Nikon F3 Screens

[Dwig]

It could be a simple case of "cleaned to death". ...

+1, this or there is some liquid or oily substance in the screen assemble. My bet is that the Fresnel lens in the screen assemble has been damaged by improper cleaning. It is very soft and any attempt to clean it by contact/wiping will destroy it. It could also have been improperly reassembled leading to issues.

The OP simply needs to replace the screen, preferably with on of the later "red dot" versions.

As has been stated, the original series of F3 screens were optically identical to the F2 screens. Their matte surface is excellent for focusing but is not the brighter lens-like surface used in the newer red dot screens and the screens in other newer bodies. The red dot screens are brighter, but the matte surface isn't quite a good a surface for focusing, though it works well enough.

 

[Dwig]

...
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?

Probably not.

First, there is no "G" screen for any Nikon. There are G1, G2, G3, & G4 screens. All of the G family are similar, but there are critically important differences. All of the G family lack any matte surface, there have micro prisms across their complete surface. Each of the different G screens have prisms of different bevel angles and have different focal length condenser lenses. These differences optimize the screens for different groups of lenses, generally grouped by focal length. When used with a lens not on their recommended lens list, they will not give accurate focus.

Also, lacking a matte surface you never see a true out of focus image, only the broken image produced by the prisms. This prevents you from seeing any result when you press the DOF Preview other than the dimming of the image.

 

[sevo]

When used with a lens not on their recommended lens list, they will not give accurate focus.

When using a very long lens with a G/H screen intended for short focal lengths, focus might be hard to determine, but that is a secondary issue. The more significant problem is that lenses that do not match the screen will show very significant vignetting. For the same reason they are not suitable for most zooms.

Another issue with them is that they prevent DOF preview, as they show double contours rather than blur, and vignette or black out when pressing the preview lever on smaller apertures.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

I have a few F4 screens I won't use. Pay for postage and you can have the K screen. Send me a PM if you're interested.

Phil Forrest

 

[Wulfthari]

J
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.

Sorry Dexter, the LX finder blows away any competitor I have, including the Nikon F2 (that's pretty dim, I admit it), the Canon F-1 Old and New, I don't have a F3 but I doubt it can be better than the LX with any screen.

For the F2 the brightest screen I have is the H2 for fast lens, still it's not up to LX standard and for the LX I have the standard screen, not the one for fast lenses (I think it's the Se 23 or something like that).

IMO if you want to replace the LX with the F3 you're making a error.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

Thanks, guys. Great suggestions/advice.

Dwig - thanks for the G screen explanation.

Wulfthari - I'm reluctantly coming around to this conclusion. The LX really is the closest thing to 'looking through a window.' I just have to get that camera working properly..... I'm having lots of difficulty with eBay lately. Kind of a crapshoot with these 'old' cameras these days.

 

[Godfrey]

I agree with the post that said "just replace the screen." If it's damaged or cloudy, it ruins the camera.

The LX was lovely. Unfortunately, they're nearly unrepairablle since Pentax never made parts or service manuals widely available. And they're much more prone to failure than any F, F2, F3, etc.

G

 

[Wulfthari]

I agree with the post that said "just replace the screen." If it's damaged or cloudy, it ruins the camera.

The LX was lovely. Unfortunately, they're nearly unrepairablle since Pentax never made parts or service manuals widely available. And they're much more prone to failure than any F, F2, F3, etc.

G

I know at least three experts on the world that can repair LX is almost any conditions, one is in the US and he's very popular among the Pentaxians, one is in the UK (Harrow Technical, aka the Pentax UK service), one is in Italy (Castelli)...the LX is not more prone to failure than a Nikon, actually according to Castelli the F3 is much more prone to electrical failures, the only problem is that in order to achieve the famous mirror damping the camera is famous for they used mirror stops made of soft rubber that within 20 year age, became sticky and soft as glue so it creates the infamous sticky mirror, even if the real problem is that the mirror creeps in a lower position so the camera does not focus at infinity, especially with short lenses.

So when you buy a LX you have to take into account that every 20 years you have to service it, and there's no escape, then the second problem arises: the LX is the only camera of its era that is waterproof, or better, splashproof. This means that it's full of seals anywhere to protect the internal from water infiltration, while this is another example of why a LX is better than a F3 it also means that when the tech has to perform a CLA he needs to replace all the o-rings and seal, that means that a standard service is more expensive than a less sophisticate camera.

