Nikon F3 focusing screen closest to Leicaflex SL?

[sleepyjack]

I recently gave in to GAS and got myself a Nikon F3. I'm impressed by the sheer options in focusing screens. It looks like the camera came with a type R screen with the grid lines and horizontal split image, but I've never been very fond of the split image. Right now the lenses I have are the 24/2.8, 50/1.8, and 105/2.5, so all wide aperture, and I don't plan to get much longer. Most of my subject matter is casual walk around stuff and street shooting.

By far, my favorite viewfinder experience has been the Leicaflex SL. Maybe I'm just imagining it, but the central microprism just seems more refined - it almost seems like it has finer/denser prisms than most? The out of focus shimmer seems to linger more visibly than most microprisms until all of a sudden it doesn't, and then things are incredibly clear - the "snap" that people sometimes mention is real. It's a very simple, honest, and quick way to focus.

I'd like to replicate that experience as much as possible with the F3. Many folks on the forums seem to recommend type E, but I don't want any gridlines, so right now I'm looking at maybe type B or type J? I was also considering an H1 or H2, but apparently there is no DoF on those, which seems like it could be strange. Also, it seems that the "red dot" versions are brighter but perhaps don't "snap" quite as well due to loss in contrast and also a finer matte, so I'm thinking about trying to find a non-"red dot" version of whichever one I choose. For anyone who has used both systems, does that sound about right? Thanks

 

[AgX]

The finer the prisms at a microprism patch, the lesser obvious the switch between in/out-of focus would be. The feature of image being "splattered" would get lost and instead the image would become more similar to that of a groundscreen.

 

[sleepyjack]

That makes sense, AgX. I really have no understanding of the mechanics behind why the Leicaflex SL prism is different, but it does seem much easier to focus with than most that I've used. Hopefully the F3 has something close

 

[AgX]

Well, focusing aids and groundscreens are one of those topics where members here are very opinionated. But I guess you find someone here who knows as well that Leica microprism patch as well the range of Nikon aids and at least can point you to something the same or very similar.

 

[dmtnkl]

I think the G series of screens is closer to what you are looking for, at least as far as the size of the whole microprism patch is concerned. I remember looking through a leicaflex once and if i remember right, the patch was bigger than the ones usually found in other SLRs. Whether the microprism patttern is as fine grained is something i cannot answer unfortunately, you would have to try for yourself and check if it works.

H screens looked interesting as well and i had one for a while. However, having microprisms over the entire frame felt a bit strange, so i gave up on it.

B screens are my personal preference because i can focus anywhere i want in the frame.The red dot version is a really good compromise with good "snap" while still remaining somehow bright if you mount an f/2.8 or slower lens. For faster than f/1.8 i would prefer the plain non-red dot version as it has more snap to it.

We all need a new slr with a digital sensor over the mirror and an EVF to free ourrselves from the limitatons of focusing screens

 

[cjbecker]

There is no nikom screen that is just like the screen you are looking for. Nikon has the H screens h1 h2 h3 h4, for different focal lenghts, they are a full microprism, then they have the g screens, a 12mm circle of mircoprisms then clear outside the 12mm circle, they also also focal lenght specific. G1 g2 g3 g4.

Nikon has a j screen that is a matte screen with the small microprism center, and for the f2 they have a F screen that is a matte screen with a 12mm micro prism center.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

There is another option. You can take the plastic screen from an F4 and mount it in the steel frame from an F3 screen. Years ago some people did this because the F4 screens were supposed to be brighter.

 

[dmtnkl]

There is another option. You can take the plastic screen from an F4 and mount it in the steel frame from an F3 screen. Years ago some people did this because the F4 screens were supposed to be brighter.

This is not entirely correct. You might get good, but not perfect results depending on the lens.

F3 and F4 focus screen condensers do not have the same curvature profile/shape, therefore they do not sit'' perfectly if you switch frames. The acrylic part of the focus screen setup is also a bit different in height. For example, i was trying to fit an F3 screen in an F4 because i wanted a focus screen with coarse/random texture instead of the default that is optimized purely from brightness and found out you need to:

- use the acrylic focus screen from F3 with the condenser from F4 for it to sit properly in F4's focus screen frame.
- put a very thin shim between the two, otherwise the acrylic screen sits a bit lower than it should... enough to make a difference with fast lenses. The focus inidcator of F4 would also indicate i was misfocusing a bit without a shim.

You can actually measure all this with a vernier caliper. This small project is still in my todo list, have to research a bit how to make the shim.

