New F-1 focus screen

[CMoore]

The Canon New F-1...not sure what screen i have. I think it is the I, but it might be the L.
My cross-hairs do not touch the circle. From what i can see in the manual, it seems that the L cross-hairs are longer and touch the circle.
1. Do i have this right.?
2. For basic, hobby, black and white photography, would i be better served by a different screen.?
Thank You

 

[Tony-S]

I've always been partial to split image/microprism. Even replaced the stock screen from my EOS 3 with a spit image.

 

[CMoore]

Yeah, i pretty much have some type of "split" in all my 35mm.
This is my only time looking, but it seems there are very few screens of any type for the New F-1 on Ebay.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

I used split image microprism screens in my New F-1. I recently sold the camera, but I still have a couple of the screens. On the New F-1, the screens also determine the metering pattern. I sold the camera with the Centerweighted Metering, and I still have the Spotmetering screen and the partial metering screen. The spot screen meters a spot defined by the microprism circle, and the partial metering screen meters a rectangle in the middle of the screen, which is bigger than the spotmetering area.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Forgot to say, here are the screen designations for the New F-1:

Centerweighted meter, split image and microprism focusing aid: Screen AE.

Partial metering, split image and microprism focusing aid: Screen PE.

Spot meter, split image and microprism focusing aid: Screen SE.

 

[CMoore]

Thank You.
I was trying to understand the two different splits.
I will just have to keep a watch on Ebay.
Thanks Again

 

[AgX]

2. For basic, hobby, black and white photography, would i be better served by a different screen.?

A general purpose screen would contain a split wedge, a micrprism ring and a matte surrounding.

 

[AgX]

I think it is the I, but it might be the L.

Both are completely different!

Type -L contains 4 wedges (prisms), arranged in a cricle, by that enabling to focus on lines in all orientations (in contrast to a horizontal wedge-couple).

Type I contains crosshairs. These are just marks on the screen.
Typically they are used on a clear screen, to focus on the aerial image. The object is in focus when you see as well the object as the crosshairs sharply. Those crosshairs are used as reference for the focal plane of the screen that otherwise could not be established.
In type I though it seems the surrounding is matted.

 

[benjiboy]

The standard focusing screen (microprism split image averaging/ centre weighted focusing screen) that was supplied new with the Canon New F1 was the AE screen FN.which is one of the most generally useful.

 

[AgX]

A screen is not involved in metering except for giving marks to indicate a metering zone.
Canon themselves gave that designation, but I find it misleading. And for the averaging mode the screens give no hint at all.

 

[benjiboy]

A screen is not involved in metering except for giving marks to indicate a metering zone.
Canon themselves gave that designation, but I find it misleading. And for the averaging mode the screens give no hint at all.

That is incorrect the New F1 screens are either average with centre weighting partial (9% of the image area ) or spot (3 degrees ) read this. http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/canonf1n/metering/screens/screens.htm

 

[AgX]

Ben, I stand corrected!
Yes, the New F-1 employs the screens for metering, by selectively reflecting light out of the main path into the metering cell.
(Did I say there are too many camera models around...)




By the way, that principle likely was taken over from Pentacon who likely employed the same principle in the mirror of their VLC.

 

[benjiboy]

Ben, I stand corrected!
Yes, the New F-1 employs the screens for metering.
(Did I say there are too many cameras around...)

The majority of the cameras I have around are Canon New F1's I have four of them Iv'e been using them for more than 25 years . The camera was fantastically technically advanced in build quality design and engineering when it was first marketed in 1981 and still is and much better than anything than any other manufacturer was making at that time, they were very expensive I worked at a professional photographic dealers in those days and I remember the body only cost about £960 which 35 years ago was a great deal of money.

 

[AgX]

What I like on the New F-1 screens is their greater choice. Especially on the slope of the wedges.
The T-90 only got one microprism ring that got a more shallow slope on the prisms.

Yesterday I considered the chance to substitute T-90 screens by New F-1 screens. But that metering feature allone would cause trouble

 

[benjiboy]

What I like on the New F-1 screens is their greater choice. Especially on the slope of the wedges.
The T-90 only got one microprism ring that got a more shallow slope on the prisms.

