Split screen focus...

bobD · 01-14-2009, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by wildlifephotog

I take frosted scotch tape and put a piece on each side of the screen.
The 15mm X 25mm size is then drawn lightly with pencil after marking the center of the ME screen. I then use a 1" X 42" belt sander and sand the screen down to the lines.
Very carefully lift off the tape, and the screen is ready. Scotch tape is the best. It does not leave a residue when only lightly pressed down. The tape not only gives a drawing surface, it also protects the screen from damage.
The ME Super screens have worked fine in my Pentax digitals. Focus, exposure and DOF are spot on.
Here is where I originally learned how to do the screens.
greyhoundman's ramblings: October 2006

Thanks alot for this tip. I have a spare split-screen for my MX .

Some years ago I replaced it with a gridded screen (really wanted a matte screen but couldn't find one here in N.Z.) as the split screen blacked out too often.

Might put the split-screen back in the MX and mod the gridded one.
Thanks again.

Gooneybird · 01-24-2009, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by wildlifephotog

First multiply the lens length ( 40mm ) by the power of the scope ( 20, 30, 60X ). This gives you the effective focal length.

Now you divide that number by the aperture of the scope, 80mm.

The resulting numbers will be the f stop value for that setup of camera lens, and telescope.

I would say the split screen will black out at f 7-8 with the optibrite coating. A normal screen blacks out at about f 5.6 or so.

Well, now I can respond with some proven facts. I received the Katz Eye split screen device and installed it in my K10D and proceeded to run tests with every lens in my collection. The Katz Eye that I ordered did NOT have the optibrite coating and it works without any blacking out on everything I own and tested. That INCLUDES the Swarovski Spotting AT-80HD at 20X. So, as far as I'm concerned, all the mathematical explanations are not verifyable, and I'm off to enjoy my new toy rather than argue.

Thanks but let's quit being too picky.

Olin

m8o · 01-24-2009, 06:33 PM

Timely bump to this thread. I too received it recently (about 1.5 weeks ago) but only had time to install & use it today. I too got it sans optibrite and sans Pentax AF focus points. My findings are...

In good light, it's all it's cracked up to be. The split prism usually takes longer for me to find the right focus than the microprism collar, and feedback is really good in either case.

However in the light I like to shot in the most, wide aperture dim indoor lighting from either indirect ambient natural light or incandescent, it's almost as difficult to focus with the katzeye as with the stock screen. In this level of light 1/2 of the split screen is noticeably darkened even w/a f/2.5 A lens, meaning when focusing wide open. Also in that case, the micro-prism collar is pretty much useless. Makes sense I guess in that when light is low, contrast is low, so the effect provided by the micro-prism collar is greatly diminished. In this level of light, I use the split screen, and find a point on my subject where it will work, which itself can lead to focus inaccuracies as large distance re-composition at wide aperture often moves my critical focus point too much.

...revisiting katzeye's site, I see the optibrite is intended to enhance focus accuracy in these types of conditions; low light or small aperture. But because of the reports of metering inaccuracies, I didn't go for it; also I didn't think that treatment was applied to the collar. ...if it is applied to the collar, I'm aggravated now that I didn't get Optibrite, as I was really looking forward for the micro-prism to provide me a 'snap in-focus' effect under dim indoor lighting conditions with wide aperture.

I haven't used any AF lenses yet.

Hope all interested find this useful.

Jewelltrail · 01-24-2009, 11:04 PM

Quote:

M80: However in the light I like to shot in the most, wide aperture dim indoor lighting from either indirect ambient natural light or incandescent, it's almost as difficult to focus with the katzeye as with the stock screen. In this level of light 1/2 of the split screen is noticeably darkened even w/a f/2.5 A lens, meaning when focusing wide open. Also in that case, the micro-prism collar is pretty much useless. Makes sense I guess in that when light is low, contrast is low, so the effect provided by the micro-prism collar is greatly diminished. In this level of light, I use the split screen, and find a point on my subject where it will work, which itself can lead to focus inaccuracies as large distance re-composition at wide aperture often moves my critical focus point too much.