So two advantages the LX has against the competition are also disavantages (you have to spend more money servicing it and therefore some people think it's more fragile, while it's the opposite), besides the soft mirror release and the dustproof splashproof quality the LX has also a very sophisticated TTL (better I've been told than the F3, the F1N doesn't support TTL), probably the best lightmeter every installed on a camera (-6.5 to 20 Ev sensitivity, IDV system from the curtain, in auto the shutter remains open even for hours making it the perfect tool for night photography), quick loading, double exposure mechanism, the magic finder but the most important thing is that is a system camera as capable as the F3 in the dimensions and weight of a FM2 (565 gr. vs 530).

So, I would like to understand for which logical reason somebody should replace a LX with a F3, while the F1N offers something the LX does not (interchangeble metering pattern with the screen and shutter priority WITH the bulky motordrive) there's nothing a F3 can do that the LX can't.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

Just got back from a used camera store, where i was able to take a look at an F3 HP, to compare the viewfinder. It was not very different from my non-HP. Sadly. I was hoping to find a significant discrepancy.... But, i think i will try to buy a better sample of the K screen, and go from there. The price i paid for the F3 is a bit of incentive toward just 'having' it, even if i'm not 'in love.'

I'm re-testing the Pentax, and was able to shoot a few frames with a different lens. I would really like to keep that camera. I'll take Wulfthari's advice and get it serviced. I have a bad feeling the reason why it sounds a bit metallic-y is that the mirror bumpers are gone. Which is also why it doesn't have the 'sticky mirror syndrome.' I'll be happy when i get all this settled and can just worry about trying to make decent photographs....

 

[Godfrey]

That's great .. Three people in the world can work on an LX. That gives me a lot of confidence. 🙄

The LX was a nice camera, but well known for jamming and slow, expensive service. I sold them once upon a time; they acquired a reputation for fragility and Pentax was a pain to deal with. For every Pentax LX sold, likely five F3s were sold from our shop that had no problems through their entire service life in professional hands.

The F3, of course, takes Nikon lenses... something the Pentax cannot do ... And if you have Nikon lenses and other equipment, well, the LX is irrelevant. Just like the Canon F1 is, unless you have Canon lenses.

I understand enthusiasm for the LX, it was a fine camera design. But it didn't make much of a mark in sales volume or in the professional photographer community. Pentax Enthusiasts loved it; however, relatively few bought one.

G

I know at least three experts on the world that can repair LX is almost any conditions, one is in the US and he's very popular among the Pentaxians, one is in the UK (Harrow Technical, aka the Pentax UK service), one is in Italy (Castelli)...the LX is not more prone to failure than a Nikon, actually according to Castelli the F3 is much more prone to electrical failures, the only problem is that in order to achieve the famous mirror damping the camera is famous for they used mirror stops made of soft rubber that within 20 year age, became sticky and soft as glue so it creates the infamous sticky mirror, even if the real problem is that the mirror creeps in a lower position so the camera does not focus at infinity, especially with short lenses.

So when you buy a LX you have to take into account that every 20 years you have to service it, and there's no escape, then the second problem arises: the LX is the only camera of its era that is waterproof, or better, splashproof. This means that it's full of seals anywhere to protect the internal from water infiltration, while this is another example of why a LX is better than a F3 it also means that when the tech has to perform a CLA he needs to replace all the o-rings and seal, that means that a standard service is more expensive than a less sophisticate camera.

So two advantages the LX has against the competition are also disavantages (you have to spend more money servicing it and therefore some people think it's more fragile, while it's the opposite), besides the soft mirror release and the dustproof splashproof quality the LX has also a very sophisticated TTL (better I've been told than the F3, the F1N doesn't support TTL), probably the best lightmeter every installed on a camera (-6.5 to 20 Ev sensitivity, IDV system from the curtain, in auto the shutter remains open even for hours making it the perfect tool for night photography), quick loading, double exposure mechanism, the magic finder but the most important thing is that is a system camera as capable as the F3 in the dimensions and weight of a FM2 (565 gr. vs 530).

So, I would like to understand for which logical reason somebody should replace a LX with a F3, while the F1N offers something the LX does not (interchangeble metering pattern with the screen and shutter priority WITH the bulky motordrive) there's nothing a F3 can do that the LX can't.

 

[Wulfthari]

That's great .. Three people in the world can work on an LX. That gives me a lot of confidence. 🙄

The LX was a nice camera, but well known for jamming and slow, expensive service. I sold them once upon a time; they acquired a reputation for fragility and Pentax was a pain to deal with. For every Pentax LX sold, likely five F3s were sold from our shop that had no problems through their entire service life in professional hands.

