if it didn't.

And to my surprise the MX screen perfectly fits the Z-1. I don't know if the light-meter is affected (the LX is holy in this respect) but that can be compensated for (or one can use another meter) and so far I have not found any noticeable difference in the exposure.

Now all the Pentaxes basically have the same system of replacing the focusing-screen so I wouldn't be surprised if these screens also fit the K-1.

KX-Digital, I guess your assumption onl focusing screens, relating the K-1, is wrong.
What I found in various posts on different forums is the following:

Pentax K-1: 38,25x26 mm
...
Pentax LX: 35,2x25 (36х25)
...

I do indeed need to correct my assumption. Although the MX-screen fits perfectly in my Z-1, the SA-21 (for the LX) i recently purchased certainly does not fit the Z-1. The short end is about half a mm wider (i measured them but forgot the actual values) than the SC-1 (for the MX). The standard screen of the LX, the SC-21 is halfway in between and doesn't fit in the Z-1 either. I am now considering purchasing an SA-1 or getting the diagonal split-image screen from a defect ME SE or K1000SE (which unfortunately both were never sold in Europe so postage will cost a lot)

If the screen of the K-1 is indeed larger, then the LX screen may still fit in. It might be that it shifts or doesn't centre exactly but as the frame that should hold it locks it in place it might be fine. 3mm difference in with is a lot though, i doubt the frame is wide enough to compensate that.

As for the other brands you mention, I know the Minolta screen is thicker. The Canon Ee-S might be adapted by sanding off a bit on the edges but then i recommend getting a screen from focusingscreen.com

[skyer]

A few days ago I replaced the focusing screen of my Z-1p on the screen from MZ-M. Their dimensions are absolutely the same. Then I compared the spare screen with my other spare screen from the K-1. The K-1's focusing screen is visibly larger.

[KX-Digital]

A few days ago I replaced the focusing screen of my Z-1p on the screen from MZ-M. Their dimensions are absolutely the same. Then I compared the spare screen with my other spare screen from the K-1. The K-1's focusing screen is visibly larger.

Then i might need to put a defunct MZ-M on my list, just to get another screen. Unless the screen of the K-1 is seriously better than the other Pentax screens since they adapted autofocus. Otherwise the best bet in a Canon screen.

[Darkover]

Note that the split-image requires a vertical line at right angles to the split for full precision and sensitivity.

There was a cross-split-screen from Canon L many years ago. Unfortunatly I cut it down many years ago for my istD.

Olaf

[felixkh]

Use the shims that are supplied by focussingscreen.com and they will work.

A gross friend bought this Focusing Screen and he installed the shim as instructed and all worked well for the replaced screen.