...revisiting katzeye's site, I see the optibrite is intended to enhance focus accuracy in these types of conditions; low light or small aperture. But because of the reports of metering inaccuracies, I didn't go for it; also I didn't think that treatment was applied to the collar. ...if it is applied to the collar, I'm aggravated now that I didn't get Optibrite, as I was really looking forward for the micro-prism to provide me a 'snap in-focus' effect under dim indoor lighting conditions with wide aperture.

So far, though I am still testing, my observations on the Katzeye screen agree with yours--concerning low-light shooting. I went for the Optibrite, but am yet to see any of its benefits in low-light. I have not shot outdoors, in good light yet. So, my initial impression is not good and I have some lenses where the split-prism is blacking out from f 4 all the way down the aperture scale. However, I also have other lenses where there is no blackout at all--throughout the aperture range.

Anyway, reading at the Katzeye site I learn the optibrite treatment ONLY affects the matte portion of the screen--this much is clear. The following is taken directly from their site:

"The OptiBrite treatment is an improvement in the light transmission efficiency of the matte (ground glass) portions of the screen, while the "Plus" refers to our unique prism design that delays the ’blackout’ phenomenon without sacrificing focusing precision. The OptiBrite process has no effect on the prism, only the matte surface."

Nick1946 · 01-25-2009, 09:32 AM

Interesting reading about the Katzeye and Chinese alternative. I'll throw in another-has anyone heard of or used the Haoda screen? It is shown on their website for $72 + $5 shipping in the US. Just curious.

thanks
Nick

Jewelltrail · 01-25-2009, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Interesting reading about the Katzeye and Chinese alternative. I'll throw in another-has anyone heard of or used the Haoda screen? It is shown on their website for $72 + $5 shipping in the US. Just curious.

thanks
Nick

Thank you Nick! I have two weeks to return the Katzeye and I may just do that. I am going to research this Haoda screen when I get a minute. Thanks for the help.

**keithlester** · 01-26-2009, 09:05 AM

Methinks folk are expecting the katzeye screen to be a magic bullet that will solve all you manual focussing problems. This is not and has never been claimed to be the case. In very low light where fast lenses are required to be used at or near wide open to get a suitable shutter speed, and focus is critical because of razer-thin DOF, there is no easy solution.

If contrast is too low for the aids to work, improvise. Back in the day when I was doing weddings, I carried a small torch to help with precisely this problem. Shine it on a small part of your subject, where you wish to be focussed, focus and shoot, remembering to switch off the torch before shooting. This is made easier if you have an assistant who can work the torch. Doing it on your own is kinda tricky.

If this scenario is not practical, you can sometimes focus on a point of light in the subject, recompose and then shoot. When I did dinner table request shots, it was often possible to focus on a candle flame in the middle of the table. Sometimes it was neccesary to bracket focus, but I was using film and liked to waste as little as possible.

I guess what I am saying is folk nowadays seem to expect their equipment to be smarter than they are themselves. Its a tool, a damn fine tool, but to get the best from any tool you need to apply your self to learning the skills.

I have no connection whatever with Rachel, other than having purchased one of her screens for my K10D, and being well pleased with the improvement in my manual-focussing keeper-rate. It is almost as easy to use as my old 35mm film SLR's were back in the day. I mostly only carry fast manual prime lenses now and am quite convinced that, using this screen, and my 58yr old Mk1 eyeball, I can out-perform any AF lens I have owned. YMMV

Originally posted by m8o

Timely bump to this thread. I too received it recently (about 1.5 weeks ago) but only had time to install & use it today. I too got it sans optibrite and sans Pentax AF focus points. My findings are...

In good light, it's all it's cracked up to be. The split prism usually takes longer for me to find the right focus than the microprism collar, and feedback is really good in either case.

However in the light I like to shot in the most, wide aperture dim indoor lighting from either indirect ambient natural light or incandescent, it's almost as difficult to focus with the katzeye as with the stock screen. In this level of light 1/2 of the split screen is noticeably darkened even w/a f/2.5 A lens, meaning when focusing wide open. Also in that case, the micro-prism collar is pretty much useless. Makes sense I guess in that when light is low, contrast is low, so the effect provided by the micro-prism collar is greatly diminished. In this level of light, I use the split screen, and find a point on my subject where it will work, which itself can lead to focus inaccuracies as large distance re-composition at wide aperture often moves my critical focus point too much.
...revisiting katzeye's site, I see the optibrite is intended to enhance focus accuracy in these types of conditions; low light or small aperture. But because of the reports of metering inaccuracies, I didn't go for it; also I didn't think that treatment was applied to the collar. ...if it is applied to the collar, I'm aggravated now that I didn't get Optibrite, as I was really looking forward for the micro-prism to provide me a 'snap in-focus' effect under dim indoor lighting conditions with wide aperture.

I haven't used any AF lenses yet.

Hope all interested find this useful.

m8o · 01-26-2009, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by Jewelltrail

Thank you Nick! I have two weeks to return the Katzeye and I may just do that. I am going to research this Haoda screen when I get a minute. Thanks for the help.

Well I won't go that far...

...

@ keithlester re: asking too much:
thanx for the insight from a SLR verteran keithlester. It may not have come across in my writing, but that's what my intent was to say too.... that the KetzEye isn't the "panacea" I'd hoped for that solves all my MF woes. Yes with very low [unassisted] light there's still some visual clue but requires creative use of the split screen, realizing you get nothing with the stock screen. ...But for other 'newbs' like me, be warned to temper expectations.

Jewelltrail · 01-26-2009, 09:38 PM

I am not looking for magic, but for a screen that costs $160, I at least expect it to easily out-perform my $28 Chinese split prism--it does not do that.

I spoke with Rachael Katz on the phone today and explained things. It goes back for inspection, tomorrow.

StevenVH · 01-27-2009, 10:21 AM

I too can't accept the KatzEye price. IMO it should be about 1/3 of what they're charging.
Here's an option for about 1/2 the Katz price which I haven't seen mentioned here:
Focusing Screen

They have 8 different screens for the K200 !

hth

stevebrot · 01-27-2009, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by StevenVH

I too can't accept the KatzEye price. IMO it should be about 1/3 of what they're charging.
Here's an option for about 1/2 the Katz price which I haven't seen mentioned here:
Focusing Screen

They have 8 different screens for the K200 !

hth

The main difference between focusingscreen.com and KatzEye is price and the availability of Optibright. I agree that the price of the KatzEye with Optibright should be about $110, the same price as the similar Beattie screen for FF.

Steve

m8o · 01-27-2009, 12:56 PM

Let's not forget their "Plus" treatment. I've been reading reports comparing screens not for weeks or months, but for about a year and a half while I deliberated if I should get anything, and the general consensus from those who have/had both is the KatzEye resists black-out to a smaller aperture.

I won't get into the $ debate. I'm always happy to pay less for something, but am frequently doing things that burn/lose cash and have leaned to never work myself up about it. I'm happy to support their little company here in the US and pay their asking. ...and with that, I guess I did just enter into the debate.

m8o · 01-27-2009, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by StevenVH

I too can't accept the KatzEye price. IMO it should be about 1/3 of what they're charging.
Here's an option for about 1/2 the Katz price which I haven't seen mentioned here:
Focusing Screen

They have 8 different screens for the K200 !

hth

...which [edit] I thought I posted much earlier in this thread, but see now much have been another of the many "focusing screen" threads we've had. Check out the threads on it. It wasn't all peaches & cream so I stayed away. (Well, plus, they made up my own mind in that they didn't have stock when I was ready to pull the trigger)

stevebrot · 01-27-2009, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by m8o

Let's not forget their "Plus" treatment. I've been reading reports comparing screens not for weeks or months, but for about a year and a half while I deliberated if I should get anything, and the general consensus from those who have/had both is the KatzEye resists black-out to a smaller aperture.

I won't get into the $ debate. I'm always happy to pay less for something, but am frequently doing things that burn/lose cash and have leaned to never work myself up about it. I'm happy to support their little company here in the US and pay their asking. ...and with that, I guess I did just enter into the debate.

The "Plus" feature is something that KatzEye shares in common with the focusingscreen.com Nikon K3-derived versions. I asked Rachel Katz about the similarities between the two screens. She answered that while she would not comment on their manufacturing processes, the K3 was the inspiration for the "Plus" feature screens.

Steve

Jewelltrail · 01-28-2009, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Keithlester:I guess what I am saying is folk nowadays seem to expect their equipment to be smarter than they are themselves. Its a tool, a damn fine tool, but to get the best from any tool you need to apply your self to learning the skills.

