Maxwell screen: split-image microprism or not?

[Tony-S]

I'm ready to replace the focusing screen in my Rolleiflex SLX and am going to buy a Maxwell. However, a search of the forums seems to suggest that the matte-only screen is a bit brighter and doesn't have dark edges when compared to the microprism/split-image screen. I must confess that I view the the MP/SI as a bit of a crutch for my aging eyes, but if the matte-only is truly easier to focus with (since most points are not in the center of the frame anyway) I'll go with it.

I'm also planning to go with crop lines instead of grid or none.

Thoughts?

 

[jmcd]

I have a Maxwell with the grid, and no split image. I see no need for the split image, and think it would more of a distraction than a help. The snap of the focus is quite effective with the screen alone.

For awhile I had the same screen without the grid, and it was my favorite, especially for portraiture. The grid lines are handy, however.

I haven't seen a screen with the crop lines, but it sounds useful if it is not too distracting for normal full-frame use.

I do find the crop lines on my Mamiya RB67 screen distracting, but don't feel the same way about the grid lines on the Maxwell.

 

[lns]

I have used both types. Both are great. Bill Maxwell himself will tell you that the matte-only is brighter, but that both are bright enough. That has been my experience. I think they are both easy to focus and both an improvement on the stock screen. I personally like a split image microprism, so for me it was worth the (very slight, nearly imperceptible) brightness decrease to have that focusing aide. I liked it. That said, I currently have a matte-only screen with grid lines, and it's great too.

Be careful. This is solely a matter of personal taste. So you will find people who swear up and down that their preference is the only right choice. But in truth it comes down to what you like. Pepsi or Coke.

-Laura

 

[Tony-S]

I think I'll go with the split/micro screen. Thanks for the input.

Tony