 

[flavio81]

I recently gave in to GAS and got myself a Nikon F3. I'm impressed by the sheer options in focusing screens. It looks like the camera came with a type R screen with the grid lines and horizontal split image, but I've never been very fond of the split image. Right now the lenses I have are the 24/2.8, 50/1.8, and 105/2.5, so all wide aperture, and I don't plan to get much longer. Most of my subject matter is casual walk around stuff and street shooting.

By far, my favorite viewfinder experience has been the Leicaflex SL. Maybe I'm just imagining it, but the central microprism just seems more refined - it almost seems like it has finer/denser prisms than most? The out of focus shimmer seems to linger more visibly than most microprisms until all of a sudden it doesn't, and then things are incredibly clear - the "snap" that people sometimes mention is real. It's a very simple, honest, and quick way to focus.

I'd like to replicate that experience as much as possible with the F3. Many folks on the forums seem to recommend type E, but I don't want any gridlines, so right now I'm looking at maybe type B or type J? I was also considering an H1 or H2, but apparently there is no DoF on those, which seems like it could be strange. Also, it seems that the "red dot" versions are brighter but perhaps don't "snap" quite as well due to loss in contrast and also a finer matte, so I'm thinking about trying to find a non-"red dot" version of whichever one I choose. For anyone who has used both systems, does that sound about right? Thanks

It will be very difficult to make a F3 approach the standard of a Leicaflex SL2' viewfinder. The viewfinder tiself and the mirror system doesn't let as much light in as, for example, in the Nikon F2.

I have transplanted some F3 screens into my F2 and the result is amazing, bright, big, clear viewfinder. I prefer plain screens with no aids.

I have one of the G* screens too, and since they don't let you visualize DoF, they're not so useful.

All in all you'll have to acknowledge that the F3 viewfinder is not so good.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

It will be very difficult to make a F3 approach the standard of a Leicaflex SL2' viewfinder. The viewfinder tiself and the mirror system doesn't let as much light in as, for example, in the Nikon F2

How does the finder of the SL2 compare with the original SL? It has been years since I have looked through either body. Is it the SL that now often exhibits some sort of desilvering or delamination? Thanks!

 

[sleepyjack]

Nikon has a j screen that is a matte screen with the small microprism center, and for the f2 they have a F screen that is a matte screen with a 12mm micro prism center.

Thanks for the replies everyone! Since it was mentioned, I do think now that the larger size of the SL microprism patch is a big part of the difference. If that type F screen for the F2 does indeed have a 12mm microprism patch then I think it would give me the combination of a large patch and DoF that I want (as opposed to a G screen with a large patch and no DoF), so I may try that, assuming that I can use the F2 screens in the F3. However, the picture of the type F screen looks like maybe the microprism doesn't fill the whole 12mm metering patch?

I also did some more reading about the SL screen and apparently it's covered entirely in microprisms, with coarser prisms within the patch and finer prisms across the rest of the screen approximating ground glass but with more snap. So I suppose I would also consider an H screen too. I think I misstated the drawback of the H screens above - they apparently don't have DoF issues but they are sensitive to lens speed and focal length like any microprism. Since all of my lenses are relatively short and fast, the H2 seems like it would be work for me.

How does the finder of the SL2 compare with the original SL? It has been years since I have looked through either body. Is it the SL that now often exhibits some sort of desilvering or delamination? Thanks!

I've never used an SL2 so I don't know how much difference there is from the SL, but I do know that many SL prisms do suffer from desilvering.

 

[guangong]

From my own experience, never a problem with my two SL or my SL2 prisms, with regard to desilvering. There is a slight problem with elements in eyepiece for some separation along extreme edges of elements. Noticeable, but not troublesome. The prism of my SL2 began to have a yellowish cast. While not effecting photos, I found it annoying and had Don Goldberg replace with a new prism. I also use Nikon F and F2, and have later Leica R cameras, but none come close to SLs.
From what I heard at Leitz, camera cost more to make than selling price, which they hoped to make up on lenses and accessories, so possible the SL viewing system was just to expensive to make or imitate.

 

[AgX]

How can a prism develop a colour cast?

 

[guangong]

How can a prism develop a colour cast?

Don’t ask me how, but it apparently ia a common problem with SL2 cameras. I assumed that the problem is caused by balsam used by Leitz. I also always wonder why fungus is such a relatively common problem with Leica and Canon LTM lenses, but hardly ever with Zeiss and Nikon rf lenses.

 

[flavio81]

How can a prism develop a colour cast?

I guess it depends on ambient humidity. I've seen one of such cameras with a yellowed prism.

And in my city there are lots of cameras with prism desilvering. This is a humid city btw.

 

[AgX]

Desilvering I experienced myself. But this should not cause a colour cast.