Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: screen protection

  1. #1

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Staffordshire,England
    Posts
    12
    Real Name
    David

    screen protection

    Any feed back welcome.

    I have just come off you tube where the chap doing the demo said that he always got rid of the rear protector for a number of reasons. I was actually in the throes of getting a new protector for my camera and looking for a glass one, as opposed to plastic but now I have heard this chaps opinion would anyone else have a say on whether it is best to go bare back or not?

  2. #2
    Administrator Manfred M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    12,870
    Real Name
    Manfred Mueller

    Re: screen protection

    The protector is there to protect the screen from scratches and other forms of damage. It does reduce the quality of what you see a bit, but so what.

    I had the misfortune to drop my camera onto some rocks in a volcano on a trip to Iceland and it sustained some minor damage (cracked upper housing) that required it going back to Nikon after I got home. The deeply scratched protective cover needed replacing to, but not the expensive screen that sat below it.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Norfolk, UK
    Posts
    416
    Real Name
    Yes

    Re: screen protection

    I use a protector, as just like the protective filter on the front of a lens, it can be cleaned or replaced much easier and cheaper than if its the camera screen.

    I use a plastic one made but cutting a type sold for mobile phones, called "Copter" Not easy to cut. It is supposed to be the material put on the edge of helecopter blades to protect them. It is certainly very resistant to scratches, and very clear. I find best to cut with sharp knife with the material held down with metal rulers both sides.

    You apply it with a fluid, which avoids air spaces under the film, and so far they have lasted over 18 months with no damage. Visability is as good as no screen protector, though reflectance is not the same as coated glass. A real advantage is that the material works on touch screens. My EOS M seems to work just as well after adding the screen as before, but finger prints etc show up less with the screen on.

  4. #4
    Glenn NK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    1,510

    Re: screen protection

    That plastic surface on the back of your camera IS the LCD protector. The ones on some bodies can be peeled off and replaced with a new one (this in particular applies to Canon bodies).

    Does the protector need another one? Of course the guy that sells them thinks so.

    OTOH, the front lens element DOES NOT come with a protector.

    Glenn

  5. #5
    Adrian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    427
    Real Name
    Adrian

    Re: screen protection

    I do not use protectors at all. My cameras prefer to be used in the nude

    It depends how risk averse / clumsy you are. To me a camera is a tool and although I look after them, they are there for function. Selling protectors for phones, cameras and so on is big business that in my mind preys on a very small risk.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •