orsetto

Before this thread disappears back in time again... The Nikon F2 is my all time favorite 35mm SLR, but it does have some quirks that can make it suddenly malfunction in ways the earlier Nikon F (and lesser Nikkormats) do not. Depending on past use history, storage, etc, the F2 can indeed manifest a jammed wind lever (which may or may not be tied to related issues with the shutter button collar mechanism). The F2 shutter is also prone to develop capping (not properly exposing) at the fastest 1/500, 1/1000, and esp 1/2000 speeds: the shutter system is more sensitive to misuse than the older F shutter mechanics. The F2 is a phenomenal, rugged camera but it doesn't tolerate misuse/disuse to the degree the older F can handle. The F is unkillable, the F2 slightly less so. Most important tip for preserving the F2: never leave the shutter cocked overnight, preferably not more than an hour. Always fire a cocked F2 before putting it away for the night, to relieve tension on the shutter mainspring. Check the shutter button collar occasionally, to be sure its holding to the center detent securely. Avoid moving it off center to the locked or T position unless absolutely necessary. Avoid using multiple short strokes to advance the film or cock the camera: doing this substantially increases the odds of the lever locking up or other mechanical mishaps. This applies primarily to aging F2 cameras that haven't ever been serviced: if your F2 has been recently overhauled by a specialist tech like Sover Wong, it won't be prone to winding or button collar glitches. Just be vigilant about not leaving the shutter cocked for long periods.

Buying and reselling just to check out and play with various camera systems has always been financially unpredictable. Sometimes if you time it on the upswing of a popular model, you'll break even or eke out a slight profit. Usually you'll take a fairly significant loss upon resale, either from eBay/broker fees or lowball offers from established dealers. We usually write off the loss as a "rental fee", but its still painful to eat a $200 loss on a camera you paid $600 for a couple months earlier. I think a lot of vintage camera "dabblers" got spoiled by the white-hot COVID-era market, where resale prices were rising so fast you could generally try out any camera for "free". That feverish era seems to be hurtling toward an end in recent weeks: for the first time in quite awhile eBay is again awash in Mamiya RB67 gear (after being nearly unobtainable from domestic sellers since 2016). Global economic woes (and the recent issues with Fuji's true intentions re ongoing film manufacturing) seem to have deflated the latest "vintage film camera" binge. Compounded by rapidly disappearing repair sources, we may soon see a massive selloff and market correction. The hipster kids and retro-boomers are beginning to realize their beautiful looking $1799 Rolleiflex or Hasselblad can be terrifying post-purchase money pits of maintenance cost, with ever-dwindling numbers of truly competent techs and wait lists of months to years. The recent unfortunate passing of David Odess was a big wakeup call to me personally: suddenly, my heavy investment in vintage Hasselblad (with its utterly absurd neverending repair costs) seems rather ill-advised. Since I have more fun with my Mamiya TLR system anyway, and the simplistic Mamiya lens shutters can be repaired by any geek wielding a screwdriver, it may finally be time to unload most of my 'blad stuff. Leica and Rollei TLR enthusiasts seem to enjoy living their lives hostage to only two or three aging specialist techs: thats not for me. A competently overhauled Leica M can run a decade or more with no issues, but you're lucky to get a few months from a 'blad overhaul before it fails again. I've been burned by generalist techs several times: truly excellent 'blad service costs dearly and has become increasingly difficult to find. Knowing my Hassy kit (esp lenses) are ticking time bombs of spite kinda sucks the joy out of the user experience.

Lifetouch was/is one of the largest high-volume portrait photography franchises in North America: they've been in business 80 years, certainly long enough that it seems logical this bespoke focus screen configuration was made by Beattie to Lifetouch precise specifications. Probably not a stock offering in Beattie's catalog: I'd guess this was made only for Lifetouch to offer as a proprietary accessory for their affiliated photographers. Mamiya was by far the medium format system of choice in the heyday of churn-em-out school and corporate film portrait work (most often the C220/C330 TLRs, but the later RB67 made heavy inroads and even the clunky Universal Press was popular in some applications like passports and IDs). The layout of this screen indicates the attached RB67 was expected to remain in fixed portrait orientation at a fixed distance, with the upper small rectangle used to quickly position the face in the overall frame (handy when dealing with an endless parade of schoolkids etc). Interesting find! Hope it proves to have some utility for you.

"Around", yes, but not really in the same way they were at their peak when they had two locations in Manhattan (main one on W 13th Street, and a pro satellite shop). The Cambridge that exists now doesn't refer to itself as Cambridge half the time, and does most of its business via various confusing eBay stores. The most interesting thing about the current Cambridge is their location, which I expect will soon either increase their business considerably or create problems they never dreamed of when they moved there. Some years ago, two ex-Cambridge guys opened their current outpost in one of the dullest, most nondescript, unhip, low-traffic retail streets of Queens NYC, in a neighborhood nobody under the age of 60 would be caught dead in. In essence, they run their packed shop as a cross between between the old 47th Street Photo and Floyds Barber Shop in Mayberry. Its a confusing setup if you don't have prior experience dealing with this type of older camera sales veterans: they are simultaneously very charming and a bit shady. For years, I think the storefront was mostly a Collyers Mansion for them to putter around and amuse themselves. The neighborhood they're in has taken quite a turn recently, which could shake things up significantly. The hottest most desirable neighborhood in the world for the past fifteen years has been Williamsburg Brooklyn: ground zero and holy land of hipsterism. As Williamsburg filled to overflowing with newcomers, a spillover effect began which follows the path of the isolated subway line that passes thru it. Slowly but surely, every neighborhood within a mile of that train has been overtaken with a younger demographic, until finally they reached the end of the line: where Cambridge is currently located. Once the sleepiest most overlooked area in NYC, Maspeth Queens is on the cusp of total hipster invasion. This group has no patience with quirky old school sales methods or presentation: they view film photography and old cameras in a very different light. The current Cambridge outpost will likely need to change quite a bit to avoid alienating this youth invasion: the accident of their location coinciding with this tidal shift could be a boon or a curse depending on the tenor of social media posts. At the moment, reviews seem relatively balanced at 60/40.

There are (usually) no inherent "benefits", as the F4 screens tend to be brighter to begin with (although some of the later F3 screens were updated to roughly F4 performance). The primary reason people do this switcheroo is the scarcity of dedicated F4 screens: for some of the more desirable configurations, it is (or was) much easier and less expensive to obtain the F3 version and swap the frames with a more commonplace F4 screen. Some of us Nikon veterans did the same thing in reverse earlier on: we'd swap a newer slightly brighter F3 screen into our older F/F2 frames. All bets are off with some of the really scarce configurations like the focal-length-specific all-microprism screens: these are way more available in F/F2 guise so you'd cannibalize one of those to transfer to your F3 or F4 frame.

It does look like impact damage, tho I wouldn't expect to see such extensive cracking along all edges of an actual solid glass prism. Agree with John_Seaman that this might be the cheaper "Porro Finder" that used a set of fragile flat mirrors vs a solid prism. The Mamiya porro finders can often be found more easily and for less money than the true prism, but the viewing image is much smaller and dimmer (fine for outdoor and landscape, not great for indoor where the WLF or true prism show a larger brighter easier-focusing image). IIRC, the porro finders were offered only for the Mamiya TLR cameras, not the RB/RZ67 or 645 series. The porro option is more effective for the top heavy TLRs anyway: much lighter than the true prism, and you can get a porro version with built in TTL CdS meter. The true solid glass Mamiya TLR prism is more compact than either porro, but weighs much more and is not available with TTL meter.

Nicely brassed example! Also a reminder that the only thing louder than the running noise of the AW1 winder is the gaudy raised badge on the front of it. Guess Nikon really did want everyone to know "yes, we have a winder, too!" Sadly most broke down quickly due to a "recycled parts bin" nylon motor gear that was no match for the motor-hostile Copal Square Nikkormat shutter. They can be brought back to life with the same custom made brass replacement gear sold by Nikon guru Sover Wong to fix the failure prone gear in the professional F2 motors MD1, MD2, MD3. Sover resurrected my MD3 this way: its worked perfectly ever since, but you have to really love the motor or winder to justify the repair cost. I just checked the March 1977 actual discounted selling prices advertised by a fourth defunct NYC camera store chain, Cambridge Camera. The Nikkormat ELW body was $316, AW1 $95. The still new Canon AE-1 body only was $208, the Canon winder $73. Quite a difference if you were a newbie to SLRs lured into the camera store by a glitzy TV ad for the AE-1. Its unlikely many customers could be upsold to the Nikkormat (it was still a premium, expensive model). The closest you could get to beating the Canon combo of shutter priority AE and low price was the Konica T3N, which had a clearance price drop to $216 (its budget sister the A3 was only $139, but omitted key features). Neither Konica could take a winder. More affordable aperture priority competitors to the Nikkormat ELW had sprung up like weeds at that point: every other major brand had panicked at Canon's aggression, and significantly dropped the prices on their holdover premium AE models. Pentax ESII and K2 went down to $219, Minolta XE7 and Fujica ST901 ditto, even Canon dropped its own EF to $257. The warmed-over Nikon EL2 was due any minute, but still in the $330 range. Pentax new ME and Minolta XG7 were about to pounce with the AE1 price/feature set, Konica was releasing the stripped but dirt cheap TC, and Fuji would make a last stand in 35mm SLRs with its AX (instantly forgettable, if not for its place in history as the first AE SLR to be bundled with an affordable kit zoom lens). The popular FE would turn things around for Nikon in this market segment, but wouldn't be announced or available until '78. The bargain-basement EM and E lens line was even further out, but would fail to catch on, leading Nikon to cede the entry level segment altogether. They would be vindicated years later by great success in the entry level DSLR market.

Per my late 1975 Nikon retail price reference, suggested retail on the chrome finish body-only lineup was: F2S Photomic $703 F2 Photomic $599 F w/ FTn Photomic Prism $474 EL $460 FT2 $287 FTn $275 For context, competing autoexposure SLRs from other brands were also marketed like the Nikkormat EL: confusing mixed messaging implying they were optimized for the newbie, yet priced as luxury premium items most newbies could not afford. Canon EF $460, Minolta XE-7 $455, Olympus OM2 $458, and Pentax ESII at a nosebleed $494. When Canon dropped its AE-1 bombshell in 1976 at just $279, the shockwave was even bigger than the miniaturization craze set off by Olympus OM1 a couple years earlier. Mfrs scrambled to add more automation to the smaller camera bodies they were about to unveil. Matching the AE1 price point was a nightmare for most. _____________ The NYC camera store history, specifically in Manhattan, is full of fits and starts. My comments re the decline of the best known old-school chains at the hands of the heavy discounters refer to mid to late .'70s era: by the late '70s and early '80s Olden Camera looked like the unrenovated Cairo Museum and was utterly devoid of customers, Willoughbys was laser focused on foreign tourists, and Camera Barn's retail operation went into slow but steady slide. Personal impressions can of course vary widely, I will agree Camera Barn had far more retail action than Olden Camera during this time, was notably less aggressive than Willoughbys, and I did allude to CB having a deep stock of used and classic gear.. The income from their wholesale accessories pivot helped keep them stable thru the early '80s, but by 1984 or so things really began to decline. The tension between Henry and his staff could be cut with a knife during the final decade, and atmosphere in the last store was toxic: Henry would be screaming and raving in the catwalks above, leaving customers to wonder WTH kind of asylum they'd wandered into. But the NYC camera store scene didn't disappear, it transitioned to something markedly different from what it had been in the 1960s-early 1970s. Some of the back-page predatory discounters stepped up their game after causing the rival chains demise: most notably B&H made a headspinning metamorphosis from from Slim Shady to being the epicenter of East Coast photo retail and professional services. Dedicated enthusiasts like Ken Hansen opened their own enthusiast/pro shops, creating a newer hipper photo district one neighborhood over (in Chelsea). Hansen's was incredible: was very sorry when he closed down some years ago. Several specialist places devoted to 4x5, Leica and Hasselblad opened and fluorished (with some still around today).

Of the two you pictured, the 28mm Nikkor-H f/3.5 would be the choice of most photographers prioritizing optical quality. It was THE Nikon 28mm lens for many years, very good optics, high construction quality (all metal). This one has the genuine Nikon upgrade to full AI compatibility, making the asking price just about on the nose for a typical clean example with that upgrade. At f/3.5, the maximum aperture is a bit slow compared to the now-common f/2.8: depending on your needs, this may have significance for viewing/focusing and shutter speed limitations indoors or in dim light. Like all of Nikons 28mm primes, this one has some field curvature: this can manifest as slightly blurry corners in landscape shots, and pose difficulty with closer uses. Nothing that can't be worked around, you just need to get a feel for how the lens images so you can use the quirks to your advantage. For example, field curvature can be exploited to get two objects at different distances in focus at the same time. Of note, this version of vintage 28mm Nikkor is particularly prized by those who shoot infrared film or use infrared-modified DSLRs: it is one of the best performing lenses for the IR spectrum ever made. The 35-70 zoom is overpriced by this seller. It is a low-end kit lens, not terrible but not particularly good either. The size and zoom range is very convenient, but its very slow at 50mm and 70mm, making for dim viewing/focusing and shooting limitations in low light. Unlike similar AF kit zooms made for later DSLRs, this lens does not have aspheric elements to boost performance: its altogether just an average lens. Performance is fine stopped down to f/8, otherwise nothing special. If the size and zoom range appeal to you for travel/landscape use, I'd recommend looking for one at another shop or perhaps on eBay: in today's market this is an unpopular lens that can usually be found for much lower cost than 125 euro. You could try offering the shop 85 euro, if they accept that might be a decent deal if you want to get the lens quickly.

Thanks to neil_grant for his idea of removing the rear cap, and David_Shanley for the tip re Marvel oil! I replied to your other Mamiya Press 65mm thread with my experience trying to loosen up my own stiff 65mm: results weren't quite as successful as yours, but I didn't have Marvel oil at hand when I tried.