Yesterday I considered the chance to substitute T-90 screens by New F-1 screens. But that metering feature allone would cause trouble

They wouldn't fit anyway they are in a metal frame.

 

[cooltouch]

As a holdover from my FTb and old F-1 days, when I bought my first New F-1 a couple years ago, the first thing I did was buy a partial metering screen for it. I find the partial pattern to be most useful, it being fully capable of accurately measuring the light values of a scene that may be varied and complex in nature, without having to resort to a spot pattern.

My screen type of choice is plain matte. I got into the habit of using plain matte screens a few decades ago because most of my telephotos at the time were f/4 or slower, and a regular microprism/split image screen doesn't work worth a darn and becomes an annoyance, really. While things were marginal at f/4, when using my 600mm f/8 mirror, for example, having a plain matte screen turned that lens into a very useful photographic tool, whereas before I dreaded having to focus it because of the "focusing aids" blacking out.

 

[AgX]

The type of screen to be employed is dependand on what lens one uses and what type of photography one does.
And personal preference (as in wedges vs. microprisms concerning focussing aids).

Since the 80s or so all manufacturers offer more or less the same type of screen as standard one.

 

[AgX]

In an ideal world the optics of a screen would be apt for the very lens, and the other characteristics apt for the user's wishes.
That would make the number of screens greater than even that of the new F-1.

 

[benjiboy]

What I like on the New F-1 screens is their greater choice. Especially on the slope of the wedges.
The T-90 only got one microprism ring that got a more shallow slope on the prisms.

Yesterday I considered the chance to substitute T-90 screens by New F-1 screens. But that metering feature allone would cause trouble

It would be a very expensive experiment which I doubt would work. Have you seen how much Canon Focusing screens FN are ? http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Genuine-C...691334?hash=item236e4241c6:g:O1cAAOSwdzVXjmUw

 

[benjiboy]

Ben, I stand corrected!
Yes, the New F-1 employs the screens for metering, by selectively reflecting light out of the main path into the metering cell.
(Did I say there are too many camera models around...)
No, had no need to copy ideas from the G.D.R they were way ahead Canon did ten years research and development before they manufactured the New F1 and the beam splitter in the focusing screen split off parts of the light dependent on which screen metering pattern is in use ( centre weighted, partial or spot) to the light metering cell which is in the front left hand side of the camera body



By the way, that principle likely was taken over from Pentacon who likely employed the same principle in the mirror of their VLC.

 

[AgX]

No, Canon had no need to copy ideas from the G.D.R, they were way ahead

Well, Pentacon had a number of "firsts". Maybe I shall make a list in another thread.
And Canon did copy Pentacon, as with the plastic caps.

 

[benjiboy]

Well, Pentacon had a number of "firsts". Maybe I shall make a list in another thread.
And Canon did copy Pentacon, as with the plastic caps.

Pentacon spent years and large amounts of money in research developing i.c. chips and c.p.u's for their cameras that were freely available commercially in the rest of the world because of a ban on the export of hi-tech products by companys to communist countrys.

 

[AgX]

Highly integrated circuits were the bottleneck for Pentacon. Here the last in german camera industry to cope with the japanese manufacturers was bound to fail.
But I do not know of any Pentacon efforts in microchips,

Actually GDR government decided to make a chip industry their new valuta earner. On this project indeed a fortune was spent, to the disadvantage of other industries who by this lacked the money to refurbish their plants.
The success of that chip "industry" was too little, too late.
In the end it did not earn the country anything but prestige.

 

[benjiboy]

Highly integrated circuits were the bottleneck for Pentacon. Here the last in german camera industry to cope with the japanese manufacturers was bound to fail.
But I do not know of any Pentacon efforts in microchips,

Actually GDR government decided to make a chip industry their new valuta earner. On this project indeed a fortune was spent, to the disadvantage of other industries who by this lacked the money to refurbish their plants.
The success of that chip "industry" was too little, too late.
In the end it did not earn the country anything but prestige.

I know Pentacon made very good aerial survey cameras, and a lot of optical devices for the Soviet space programme. The G.D.R. had to make their own i/c's the Western powers had an agreement not to supply the Eastern block countrys with any hi-tech devices so they had to try to develop them from scratch.