The F3, of course, takes Nikon lenses... something the Pentax cannot do ... And if you have Nikon lenses and other equipment, well, the LX is irrelevant. Just like the Canon F1 is, unless you have Canon lenses.

I understand enthusiasm for the LX, it was a fine camera design. But it didn't make much of a mark in sales volume or in the professional photographer community. Pentax Enthusiasts loved it; however, relatively few bought one.

G

First point: you said the LX cannot be repaired...debunked. These are the three I know (more than enough) and I'm pretty sure ANY authorised Pentax service can fix a LX.

Second point: well known for jamming? By who? I never heard anything like that regarding the LX, that's new. And "slow"? Slow doing what?

Third point: Pentax entered in the pro market in 1980, too late to have a significant impact because most of the pro already had a Nikon for at least twenty years or a Canon for ten. Even Canon had problems entering in the pro market in 1971, the fact the LX is rarer than the F3 doesn't prove the latter is a better camera, unless you believe that the starlets of American Idols are better than serious BRoadway actresses just because they are better known to the general public.

For the Nikon glass, I've them as well as Pentax and Canon, and to be honest I think that these two brands made better lenses, today we are lucky because in the digital era manual lenses are cheap so anybody can have glass of these three brands and compare the results, but if I had to chose a single camera between my F2AS, F2A, my Canons and the LX probably I would choose the latter, even if I will regret all the other excellent cameras I have.

Just got back from a used camera store, where i was able to take a look at an F3 HP, to compare the viewfinder. It was not very different from my non-HP. Sadly. I was hoping to find a significant discrepancy.... But, i think i will try to buy a better sample of the K screen, and go from there. The price i paid for the F3 is a bit of incentive toward just 'having' it, even if i'm not 'in love.'

I'm re-testing the Pentax, and was able to shoot a few frames with a different lens. I would really like to keep that camera. I'll take Wulfthari's advice and get it serviced. I have a bad feeling the reason why it sounds a bit metallic-y is that the mirror bumpers are gone. Which is also why it doesn't have the 'sticky mirror syndrome.' I'll be happy when i get all this settled and can just worry about trying to make decent photographs....

Well an F3 is an F3 and you can't expect to be the perfect camera that excels in every aspect. For the LX, if the dampers are gone it means the camera can't focus at infinity. Is this the case?

You can see them here:

This is an interesting page on how to do little things on the LX by yourself:

http://www.fotomozaic.ro/artikel.php?s=1&categ=21&idstory=51

In my case before fixing just the pads (I spent 50 euros for that, but it wasn't a completely CLA) I simply shimmed the mirror.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

Updates:

The Pentax LX — I bought another lens. An M-50/1.4, to test alongside my A-50/1.4, just to eliminate the lens as a variable in the focus problems. Turns out both lenses performed equally. Equally poorly. And, when i added a front/rear focusing chart to the test, it revealed pretty significant back focus. So, as much as i liked the feel of the LX and its phenomenal viewfinder, i had to return it. I could have had it repaired, but after this issue, and the sticky mirror issue with the first LX i bought, i just tired of it, and could have no confidence in the camera going forward. I would have cursed myself (and Pentax) if i had taken it on an 18 hour flight for a three week bit of travel, and found something else wrong with it upon arrival. Or, worse, after i'd returned home, with a bag full of exposed film.

So, two things happened within 12 hours of making that decision. I found Robert's F3-HP in the classified section, and i figured i'd just get a cheap body for the Pentax A-50/1.4. I only bought the LX because i wanted to use the 50/1.4, and as i tend to do, i overspent for what i assumed would be a 'first-rate experience with a top of the line SLR.' So, instead, i went for a $50 experience with an ME Super. Actually, the ME Super cost me $75, and it is coming WITH another (M) 50/1.4 lens! That lens alone is worth more than $75.

Back to the F3-HP. I received it today, and it's a night/day difference between this one and the one we have been discussing in this thread. The screen (a different screen) is bright, and clear, and focusable throughout the field. It's amazing how much of a difference that makes. This F3 is an entirely different experience. I had thought the F3 just wasn't for me, and i resigned myself to my FE2 (and F100). But, now i like the F3 more than the FE2. The shutter/mirror sounds more solid. The view is a bit smaller, but clearer with this screen. I'll take Marek's advice and add the DK-17m magnifier. And, now i'm done....

....Until i add a Contax RX....

