Acute-Matte Split image or plain screen? is the microprism a distraction?

After reading many recomendations to upgrade my Hassy 500CM to a

Acute-Matte D I cant decide which one to go for, at the moment i have

the standard focusing screen. I like the sound of a split image focus

but as i cant try it out (i'm having to buy mail order) I'd really

like to hear anyones opinions on the split image V plain. I can

imagine that having the split image in the middle of the picture

could be annoying esp. if the object i'm focusing on is not in the

middle, but i can also imagine that it would be a very useful tool.

If you use these screen please tell me how you feel about each.

Thanks in advance for your help.

 

Stuart.

Use both screens! no kidding. that's why they made 500CM to replace 500C. i have Acute/microprism+grid installed on 500C. sometimes when shooting macro, microprism drives me creasy, because i can't see the object behind the prism. but... microprism is very handy for quick focusing.

When I purchased my new 500 CW it came with the plain screen. I liked it very much. But these old eyes find it hard to focus in dark light, which is where the split image saves the day. I wouldn't trade it for anything. Kevin

Stuart,

 

Both pieces of advice are good! I wholeheartedly back Kevin's contribution. With the exception of extreme close-up (macro work), go with the split-image. Even before my eyes got a little "funky", the split-image always made it easier and a little faster when I needed it to be.

 

Good luck and enjoy the screen! Cheers, Gr

As a matter of fact, the split image makes it much much faster! It saves you the hunting/searching for sharpness, you get it right the first time. It makes you a lot quicker. And it saves you the perceived need for autofocus or electronic focus confirmation.

 

When I take portraits, I insert the Acute Matte D with the split oriented vertically (yes, with a Hasselblad you can rotate the screen in increments of 90 degrees). With the split oriented vertically you can very easily and accurately focus on the eyes of your sitter. And you are very sure that you are exactly in focus as opposed to autofocus, where you need to visually check that the device focused exactly on the very spot you wanted in focus everytime before you trip the shutter.

 

The Hasselblad Acute Matte D with split image is the only screen I ever need for all types of work. And, by the way, it delivers the best viewfinder image in terms of brilliance and details/sharpness that I found in any camera, which includes more than 10 current medium format cameras and the same number of 35 mm SLRs.

Stuart,

 

I�d like to share with my experience. Some years ago I changed my center-aimed screens for a plain ones, in spite of its lightness of focussing. I almost never shoot pictures or portraits with a center placed main image. So, when I focused a subject and then composed a picture, a subject became out of focus as a rule. When changing an angle of view you change a distance to a subject. It mainly concerns when shooting on mid distances (1.5-4 m) with a fast wide open normal or mid-tele lens (80-150mm and more) and a DOF can�t cover a difference between the distance to the subject placed in the frame center and the distance to the same subject placed out of the center. A center-aimed screen forces us to focus in a center before composing, as well as a RF-camera does. It is easy to check: 1) focus a subject on a wall, 2) compose a picture when a subject is out of a frame center, 3) focus any subject appeared in a center after composing, 4) return to the first subject and compare the difference in focussing. You�ll see that focussing of the main subject is changed. So, as for me, center-aimed screens are for central composed pictures only.

 

Good choice,

 

Victor

Why do you think focusing aids are always positioned in the center of the screen? Because industry wants you to compose your images center-oriented? Not at all! Let me give some important information from inside a lens manufacturer:

 

Sharpness of a well-centrated lens is always highest in the center of the image. You knew that one already. Did you also know that depth of field is smallest in the center? Yes, Dof is not the same everywhere in the frame! Now, combine maximum sharpness and lowest Dof: This combination produces the clearest possible, highly reactive focusing criterion. Since this optimum is available in the very center of the frame only, any focusing aid should logically be positioned there.

 

What I am also saying is: Dof grows as you move from the center to the corner. And sharpness drops. So, when you focus first with the central focusing aid, then reframe and keep the focus previously set, your image should come out sharp.

 

When doing portraits, I usually focus on the eye of my sitter with the central split field indicator (for taking portraits with my Hasselblad, I set the screen so that the indicator split is vertical, not horizontal as usual), then recompose and shoot. I always reach the desired sharpness, and I am quite picky about getting the eyelashes very very sharp. This procedure is quick and accurate, even in rather low light. (I prefer to shoot at "normal", rather low light levels, be it natural light next to a window or the lowest setting on my studio lights, because I want "natural diameters" of the pupils of my sitters, not the tiny pinholes produced by extremely bright modeling lights.) My preferred f-stops are as low as my studio lighting equipment permits at the lowest setting for a 160 ISO film, this is usually f/5,6 for normal portraits, it is around f/11 for beauty shots which involve lots of large size light sources simultaneously. The lenses in these cases are Sonnar 2,8/150 (the fast one for focal plane shutter Hasselblads), Sonnar 4/180, Tele-Tessar 4/250, Tele-Tessar 4/350.

I recently got the Acutematte D with grid and prism to replace older plain screen. I highly recommend the grid. I agree with what was said above except for two things:

 

1) For slow lenses (5.6 or above) or when stopping down to preview DOF, the center split area goes black. In some cases (especially with ext. tubes) I have very shallow DOF and a small centered subject. This is a bit of a pain, since you cannot properly see the subject. Also, unless your eye is alighed correctly, half or all the split area goes black with the waist level -- a bit laborious at times. I find that the "chimney" finder works well in such circumstances.

 

2) Everything inside the circle appears in focus. While the split really helps focus, I find this a bit disconcerting. Maybe I will get used to it.

 

Michael

Having lived with the orginal screen for quite a while, and having suffered quite a few disappointments where potentially good pictures were less than satisfying due to poor focus, I made the switch. I have found the split screen indispensible in getting accurate focusing, and I do not find it very distracting. It speeds up the focussing process a great deal which is very helpful when working with live subjects. For a fairly small expenditure I think you'll be very satisfied.