[BruceBanner]

As my journey through using my Pentax gear progresses, I find myself loving manual focus glass more and more (not just the glass but the experience as well). Not only do I have quite a collection of lensbaby lenses but also now have added the wonderful Tak 50/1.4 (8 element) and the capable Tak 135/3.5. The only thing that really turns me off collecting more is the ease of focusing via the OVF (and I even have a Tenpa 1.22 to assist with that process, in honesty though it just magnifies the problem of the screen and doesn't overly massively help).

When I do use AF I actually use CDAF a lot more than PDAF. It's rare I use the OVF with AF, though of course its still a definite requirement. I find AF via LV to be very useful for close to mid range work and OVF superior for longer distances.

A lot of my work can be described as being a bit of a wide open junkie. Live View for sure is superior to OVF for this task, however a new oddity presented itself recently to me. I noticed when using my Takumar 50/1.4 that I was either getting more character or slightly duller exposure (certainly more natural wide open vignetting) via the OVF when shooting vs LV. In all honesty the shots taken with OVF felt like they had more character and charm. This was important to me because I was debating going for the Zacuto Live View thingy attachment, but that in combination with using LV maybe a tad too much (shorter battery life etc) and this lack of 'charm' from the LV shots has made me think twice about going down that route. Instead I think its really time I should consider a focus screen replacement for my K-1 (after all I still have the very capable KP to assist with standard AF shots).

I really want to hear from people who have replaced their screens. Was it worth it, is it a difficult procedure, are there clear instructions to making the swap, what challenges are there to be had before, during and after the swap. Pros and Cons and did you go back to the standard screen?

I tend to enjoy framing my subjects off centre, so I think unfortunately any of those prism style ones are off the table? Instead a superior matt version would be the only way forward for that kind of shooter, I'm guessing the S Type is the screen I should seek out?

Focusing Screen


Any feedback in this regard would be greatly appreciated.


Cheers,

BB

[stevebrot]

I have zero experience with the K-1, but can still offer a little advice...

I really want to hear from people who have replaced their screens. Was it worth it, is it a difficult procedure, are there clear instructions to making the swap, what challenges are there to be had before, during and after the swap. Pros and Cons and did you go back to the standard screen?

I have only done it on the K10D and K-3, but absolutely worth it on both cameras. Your main challenge will be shimming. The plastic "spacers" provided in the kit are difficult to actually use.

I tend to enjoy framing my subjects off centre, so I think unfortunately any of those prism style ones are off the table? Instead a superior matt version would be the only way forward for that kind of shooter, I'm guessing the S Type is the screen I should seek out?

You might want to research the S-type screens in the available Canon literature (LINK). They are finely tuned for the range f/1.8 - f/2.8 and dim very quickly at apertures narrower than f/2.8, with potential to effect metering with variable aperture zooms or tele converters. If you buy one, I suggest avoiding any grid lines. The laser etched lines will skew metering (they sort of glow) under dim conditions. I am a previous owner of a type-S with gridlines.

Of the various options, a horizontal split image will provide the highest sensitivity (ability to detect OOF), even at f/1.2.


Steve

[JensE]

I tend to enjoy framing my subjects off centre, so I think unfortunately any of those prism style ones are off the table? Instead a superior matt version would be the only way forward for that kind of shooter, I'm guessing the S Type is the screen I should seek out?

Normally not - used to be handled via focusing in the center & recomposing. There is a systematic error for a perfectly flat field at wider angles (cosine of the angle between subject and center of the image not close enough to 1 anymore), and a chance of a systematic error caused by field curvature of the lens, and a realistic chance that those two partially compensate each other.

[derekkite]

When I shot the K5 I used the Canon S screen, which worked very well. I tried one of the prism style, and it didn't work very well at all. There wasn't enough light available through the viewfinder. I don't know what the S one would do on the K1, but the K5 was pretty easy to change. At the time it was available with shims.

[beachgardener]

nice thread, be good to hear about all the options available.

[barondla]

As my journey through using my Pentax gear progresses, I find myself loving manual focus glass more and more (not just the glass but the experience as well). Not only do I have quite a collection of lensbaby lenses but also now have added the wonderful Tak 50/1.4 (8 element) and the capable Tak 135/3.5. The only thing that really turns me off collecting more is the ease of focusing via the OVF (and I even have a Tenpa 1.22 to assist with that process, in honesty though it just magnifies the problem of the screen and doesn't overly massively help).

When I do use AF I actually use CDAF a lot more than PDAF. It's rare I use the OVF with AF, though of course its still a definite requirement. I find AF via LV to be very useful for close to mid range work and OVF superior for longer distances.

A lot of my work can be described as being a bit of a wide open junkie. Live View for sure is superior to OVF for this task, however a new oddity presented itself recently to me. I noticed when using my Takumar 50/1.4 that I was either getting more character or slightly duller exposure (certainly more natural wide open vignetting) via the OVF when shooting vs LV. In all honesty the shots taken with OVF felt like they had more character and charm. This was important to me because I was debating going for the Zacuto Live View thingy attachment, but that in combination with using LV maybe a tad too much (shorter battery life etc) and this lack of 'charm' from the LV shots has made me think twice about going down that route. Instead I think its really time I should consider a focus screen replacement for my K-1 (after all I still have the very capable KP to assist with standard AF shots).

I really want to hear from people who have replaced their screens. Was it worth it, is it a difficult procedure, are there clear instructions to making the swap, what challenges are there to be had before, during and after the swap. Pros and Cons and did you go back to the standard screen?

I tend to enjoy framing my subjects off centre, so I think unfortunately any of those prism style ones are off the table? Instead a superior matt version would be the only way forward for that kind of shooter, I'm guessing the S Type is the screen I should seek out?

Focusing Screen


Any feedback in this regard would be greatly appreciated.


Cheers,

BB

I'll be watching this thread closely. I find the K-1 much more difficult to focus optically
than the K7, K10, or K20. The screen is very bright, but contrast is low.
Thanks
barondla

[BruceBanner]

I have zero experience with the K-1, but can still offer a little advice...



I have only done it on the K10D and K-3, but absolutely worth it on both cameras. Your main challenge will be shimming. The plastic "spacers" provided in the kit are difficult to actually use.



You might want to research the S-type screens in the available Canon literature (LINK). They are finely tuned for the range f/1.8 - f/2.8 and dim very quickly at apertures narrower than f/2.8, with potential to effect metering with variable aperture zooms or tele converters. If you buy one, I suggest avoiding any grid lines. The laser etched lines will skew metering (they sort of glow) under dim conditions. I am a previous owner of a type-S with gridlines.

Of the various options, a horizontal split image will provide the highest sensitivity (ability to detect OOF), even at f/1.2.


Steve

I think i heard about the shim issues before, is there anything to do to prepare in advance for the eventuality of it not going well? How did you get around it?

1.8-2.8 would be perfect, I rarely get past f4 through the OVF, a lot of my studio work where I might be between f4-8 is typically LV (and thus I take it LV is not affected at all with this change?

When I use my Lensbaby lenses, or the M42 in Av mode, the screen gets dimmer already when stopping down (because they do that 'permanent optical preview thing', which I actually prefer instead of having to toggle the optical preview switch with other manual focus glass. Given that this dimming already occurs with those lenses attached and the current stock screen, would the experience you are talking about worsen them further or is it more to do with lenses like FA77 and FA43 being affected this way?

Normally not - used to be handled via focusing in the center & recomposing. There is a systematic error for a perfectly flat field at wider angles (cosine of the angle between subject and center of the image not close enough to 1 anymore), and a chance of a systematic error caused by field curvature of the lens, and a realistic chance that those two partially compensate each other.

Ok, I don't understand a lot of that, but my experience to date with focus recompose is this;

At wide apertures its not good, if using spot focus and then recompose the focus is off, quick shift lenses help resolve and fine tune this change of focus but yeh, for f1.4-1.8 its problematic. For more stopped down apertures (2.8-4) then the focus recompose is fine, but you could as easily just manually focus with the subject off centre anyway because the DoF is more forgiving.

So I would have thought prisms would be difficult to do the focus and recompose thing, but having never tried it I'm just guessing here.

[stevebrot]

I think i heard about the shim issues before, is there anything to do to prepare in advance for the eventuality of it not going well? How did you get around it?

On the K10D, no shims were needed. With the K-3 this was not the case and neither the installed or the supplied plastic shims were appropriate. Fortunately, genuine Pentax shims for the K-3 were still available from Ricoh at that time and I was able to source those through an authorized service facility. Whether shims will be needed on your K-1 depends on the thickness of the replacement screen as compared to the stock screen. If the same, no shims will be needed. If different, the stock shim will need to be replaced by thicker or thinner stock.


Steve

[stevebrot]

When I use my Lensbaby lenses, or the M42 in Av mode, the screen gets dimmer already when stopping down (because they do that 'permanent optical preview thing', which I actually prefer instead of having to toggle the optical preview switch with other manual focus glass. Given that this dimming already occurs with those lenses attached and the current stock screen, would the experience you are talking about worsen them further or is it more to do with lenses like FA77 and FA43 being affected this way?

All lenses would be effected, both for open-aperture and stop-down aperture metering. The meter reads off the focus screen and if its brightness in lighter or darker than expected for a given amount of light, the meter reading will be inappropriate. Usually this would not be a problem and is something that may be tested once the screen is installed.


Steve

[JensE]

At wide apertures its not good, if using spot focus and then recompose the focus is off, quick shift lenses help resolve and fine tune this change of focus but yeh, for f1.4-1.8 its problematic.

What I meant was to focus using the manual focus aids such as e.g. a micro-prism around the center, not autofocus. I'm referring to my experience with non-AF cameras. My most used lenses both opened to f/1.8 ...

[Tas]

I really want to hear from people who have replaced their screens. Was it worth it, is it a difficult procedure, are there clear instructions to making the swap, what challenges are there to be had before, during and after the swap. Pros and Cons and did you go back to the standard screen?I tend to enjoy framing my subjects off centre, so I think unfortunately any of those prism style ones are off the table? Instead a superior matt version would be the only way forward for that kind of shooter, I'm guessing the S Type is the screen I should seek out?

Good afternoon BB,

I hope you are able to breathe okay with all that smoke down your way of late.

I think this topic keeps coming up as the motivation to use manual glass remains an enjoyable part of photography. I started getting serious with manual lenses with my K5 and that was when I decided to install an S type screen for the first time. Some points to consider if you choose to take this path:

• Whilst it's not hard to do, it's not recommended by Ricoh on the K-1 but the process is simple. I acknowledge their recommendation but don't regret choosing to install an S type as it's helped me a lot with my manual lenses.
• The instructions are accessible on the Focusing screen website. They show an older model of camera in the images but it's basically the same locking mechanism that you unclip to access the OVF.
• The standard OVF screen uses shims that are not likely to work with an S type screen, as I've experienced with both my K5 and K-1.
• In both cases it was simply a matter of preparing to test the OVF after installing it. This way you can make any adjustments quickly in one go.
• I used the issued kit that came with the screen, but it wouldn't hurt to have some rubber gloves handy as they only issue rubber booties to slide over your fingers when handling the screen. The supplied plastic tweezers worked fine too.
• It is VERY easy to introduce dust into the OVF. Dust is really annoying, so aim for a clean environment, no wind, fans etc. I have seen a recommendation to do the handling of the screen in the bathroom after running hot water to steam up the room a bit before changing the screen. The steam will aid in controlling the dust. I didn't do this and got dust in my K5 OVF. I didn't do it with the K-1 but was more careful and seem to have avoided it this time.
• After fitting the screen in both cameras the focus test identified I had to swap the shims. Again, very simple to do, but again, be cognisant of managing dust. Once I swapped to one of the issued nylon shims the focus was spot on in both instances (K5 & K-1). I have not had issues with the camera from using the nylon shims. Yet.
• The S type screen made a huge difference when it comes to seeing what was in focus with manual glass.
• I regularly shoot manual lenses at apertures around f2 as well as f4 and f5.6. I can't tell if the S type screen is darker than the standard one with the smaller apertures as I've only ever had one camera and just got on with shooting. I personally haven't found it a disadvantage.
• Do not opt for etched versions of the screen, the only inconsistent exposures that I've had were in the K5 which was an etched version with framing and focusing thingys. They were handy and I could adapt to the exposure issue but can't recommend them.
• If you try it and don't like it, you can just go back to using the standard OVF screen and on-sell your S type.

Hope this is the type of feedback to help you decide, I definitely recommend installing an S type screen, but there's plenty around forum members here who would disagree.


All the best mate.

Tas

[BruceBanner]

Good afternoon BB,

I hope you are able to breathe okay with all that smoke down your way of late.

I think this topic keeps coming up as the motivation to use manual glass remains an enjoyable part of photography. I started getting serious with manual lenses with my K5 and that was when I decided to install an S type screen for the first time. Some points to consider if you choose to take this path:

• Whilst it's not hard to do, it's not recommended by Ricoh on the K-1 but the process is simple. I acknowledge their recommendation but don't regret choosing to install an S type as it's helped me a lot with my manual lenses.
• The instructions are accessible on the Focusing screen website. They show an older model of camera in the images but it's basically the same locking mechanism that you unclip to access the OVF.
• The standard OVF screen uses shims that are not likely to work with an S type screen, as I've experienced with both my K5 and K-1.
• In both cases it was simply a matter of preparing to test the OVF after installing it. This way you can make any adjustments quickly in one go.
• I used the issued kit that came with the screen, but it wouldn't hurt to have some rubber gloves handy as they only issue rubber booties to slide over your fingers when handling the screen. The supplied plastic tweezers worked fine too.
• It is VERY easy to introduce dust into the OVF. Dust is really annoying, so aim for a clean environment, no wind, fans etc. I have seen a recommendation to do the handling of the screen in the bathroom after running hot water to steam up the room a bit before changing the screen. The steam will aid in controlling the dust. I didn't do this and got dust in my K5 OVF. I didn't do it with the K-1 but was more careful and seem to have avoided it this time.
• After fitting the screen in both cameras the focus test identified I had to swap the shims. Again, very simple to do, but again, be cognisant of managing dust. Once I swapped to one of the issued nylon shims the focus was spot on in both instances (K5 & K-1). I have not had issues with the camera from using the nylon shims. Yet.
• The S type screen made a huge difference when it comes to seeing what was in focus with manual glass.
• I regularly shoot manual lenses at apertures around f2 as well as f4 and f5.6. I can't tell if the S type screen is darker than the standard one with the smaller apertures as I've only ever had one camera and just got on with shooting. I personally haven't found it a disadvantage.
• Do not opt for etched versions of the screen, the only inconsistent exposures that I've had were in the K5 which was an etched version with framing and focusing thingys. They were handy and I could adapt to the exposure issue but can't recommend them.
• If you try it and don't like it, you can just go back to using the standard OVF screen and on-sell your S type.

Hope this is the type of feedback to help you decide, I definitely recommend installing an S type screen, but there's plenty around forum members here who would disagree.


All the best mate.

Tas

I'm just gonna post my K-1 to you...

[barondla]

see :

focusingscreen.com - PentaxForums.com

--and

Will a different focusing screen help? - PentaxForums.com

here's some other out-of-context quips I've posted earlier on the same subject:

=====

The problem with this kind of discussion is that people tend to assume autofocus in all situations. I had a similar problem and I found it difficult to communicate the idea of actual manual focus, i.e., focusing by peeking through the viewfinder and rotating the focusing ring on the lens without any appeal to the camera's intelligence. After more research, I discovered that this matches the assumptions of the DSLR makers. Pentax doesn't even use the phrase, "focusing screen" for that part that makes the scene visible in the viewfinder. It's called a "fresnel" because it's got a bit of magnification to make the viewfinder image bigger, but there's no suggestion anywhere that you could use the viewfinder to focus the image. I found one place where they said that the purpose of the viewfinder is to generally know what the camera's pointed at.

I've stopped trying, it's practically impossible for me, with or without glasses. My solution was to "go with the flow" and make sure all my lenses are properly "calibrated" and use AF all the time, imprecise and slow as it is.

I don't understand why people want a system that's harder to use, slower, and fuzzier than what you can do with a good split-image focusing screen and manual focus. To me the only real advantage to the DSLR lies in the elimination of film-related inconvenience and expense. I can take a couple hundred pictures without having to change rolls, I can see what I've done right quick, and I don't have to mess with chemicals.

=====

Having checked fairly recently, I'd say that FocusingScreen.com is the only option. But I don't recommend it. There are no split image focusing screens made for Pentax. What FocusingScreen sells are Canon screens that are pretty close to the correct dimensions, cut down to fit (in two of the three dimensions - the Z axis may vary wildly from what will fit in the camera). I put one in a K-50 that worked pretty well, and I got one for the K-1 which was a disaster - could not be used to focus at all because it was too thick. Even where it goes well, the installation is too much trouble, and their "shims" (needed to adjust for front/back focus) are really flimsy having been made of thin plastic. The ones I got were bent up (and could not be straightened).

I've also learned since then that Pentax cameras' light-sensing meter is directly fed by that central point in the screen which will be distorted by the use of the split-image screen. Pentax doesn't even refer to the thing as a "focusing screen", by the way, and it appears to me that they have no intention of your really being able to do manual focusing using the viewfinder. They refer to the thing as a "fresnel", because it isn't "ground glass" (they're all plastic anymore), it's actually got a graduated diffraction grating that has a magnifying effect, presumably acting as a Fresnel lens. ("Fray-nell", named for the French guy who invented it - a stepped lens with multiple sections, having the same effect as a larger conventional convex or concave lens, but with a flatter aspect.)

This is my very best favorite pet peeve about Pentax cameras - I've always been a manual focus guy, and I don't like it that they've made it so hard to do, especially now that my eyesight is beginning to go. I feel like I've been tricked, and I don't like it. But, oh, well, I'm learning to use "autofocus", which by my lights will never be as good as manual focus can be, but then it will work well enough for the average snapshot taker, and I guess that's good enough for modern marketing. (Grumble, grumble.)

=====

"In that case you could exchange the plane focus screen with a spilt screen. I havn't done it myself but I think I have read it is possible."

I have tried it. In the K-1, it was a disaster. The screen I got from "FocusingScreen.com" was a cut-down Canon screen that is smaller in width and length but thicker than the original. Just plain wrong size. Attempting to use the split-screen focusing aid was what got me to worrying about this (with concomitant testing and analysis) in the first place.

=====

"If focus is not right when manually focusing it's because the viewfinder focusing screen is not in the right place and needs to be shimmed, or the mirror is in mis-aligned. Having said that, the default focusing screens in DSLRs can't usually be relied upon to be accurate below f/4 or so, so unless you're using a very precise split-screen or similar specialised focusing screen then I wouldn't expect to be able to accurately focus with it, especially at f/1.2.
When you add shims, they go between the focusing screen and the prism - i.e. they decrease the distance between the focusing screen and the mirror, which moves the plane of focus forward. If the camera is already front-focusing, adding shims will only make it worse."

I suspect that Pentax shares your view regarding precise focusing using the viewfinder - hence, they no longer refer to "focusing screen", but call it a "fresnel" (theirs has a diffraction grating that provides a little magnification, a-la a fresnel lens). Documentation about cameras on the InterNet now all talk about viewfinders in terms of being able to see what the camera's pointing at, rather than the ability to focus the lens. In fact, there is a large number of so-called external viewfinders, which couldn't possibly help at all.

So my view is that they've done to cameras what's been done to telephones - the addition of new technology apparently designed to interfere with the effective use of the tool. I don't think that people don't talk on the 'phone much anymore not because they have suddenly developed an aversion to speech, but because using a telephone has become WAAAY too complicated and inconvenient. (Part of the "deep state" conspiracy to keep the peasants from being able to inform each other about the evils of politics, no doubt.)

Even at my advanced age and failing eyesight, I can still focus visually much better than any autofocus system I've seen - not necessarily more precisely, but faster and more accurately. With a real camera (i.e., 35mm SLR), since my left hand is already on the focusing ring and my eye to the viewfinder, focusing is done before I even have the thought to do something. With the K-1 for example, I push the button and wait for the lens to respond, and by the time it's found something, it's the wrong something or the proposed subject's already gone. Even with a manual winder, I could have taken three well-focused pictures with a Canon AE-1 in the time it takes to get one picture in focus with the K-1. (Naturally, a small prime lens can be brought into focus much faster than a long telephoto zoom lens. I'm thinking "on average", here.)

One might argue that I can still use the lenses in "manual mode", I can have my hand on the focusing ring, and so forth, but that's all wasted because the viewfinder has been designed merely to show me what the camera's pointing at. Actually attempting to focus the lens using the viewfinder (the main reason I wanted an optical viewfinder, and a big reason why I've got the K-1) is pointless (by design).

=====

Fascinating information. It seems Pentax has made viewfinder brightness more important than contrast. I find my Pentax LX easier to manually focus than the K-1. Have all the DSLR manufacturers crippled their viewfinder focusing? Perhaps Canon hasn't since we are using their focusing screen.
thanks,
barondla

[gaweidert]

I miss the old film era focusing screens. The micro prism screens were awesome. Manual focus was fast and accurate. The image would literally pop into focus when you nailed it. Wide aperture lenses originally were meant to aid focusing in low light situations. They were never expected to be sharp corner to corner when wide open. That is a more modern concept.

[stevebrot]

After fitting the screen in both cameras the focus test identified I had to swap the shims. Again, very simple to do, but again, be cognisant of managing dust. Once I swapped to one of the issued nylon shims the focus was spot on in both instances (K5 & K-1).

That is good to know. Apparently they have changed their choice of materials since my March 2014 purchase. The included shims at that time were very flexible and difficult to position in the shim holder, they kept falling out. Thickness was close, but not spot on, though I was able to get correct focus using factory shims.

Focusingscreen makes a good product and despite my problems, I still recommend them as an option for aftermarket screens with the caution that they don't refund opened goods and post-sale support may be a little thin. The other option being to do the cut-down yourself from readily-available Canon or Nikon screens and figure out a way to craft your own shims.

Steve