So, two new questions:

• I have the E grid screen. It is Not a red dot version, though. Will a red dot "E" screen make a difference?

• Any suggestions for a mid-range zoom? Cheap-ish? Something in the 24/28/35 to 50/70/80 range? I had sworn off zooms almost 20 years ago, but i recently saw some very sharp results from a very cheap Nikkor zoom, that isn't even very highly rated/regarded. I'll still mainly use my two primes (50/1.8E and 35/2-O, and might add a 28/2.8 AiS at some point, but a 28-80 might be fun at times.

 

[jim_jm]

Glad to hear you found an F3 that works for you. For me, it's the best overall manual focus Nikon I have - and I also have F, F2, F4. FM, FE2, F100, FG, F80 and several Nikkormat bodies. All great cameras, but the F3 has the best combination of features for me, and the best in-camera meter I've used. I've shot hundreds of rolls of slide film thru my F3's and aside from my own obvious mistakes, have always been happy with the exposures.

I don't use mid-range zooms as much these days, but for lower-cost I can recommend the Nikkor 35-70/3.5 AIS (62 filter). I tested it against the 28-85/3.5-4.5 AIS and the 35-105/3.5-4.5 AIS, and it was the best of the lot. Most of the time I just use the 28/2.8 AIS, which easily deserves it's reputation, and a 55/2.8 Micro to cover this range.

I do have a soft spot for the 35-105, which is a good lens if you want a bit more long range in a push-pull design. One of my favorite shots with this lens at the long end:

http://www.apug.org/gallery1/showimage.php?i=74758&catid=member&imageuser=20239

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

Hey, Jim. Thanks for the info.

re: the FG.... I bought one semi-recently. Thought it was lovely, until (twice) when i was out trying to use it, the meter just blinked at (i believe) 60 and 125, and the shutter only operated at one speed. Fresh batteries. I think i subsequently read that meant 'game over' for the electronics, but maybe you have a better idea?

I'll look into those zooms. Appreciated. But, i can't see your sample shot.

The samples i found online that led me to interest in a cheap zoom are here:
https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=22599943@N02&view_all=1&text=35-80mm

I wouldn't expect to do any better with a prime.

 

[jim_jm]

Think I got the image link in there now ... Just couldn't get the image inserted for some dumb reason.

The FG is a nice tiny body, but I'd think the electronics would not be as robust as the F3. Haven't experienced the problem you have yet, but if it's really toast I'd think the shutter will only fire at M90 and B. Check the manual to see if you're overlooking something. Google Butkus camera manuals if you don't have one. Mine was sitting in storage for over 30 years when I bought it, and it took a bit of time with fresh batteries before everything seemed to be working OK. For smaller Nikon bodies I prefer the FM series as they just keep shooting and I can get by with "sunny-16" metering if I need to. This was my main backpacking camera for years.

The less-expensive zooms can be all over the place, performance-wise. Some are better at the long or short ends and crappy in the middle, or vice-versa. These days I usually just use longer zooms like the 80-200, which are really good at all lengths and save a lot of weight over having separate 80, 105, 180 and 200 primes.

 

[Noserider]

One surprising nikkor cheap zoom is the 36-72mm Series E. They can be found cheap and since they have a decent mulitcoating and relative few elements due to the limited zoom range it actually is a pretty sharp and contrasty lens, with decent bokeh as well.
The last version of the widely disliked 43-86mm is surprisingly good, I shot plenty of bikini photos with it. Here is the link to one http://four-silver-atoms.com/2012/09/26/nikon-d600-and-bikinis/

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

Update:

Still feeling 'not-so-satisfied' with my F3 in relation to my Pentax ME Super (screen-wise), i just bought a K Red Dot screen. That made a significant difference, versus the non red dot Grid screen. But, still, i wasn't exactly "happy." Then, i removed the DK-17 magnifier from the HP prism, and voila — better still. The DK-17, somehow, diminishes the focus 'snap,' at least for me. I liked the larger view, but more crispness when focusing is preferred. I got the DK-17 on Marek's advice, and now i'm wondering if i should go back to the non-HP finder....

But, yeah — Red Dot. That's the ticket.

 

[Mark C]

The F3 is my favorite Nikon, and favorite SLR. I prefer the non-HP finder for its larger image. I find it easier to focus, and can still see the whole field adequately well even with glasses.

I need to check my screens. I don't know if I have a red dot, but have been satisfied with my K screen. The Pentax MX view is more impressive, but I still prefer the Nikon overall.