Nikon F3 Screens

[CK Dexter Haven]

Just received an F3, my first. I already have an F100, FE2, and FG.

I was expecting the F3 to have a glorious viewfinder, but i'm disappointed.

1. The Type K screen (standard, i believe) is quite dark outside of the center microprism circle. There is a very significant difference in the brightness between the center circle and the surrounding area. Much more of a difference than in the FE2 or FG. Even the FG's view seems much better than the F3's.

2. If i compare the entire F3 view to a Pentax LX, the LX just blows it away. The LX is significantly brighter, and has no color tinging whatsoever. The F3 (and other Nikons) are warm-tinted and soft.

I was buying the F3 to replace the LX, as wanted to reduce the number of 35mm film systems i have, but the LX is just incredible to compose through.

So, the question, i suppose, is which screen should i try in the F3? I'd like a very 'plain' screen, with a microprism circle, but with no/little difference in brightness between the center and surround. When i look at the options on Mir.com, it looks like all of the screens use a "matte/fresnel" surround, except the C and D — but i can't tell if the matte/fresnel surround is the same as on the K, dark. There seems to be some difference in the description of some of the surrounding fields. Some are "matte/fresnel," and some are "fine-ground matte" or "fine-ground fresnel" or "clear fresnel."

One is interesting: the Type G. "Clear fresnel field with extra-bright 12mm microprism spot... for poor light." Does that sound like what i'm looking for? But, then it also says "depth of field cannot be observed." Does that just mean that the DOF preview switch will not show anything?

 

[Paulbe]

CK--something may be wrong in your F3 finder. Mine--with the K screen--is very bright. Can't compare it with an LX--as I don't have an LX--but the F3 is normally bright.
Good luck!
Paul

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

Thanks, Paul.
The difference between the F3 and LX is illustrated (roughly) here:

I've exaggerated it a bit, but not that much. This is with a 1.8 lens. If this isn't normal, what could cause this?

 

[jonmanjiro]

Does the focus screen frame have a red dot on it? If not, its probably an early one. A lot of people swap out their early F3 screens for a later and brighter red dot screen or swap the glass from an F4 focus screen which will slot right in.

 

[Godfrey]

Those two photos don't remind me of my F3/T at all. Mine was a relatively late F3/T with hp finder. All screens in it were quite bright.

I used primarily type A, type R, and type E screens (A with shorter lenses for general shooting, R with shorter lenses for when I wanted the reference lines, and E for longer lenses). The type G screens (there are several of them) are more specialized ... you need to get the one matched to your lens for them to work correctly.

If yours is looking dim like that, I wonder if the auto diaphragm is sticking or if the prism has become unsilvered.

G

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

Just realized i could shoot an iPhone pic through the actual viewfinder.... So, this is what i get, when looking at an image on my computer monitor:

F3 with Type K:

LX

It almost looks like a Depth of Field Preview is being actuated by default. It's the same with the 50/1.8 Series E, 50/1.8 AF-G, 35/2-O, and a Mir-24.

 

[Godfrey]

In that pair of images, the LX viewfinder looks darker than the F3.

Turn your camera around and look in the lens from the front with the aperture set to f/16. Is the iris partially closed? If so, the camera is not opening the lens diaphragm properly. If your lenses work correctly on your other Nikon bodies, it's likely a mechanical fault in the F3 body and needs repair.

G

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

Hi, G.

The difference in darkness between the two example shots just above is only due to the iPhone's auto exposure. I didn't equalize the two images in photoshop when i cropped them. I was just worried about showing the difference between the center focus circle versus the surrounding area, and the contrast is well-represented.

When i look from the front, the lens' iris remains open at all apertures.

 

[mfogiel]

Well, as said above, your screen could be an early one. I have several SLR's and F3 might not have the brightest or biggest VF, but it is not dim by any account. In order to really pump up your VF experience with F3, you should consider getting the HP VF plus the DK 17M ocular. The end result is a bright and big image that should rival your LX. I would warn you against getting some esoteric screen, as screens are designed to work with certain categories of lenses, you will find this here:
http://mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonf3ver2/screens/NikonF3screens.pdf

 

[jim_jm]

I have an F3 and F3HP with standard "K" screens, and VF brightness has never been an issue. With a 50/1.8 mounted, I see no difference in brightness between the center spot and the surrounding field.

Comparing to my FE2 and FG, the F3 is just a tiny, tiny bit dimmer, but nothing as bad as you describe and definitely never caused any concern. The F3 mirror allows a small amount of light to pass thru because the meter is behind the mirror.

I would check that you have the correct focusing screen installed, and that it's not dirty or dusty. Also check that the mirror and prism are clean as well.