Keith, I appreciate you stopping in to share your photographic learnedness. That said, I feel impelled to let you know I earned a living as a Heavy Equipment mechanic for over 10 years, so I own many tools. To this day, I still do some car repair and restorative work. All total, I have done mechanical work for over 30 years. I understand, via firsthand experience, the tool is only limited by the mechanic who uses it. However, as pithy as your metaphor is, you are making assumptions. I do not know what makes you feel qualified to make these assumptions, but I'll lay them to rest for you.

Firstly, I do not want "equipment to be smarter than" me. Secondly, tools are my forte. Finally, it is with great intensity and love that I apply myself to all forms of learning, not the least of which is the subject of photography. While not the brightest tool in the shed, I did make it through a Masters degree--a degree for which I still must make monthly payments.

Now that I have, hopefully (for you), ruled out assumptions of where my problem with the Katzeye screen is, let me tell you, specifically, what the actual issues are. The screen has both advantages and disadvantages over my $28 Chinese prism which, by the way, I have been using for 8 months. The screen is advertised to not black out until f11, yet it blacks out as early as f4 on some of my lenses--this is poorer performance than my Chinese screen. The problem is so acute, that both I and Rachael Katz suspect the screen may be faulty. It actually begins to darken as early as f2.8 on some lenses. It went back for inspection yesterday and I am waiting for Rachael to personally test the screen and relay to me what she has learned. I was planning not to discuss specific issues with the screen here, until after I gave Rachael a chance to speak for herself and her product, but your post begs an answer. There was another problem with the screen too.

The "optibrite" treatment, for which I paid $55 extra, did not show me its worth, not even a peek. In fact, once again, the Chinese screen at least performs as well here and it does not even use "optibrite." I found this shocking! I do not think this is a case of me expecting too much, but, perhaps Keith, you can tell me just how much I should expect in this situation--I eagerly await judgment, from you, on this.

I spent over $3000 on my K20 and all the accoutrements in these last 10 months. I was so impressed with the camera, after months of diligent research, that I paid very close to the original $1300 sticker price. And I am glad I spent it--absolutely delighted, because it is a fantastic tool, one which brings great joy and profundity to my life. What I am getting at is I have no problem spending money on quality. However, like every other hard-working person, when I spend money on quality, I expect quality--it is that simple--that is what this all boils down to here. Now it is a fact the K20 can be bought for $560 and it is an equal fact the Katzeye screen, that itsy-bitsy 1.4mm thick sliver of glass, need be bought for $160. This need not be perplexing mathematics.

I can simply not see the quality in this $160 sliver of glass, not when I have another sliver of glass which does some things better, for $28. Perhaps the lesson in all this is I am more grateful than ever for the awesome little split-image screen I purchased in the first place.

Keith, I have had handed down to me, through family, a lot of awesome, old, near-mint Pentax glass from its early heydays. They are breathtaking tools, ones which still make me go wow when I put them into service. But, even more importantly, are the feelings I have invested in those tools due to the love I have for the family member who so graciously awarded them to me.

So let me end by making this absolutely clear--okay? If there be any way I could get an advantage which would enable me to derive even more utility out of this fine Pentax glass than I already get, I would welcome it like I did the Red Sox winning the 2004 World Series--with ecstatic joy!!! The Katzeye prism does not do this for me and I am sure I am even more disappointed in its shortcomings than Rachael Katz is. My expectations are not too high--my learnedness is not too shallow--my tools are not my master. I simply have made a decision, one which is based on facts--these facts are accessible to me because I have lived the experience.

01-25-2009, 09:32 AM	#80
Nick1946 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: NW Arkansas Photos: Gallery Posts: 130	focus screen Interesting reading about the Katzeye and Chinese alternative. I'll throw in another-has anyone heard of or used the Haoda screen? It is shown on their website for $72 + $5 shipping in the US. Just curious. thanks Nick

01-26-2009, 09:05 AM	#82
keithlester Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Carradale, Scotland Posts: 301	asking too much Methinks folk are expecting the katzeye screen to be a magic bullet that will solve all you manual focussing problems. This is not and has never been claimed to be the case. In very low light where fast lenses are required to be used at or near wide open to get a suitable shutter speed, and focus is critical because of razer-thin DOF, there is no easy solution. If contrast is too low for the aids to work, improvise. Back in the day when I was doing weddings, I carried a small torch to help with precisely this problem. Shine it on a small part of your subject, where you wish to be focussed, focus and shoot, remembering to switch off the torch before shooting. This is made easier if you have an assistant who can work the torch. Doing it on your own is kinda tricky. If this scenario is not practical, you can sometimes focus on a point of light in the subject, recompose and then shoot. When I did dinner table request shots, it was often possible to focus on a candle flame in the middle of the table. Sometimes it was neccesary to bracket focus, but I was using film and liked to waste as little as possible. I guess what I am saying is folk nowadays seem to expect their equipment to be smarter than they are themselves. Its a tool, a damn fine tool, but to get the best from any tool you need to apply your self to learning the skills. I have no connection whatever with Rachel, other than having purchased one of her screens for my K10D, and being well pleased with the improvement in my manual-focussing keeper-rate. It is almost as easy to use as my old 35mm film SLR's were back in the day. I mostly only carry fast manual prime lenses now and am quite convinced that, using this screen, and my 58yr old Mk1 eyeball, I can out-perform any AF lens I have owned. YMMV Originally posted by m8o Timely bump to this thread. I too received it recently (about 1.5 weeks ago) but only had time to install & use it today. I too got it sans optibrite and sans Pentax AF focus points. My findings are... In good light, it's all it's cracked up to be. The split prism usually takes longer for me to find the right focus than the microprism collar, and feedback is really good in either case. However in the light I like to shot in the most, wide aperture dim indoor lighting from either indirect ambient natural light or incandescent, it's almost as difficult to focus with the katzeye as with the stock screen. In this level of light 1/2 of the split screen is noticeably darkened even w/a f/2.5 A lens, meaning when focusing wide open. Also in that case, the micro-prism collar is pretty much useless. Makes sense I guess in that when light is low, contrast is low, so the effect provided by the micro-prism collar is greatly diminished. In this level of light, I use the split screen, and find a point on my subject where it will work, which itself can lead to focus inaccuracies as large distance re-composition at wide aperture often moves my critical focus point too much. ...revisiting katzeye's site, I see the optibrite is intended to enhance focus accuracy in these types of conditions; low light or small aperture. But because of the reports of metering inaccuracies, I didn't go for it; also I didn't think that treatment was applied to the collar. ...if it is applied to the collar, I'm aggravated now that I didn't get Optibrite, as I was really looking forward for the micro-prism to provide me a 'snap in-focus' effect under dim indoor lighting conditions with wide aperture. I haven't used any AF lenses yet. Hope all interested find this useful.

01-26-2009, 09:38 PM	#84
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	No Magic asked for I am not looking for magic, but for a screen that costs $160, I at least expect it to easily out-perform my $28 Chinese split prism--it does not do that. I spoke with Rachael Katz on the phone today and explained things. It goes back for inspection, tomorrow.

01-27-2009, 01:01 PM	#88
m8o Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: 40°-55'-44" N / 73°-24'-07" W [on LI] Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,092	Originally posted by StevenVH I too can't accept the KatzEye price. IMO it should be about 1/3 of what they're charging. Here's an option for about 1/2 the Katz price which I haven't seen mentioned here: Focusing Screen They have 8 different screens for the K200 ! hth ...which [edit] I thought I posted much earlier in this thread, but see now much have been another of the many "focusing screen" threads we've had. Check out the threads on it. It wasn't all peaches & cream so I stayed away. (Well, plus, they made up my own mind in that they didn't have stock when I was ready to pull the trigger) Last edited by m8o; 01-27-2009 at 01:12 PM. Reason: I was mistaken; didn't post that in this thread but another

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Problem with split focus screen.	mstolt	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	16	06-28-2009 03:33 PM
split focus screen and exposure - again!	5teve	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	9	05-10-2009 10:56 AM
Split image focus screen for PZ-20?	esdy_11192	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	4	04-06-2009 09:43 AM
Quick Question: Pentax KM screen replaceable with split-focus screen?	vinzer	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	2	01-06-2009 01:21 AM
Split image focus screen???	OrenMc	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	3	09-27-2008 11:13 AM

