I recently bought a Nikon FM2N from a friend that went digital. he had installed a Beattie screen yrs ago. I asked him about exposure compensation and he said he didn't bother and never had a problem. I attributed this to the wide exposure latitude of print film, which he uses. Today while setting up a shot with my Yashica A and hand held meter, I was going to use up the last couple of frames in the Nikon on the same scene. I was surprised to find the meter in the Nikon agreed exactly with my Weston V. Are the normal K2 screens just as bright as the Beattie? My only other experience with a Beattie was for a medium format Mamiya and there was a 1 stop difference.
Since no-one else has had a go at this I'll pass a couple of comments which may or may not be relevent.
I don't know what path the light takes between the lens of your Nikon and the metering sensors. But I do know that you need to compensate or recalibrate for the effects of a different screen only if the light passes through the screen en route to those sensors. I'm pretty sure that with the Mamiya it does, and it certainly does with my Bronica.
It is also possible that the Beattie is little brighter than the Nikon screen; but just as likely is that the scenes covered by your in-camera and hand-held meters were different and that is masking a relatively small difference in brightness at the meter sensors. Finally, given that the concept of "right" is a bit subjective, is the implicit assumption that the Weston is correct in itself subject to debate?
Thanks for the comeback, and yes I consider all meters to be approximate, I was just surprised that the readings were identical. I don't have a K2 to compare the brightness to, I'm sure if I put the screen in my FE, I'd have to compensate.
Yes, the screen can affect the meter on a FM2n, no the beatties aren't really brighter. If you want a real upgrade, get a Nikon screen for a FM3a, which are roughly 2/3rds of a stop brighter (K2 is replaced by the K3, etc).