 

[shimokita]

Does the focus screen frame have a red dot on it? If not, its probably an early one. A lot of people swap out their early F3 screens for a later and brighter red dot screen or swap the glass from an F4 focus screen which will slot right in.

+1 to the above...

To me (and maybe it's just me), but the screen in the "thru the lens" photo you posted above does not look like a K Screen. Below is a link to F3 focusing screens.

Nikon F3 - Interchangeable Focusing Screens - Index Page
http://mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonf3ver2/screens/index.htm

On the same page you can find a link to the following PDF: Focusing Screen Compatibility Chart for Nikon F3/F3HP (except F3H). In that PDF you see what screens work best with which lenses...

01) What screen to you actually have?
02) Is your screen a "red dot" screen?

Casey

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

To clarify - the first set of illustration pix above - the interior design shots... Those were NOT actual viewfinder images. I mocked them up in Photoshop just to illustrate the problem before realizing I could get a real shot through the actual viewfinders. But, the Rio pictures DO show the real thing, and the f3 shot seems to match what is shown for the K in hat link.

It very definitely says "K" in red on the side of the screen mount. I do not see a red dot anywhere.

Oddly, although the surfaces of the screen look clean, there are weird 'nebula-like' cloudy bits within the glass. Not all over, though.

Mirror and prism seem clean aside from a few dust or dirt particles.

Interesting thought, Marek, about a high point + magnifier. I had wanted the non HP because I wanted he largest view and I don't wear glasses whilst shooting.... So an HP with DK-17 is larger than a non high point? Thanks for the advice about aftermarket screens. I had been looking into the Beatties.

 

[Frontman]

I like the Beattie Intenscreen in my F3, the last body I got had it already installed. it is very bright, and easy to focus with.

The Pentax screens are indeed bright, when I first put one in my MX, I thought that it was some kind of specialty screen. But I shoot much more with the Nikon system, due to the variety of lenses.

 

[shimokita]

It very definitely says "K" in red on the side of the screen mount. I do not see a red dot anywhere.

Excuse the poor quality snap, but you should be able to see the following all in red...

K Nikon / Japan *

Casey

 

[sevo]

It almost looks like a Depth of Field Preview is being actuated by default.

Well, is it? That is, is there anything wrong with the camera - aperture mechanism, the finder itself missing optical elements, dirty or scratched mirror? Or the screen - notably, is the field lens in place? The frame should hold a sandwich of a planoconvex lens (round side up) and matte screen, plus (sometimes) a couple of shims.

The finder image on the original F3 is not the brightest - 100% view and the behind-the-mirror meter cells both take their toll, and the first generation screen is the same as on the F2, just in a slightly different frame, a generation behind the competition and Nikon consumer cameras from the same era. But that cannot explain such a marked difference between the microprism ring and matte area with aperture (supposedly) open - that should not be visible.

 

[sevo]

Excuse the poor quality snap, but you should be able to see the following all in red...

K Nikon / Japan *

More important is the lip on one long side of the frame - that is the main distinction between F/F2 and F3 screen frames. Some original F screens also had red inscriptions, and dots might be later additions by some user. And F screens will fit into the F3 - but as they use a different mechanism they don't lock into place, so they might be misplaced.

 

[Noserider]

I strongly advise not putting an F4 screen *with Frame* into an F3; focus errors will occur. Now, rebuilding an F3 screen frame with a F4 acrylic screen elements will be fine. The frame induces the error. Many tests and discussions over the years.

The Red Dot versions are the updated F3 screens using the F4 screen technology. Changing a Red Dot to F4 has no effect, but swapping a non Red Dot screen for a Red Dot one makes a very noticeable change.
I have many screens for F2-5 and at some point have used most of them. I prefer the J screen and the H2 and H3 for long lens low light shooting.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

No red dot on mine.
Nothing else seems wrong with the camera. Everything works except the viewfinder illumination light/switch. It's all in fantastic condition, except for that weird cloudy stuff within the screen itself. I'll try to photograph that tomorrow. The screen has a convex side on top - that surprised me - and the matte surface on the other side. There is a lip on the long side.

 

[Paulbe]

CK--I agree with Casey. Irrespective of what it say on the screen, it doesn't look like the standard "K." I don't see the split image part nor the microprism around the circle. Of course, it could just be the way the photo makes it appear. I took another look through my F3--a late one--and it's pretty bright! Good luck, as the F3 is a fine camera.
Paul

 

[sevo]

It could be a simple case of "cleaned to death". It is near impossible to remove grease (fingerprints) from the screens with household means (enzymatic degreasers in a powerful ultrasonic cleaner would do, but most people don't have access to either). So many people try with increasingly more aggressive cleaners, and soon end up with something that contains some solvent that damages acrylic (like alcohols, ketones and acetic or formic acid).

Try with a different screen - the standard varieties are cheap, even in the red dot variant.