01-14-2009, 04:57 PM	#76
bobD Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Waikikamukau Photos: Albums Posts: 1,248	Originally posted by wildlifephotog I take frosted scotch tape and put a piece on each side of the screen. The 15mm X 25mm size is then drawn lightly with pencil after marking the center of the ME screen. I then use a 1" X 42" belt sander and sand the screen down to the lines. Very carefully lift off the tape, and the screen is ready. Scotch tape is the best. It does not leave a residue when only lightly pressed down. The tape not only gives a drawing surface, it also protects the screen from damage. The ME Super screens have worked fine in my Pentax digitals. Focus, exposure and DOF are spot on. Here is where I originally learned how to do the screens. greyhoundman's ramblings: October 2006 Thanks alot for this tip. I have a spare split-screen for my MX . Some years ago I replaced it with a gridded screen (really wanted a matte screen but couldn't find one here in N.Z.) as the split screen blacked out too often. Might put the split-screen back in the MX and mod the gridded one. Thanks again.

01-24-2009, 03:42 PM	#77
Gooneybird Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Florence, SC Photos: Gallery Posts: 75	Originally posted by wildlifephotog First multiply the lens length ( 40mm ) by the power of the scope ( 20, 30, 60X ). This gives you the effective focal length. Now you divide that number by the aperture of the scope, 80mm. The resulting numbers will be the f stop value for that setup of camera lens, and telescope. I would say the split screen will black out at f 7-8 with the optibrite coating. A normal screen blacks out at about f 5.6 or so. Well, now I can respond with some proven facts. I received the Katz Eye split screen device and installed it in my K10D and proceeded to run tests with every lens in my collection. The Katz Eye that I ordered did NOT have the optibrite coating and it works without any blacking out on everything I own and tested. That INCLUDES the Swarovski Spotting AT-80HD at 20X. So, as far as I'm concerned, all the mathematical explanations are not verifyable, and I'm off to enjoy my new toy rather than argue. Thanks but let's quit being too picky. Olin

01-24-2009, 06:33 PM	#78
m8o Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: 40°-55'-44" N / 73°-24'-07" W [on LI] Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,092	Timely bump to this thread. I too received it recently (about 1.5 weeks ago) but only had time to install & use it today. I too got it sans optibrite and sans Pentax AF focus points. My findings are... In good light, it's all it's cracked up to be. The split prism usually takes longer for me to find the right focus than the microprism collar, and feedback is really good in either case. However in the light I like to shot in the most, wide aperture dim indoor lighting from either indirect ambient natural light or incandescent, it's almost as difficult to focus with the katzeye as with the stock screen. In this level of light 1/2 of the split screen is noticeably darkened even w/a f/2.5 A lens, meaning when focusing wide open. Also in that case, the micro-prism collar is pretty much useless. Makes sense I guess in that when light is low, contrast is low, so the effect provided by the micro-prism collar is greatly diminished. In this level of light, I use the split screen, and find a point on my subject where it will work, which itself can lead to focus inaccuracies as large distance re-composition at wide aperture often moves my critical focus point too much. ...revisiting katzeye's site, I see the optibrite is intended to enhance focus accuracy in these types of conditions; low light or small aperture. But because of the reports of metering inaccuracies, I didn't go for it; also I didn't think that treatment was applied to the collar. ...if it is applied to the collar, I'm aggravated now that I didn't get Optibrite, as I was really looking forward for the micro-prism to provide me a 'snap in-focus' effect under dim indoor lighting conditions with wide aperture. I haven't used any AF lenses yet. Hope all interested find this useful.

01-24-2009, 11:04 PM	#79
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	Quote: M80: However in the light I like to shot in the most, wide aperture dim indoor lighting from either indirect ambient natural light or incandescent, it's almost as difficult to focus with the katzeye as with the stock screen. In this level of light 1/2 of the split screen is noticeably darkened even w/a f/2.5 A lens, meaning when focusing wide open. Also in that case, the micro-prism collar is pretty much useless. Makes sense I guess in that when light is low, contrast is low, so the effect provided by the micro-prism collar is greatly diminished. In this level of light, I use the split screen, and find a point on my subject where it will work, which itself can lead to focus inaccuracies as large distance re-composition at wide aperture often moves my critical focus point too much. ...revisiting katzeye's site, I see the optibrite is intended to enhance focus accuracy in these types of conditions; low light or small aperture. But because of the reports of metering inaccuracies, I didn't go for it; also I didn't think that treatment was applied to the collar. ...if it is applied to the collar, I'm aggravated now that I didn't get Optibrite, as I was really looking forward for the micro-prism to provide me a 'snap in-focus' effect under dim indoor lighting conditions with wide aperture. So far, though I am still testing, my observations on the Katzeye screen agree with yours--concerning low-light shooting. I went for the Optibrite, but am yet to see any of its benefits in low-light. I have not shot outdoors, in good light yet. So, my initial impression is not good and I have some lenses where the split-prism is blacking out from f 4 all the way down the aperture scale. However, I also have other lenses where there is no blackout at all--throughout the aperture range. Anyway, reading at the Katzeye site I learn the optibrite treatment ONLY affects the matte portion of the screen--this much is clear. The following is taken directly from their site: "The OptiBrite treatment is an improvement in the light transmission efficiency of the matte (ground glass) portions of the screen, while the "Plus" refers to our unique prism design that delays the ’blackout’ phenomenon without sacrificing focusing precision. The OptiBrite process has no effect on the prism, only the matte surface."

01-25-2009, 10:37 AM	#81
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	Quote: Interesting reading about the Katzeye and Chinese alternative. I'll throw in another-has anyone heard of or used the Haoda screen? It is shown on their website for $72 + $5 shipping in the US. Just curious. thanks Nick Thank you Nick! I have two weeks to return the Katzeye and I may just do that. I am going to research this Haoda screen when I get a minute. Thanks for the help.

01-26-2009, 01:36 PM	#83
m8o Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: 40°-55'-44" N / 73°-24'-07" W [on LI] Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,092	Originally posted by Jewelltrail Thank you Nick! I have two weeks to return the Katzeye and I may just do that. I am going to research this Haoda screen when I get a minute. Thanks for the help. Well I won't go that far... ... @ keithlester re: asking too much: thanx for the insight from a SLR verteran keithlester. It may not have come across in my writing, but that's what my intent was to say too.... that the KetzEye isn't the "panacea" I'd hoped for that solves all my MF woes. Yes with very low [unassisted] light there's still some visual clue but requires creative use of the split screen, realizing you get nothing with the stock screen. ...But for other 'newbs' like me, be warned to temper expectations.

01-27-2009, 10:21 AM	#85
StevenVH Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: N Carolina, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 475	I too can't accept the KatzEye price. IMO it should be about 1/3 of what they're charging. Here's an option for about 1/2 the Katz price which I haven't seen mentioned here: Focusing Screen They have 8 different screens for the K200 ! hth

01-27-2009, 11:49 AM	#86
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by StevenVH I too can't accept the KatzEye price. IMO it should be about 1/3 of what they're charging. Here's an option for about 1/2 the Katz price which I haven't seen mentioned here: Focusing Screen They have 8 different screens for the K200 ! hth The main difference between focusingscreen.com and KatzEye is price and the availability of Optibright. I agree that the price of the KatzEye with Optibright should be about $110, the same price as the similar Beattie screen for FF. Steve

01-27-2009, 12:56 PM	#87
m8o Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: 40°-55'-44" N / 73°-24'-07" W [on LI] Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,092	Let's not forget their "Plus" treatment. I've been reading reports comparing screens not for weeks or months, but for about a year and a half while I deliberated if I should get anything, and the general consensus from those who have/had both is the KatzEye resists black-out to a smaller aperture. I won't get into the $ debate. I'm always happy to pay less for something, but am frequently doing things that burn/lose cash and have leaned to never work myself up about it. I'm happy to support their little company here in the US and pay their asking. ...and with that, I guess I did just enter into the debate.

01-27-2009, 02:28 PM	#89
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by m8o Let's not forget their "Plus" treatment. I've been reading reports comparing screens not for weeks or months, but for about a year and a half while I deliberated if I should get anything, and the general consensus from those who have/had both is the KatzEye resists black-out to a smaller aperture. I won't get into the $ debate. I'm always happy to pay less for something, but am frequently doing things that burn/lose cash and have leaned to never work myself up about it. I'm happy to support their little company here in the US and pay their asking. ...and with that, I guess I did just enter into the debate. The "Plus" feature is something that KatzEye shares in common with the focusingscreen.com Nikon K3-derived versions. I asked Rachel Katz about the similarities between the two screens. She answered that while she would not comment on their manufacturing processes, the K3 was the inspiration for the "Plus" feature screens. Steve

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-28-2009, 12:30 AM	#90
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	Quote: Keithlester:I guess what I am saying is folk nowadays seem to expect their equipment to be smarter than they are themselves. Its a tool, a damn fine tool, but to get the best from any tool you need to apply your self to learning the skills. Keith, I appreciate you stopping in to share your photographic learnedness. That said, I feel impelled to let you know I earned a living as a Heavy Equipment mechanic for over 10 years, so I own many tools. To this day, I still do some car repair and restorative work. All total, I have done mechanical work for over 30 years. I understand, via firsthand experience, the tool is only limited by the mechanic who uses it. However, as pithy as your metaphor is, you are making assumptions. I do not know what makes you feel qualified to make these assumptions, but I'll lay them to rest for you. Firstly, I do not want "equipment to be smarter than" me. Secondly, tools are my forte. Finally, it is with great intensity and love that I apply myself to all forms of learning, not the least of which is the subject of photography. While not the brightest tool in the shed, I did make it through a Masters degree--a degree for which I still must make monthly payments. Now that I have, hopefully (for you), ruled out assumptions of where my problem with the Katzeye screen is, let me tell you, specifically, what the actual issues are. The screen has both advantages and disadvantages over my $28 Chinese prism which, by the way, I have been using for 8 months. The screen is advertised to not black out until f11, yet it blacks out as early as f4 on some of my lenses--this is poorer performance than my Chinese screen. The problem is so acute, that both I and Rachael Katz suspect the screen may be faulty. It actually begins to darken as early as f2.8 on some lenses. It went back for inspection yesterday and I am waiting for Rachael to personally test the screen and relay to me what she has learned. I was planning not to discuss specific issues with the screen here, until after I gave Rachael a chance to speak for herself and her product, but your post begs an answer. There was another problem with the screen too. The "optibrite" treatment, for which I paid $55 extra, did not show me its worth, not even a peek. In fact, once again, the Chinese screen at least performs as well here and it does not even use "optibrite." I found this shocking! I do not think this is a case of me expecting too much, but, perhaps Keith, you can tell me just how much I should expect in this situation--I eagerly await judgment, from you, on this. I spent over $3000 on my K20 and all the accoutrements in these last 10 months. I was so impressed with the camera, after months of diligent research, that I paid very close to the original $1300 sticker price. And I am glad I spent it--absolutely delighted, because it is a fantastic tool, one which brings great joy and profundity to my life. What I am getting at is I have no problem spending money on quality. However, like every other hard-working person, when I spend money on quality, I expect quality--it is that simple--that is what this all boils down to here. Now it is a fact the K20 can be bought for $560 and it is an equal fact the Katzeye screen, that itsy-bitsy 1.4mm thick sliver of glass, need be bought for $160. This need not be perplexing mathematics. I can simply not see the quality in this $160 sliver of glass, not when I have another sliver of glass which does some things better, for $28. Perhaps the lesson in all this is I am more grateful than ever for the awesome little split-image screen I purchased in the first place. Keith, I have had handed down to me, through family, a lot of awesome, old, near-mint Pentax glass from its early heydays. They are breathtaking tools, ones which still make me go wow when I put them into service. But, even more importantly, are the feelings I have invested in those tools due to the love I have for the family member who so graciously awarded them to me. So let me end by making this absolutely clear--okay? If there be any way I could get an advantage which would enable me to derive even more utility out of this fine Pentax glass than I already get, I would welcome it like I did the Red Sox winning the 2004 World Series--with ecstatic joy!!! The Katzeye prism does not do this for me and I am sure I am even more disappointed in its shortcomings than Rachael Katz is. My expectations are not too high--my learnedness is not too shallow--my tools are not my master. I simply have made a decision, one which is based on facts--these facts are accessible to me because I have lived the experience.