Inspired by neil_grant's post in a similar thread: https://www.photo.net/forums/topic/550432-mamiya-press-lens-problem/#comment-5815810 I looked at the back of my Mamiya Press 65mm and realized the helicoid cap could be removed, revealing the entire threaded circumference without disturbing any of the other mechanics. The rangefinder cam gave me pause until close examination showed its position is not critical, and it can be replaced exactly without fuss. The cam needs to be removed first to completely free the rear baffle cap, which is held by three tiny fragile JIS cross head screws: be sure you do NOT use a typical Phillips screwdriver on these or you will strip the heads. I don't have a proper JIS driver in this size, but years of experience taught me a small Huffy multibit cross head will do the job if used very carefully. Proceed at your own risk, of course. My results weren't as successful as neil-grants, mostly because I don't have the Marvel oil he specified on hand. At first, a couple tiny pin drops of sewing machine oil did make the seized helicoid turn silky smooth: I was elated. But after re-assembly of the baffle and RF cam, the effect diminished considerably to just slightly improved. Possibly the cap and/or cam exert some mechanical pressure causing drag: I will need to try it again once I lay hands on this Marvel oil. In retrospect, I don't believe its actually necessary to take the rear baffle off: the same amount of thread access is available thru the RF cam slot opening (you just need to keep turning the focus ring to expose a different section to lube). Still, many thanks neil_grant for posting the disassembly idea and Marvel oil suggestion!

Followup to above, I just came across a 1975 ad for the Miranda DX3 promoting its unique oversized concentric-microprism focus aid that simultaneously functions as a huge multi-angle split image aid. For decades since the demise of Miranda with this ill-fated final camera, I've wondered why no one has ever offered that focus aid concept again. Once you've experienced it, going back to dinky traditional split image circles is very disappointing. It would be especially helpful in a medium format camera screen: if only Rick Oleson could find a way to offer it!

Interesting topic, AG! In all my years using Hasselblad, I've never before now come across any reference to an alternative soft focus filter pre-dating the Softars. But sure enough, upon checking Freytag's Hasselblad Way book per your post, there was the info on the "diffusion filters". Oddly, these aren't mentioned at all in the fraternal twin Hasselblad Manual by Ernst Wildi, and most starngely they aren't mentioned in Nodins comprehensive Compendium book! This led me to comb thru my collection of old Hasselblad brochures and price lists. The earliest list I have is from 1961, which notes the "#50C Diffusion Filter" but has no reference to Softars. The 1971 price list adds the well known trio of Softars, drops the Bay 50 Diffusion, but adds the "Series 63 Diffusion DF1". My 1969 lens brochure indicates the same single 63 model, the 1970 brochure shows 63 DF1 and DF2, then the 1975 brochure drops back to just the 63 DF1. Curiously, all iterations of the Diffusion filter are consistently priced at half the cost of the similar Softar over the years: whether that was due to higher mfg cost of the Softars or proprietary price gouging is difficult to determine (the Hasselblad Diffusion filter seems to have been based the Rolleiflex Duto filters, which in turn are based on an apparently unpatented generic design). The Softar design has completely dominated the soft focus filter category since it was introduced, so today it is incredibly difficult to find good image examples showing the different effect of the Diffusion/Duto (or even discussions of the difference). A little sleuthing did turn up a couple of examples and comments on Amazon, however: surprisingly, the Diffusion/Duto concentric filter has had a recent comeback of sorts and modern versions are offered by the likes of Hoya and Kenko. The Diffusion/Duto is described as a relic of the chemical photography era, because the effect it was employed for only really worked in prints or magazine ads and doesn't fully come across with digital imaging. Apparently the concentric ring effect doesn't so much soften the image as force visual attention toward the central subject: it was most popular for studio product photography during the golden age of magazine ads. Hasselblad (or its studio users) seems to have decided the Diffusion/Duto was more useful for the 50mm, 60mm and SWC wide angle trio, hence its availability primarily in only Series 63 size. The effect is variable with aperture and diminishes considerably as you stop down, in contrast to the Softars which remain soft across the entire frame even when stopped down. The current spike of interest in the concentric Diffusion/Duto design is coming mostly from digital astrophotographers, who've discovered these concentric filters have an "undocumented" ability to brighten stars at the edges of the frame (or some such: I forget exactly how they deploy it, but it helps with some tricky star fields that would otherwise get swallowed by some camera sensors). Since this topic is unlikely to ever come up again in a newer thread, I thought it might be a good idea to post the relevant paragraph from Freytag below for anyone who might need the info in future:

Can always count on Rick to regularly unearth a pristine, near-untouched, yet perfectly functional vintage camera, then proceed to shoot a stunning portfolio of "test shots" with it. This time around its the seldom-seen ELW: nice find! And great pics using it! The ELW was a stop gap effort: Nikon desperately needed to counter the revolutionary AE-1 from arch competitor Canon, but had nothing in its immediate pipeline. Nobody really did: Canon came out of left field and undercut the entire industry at that price point with that combination of AE, idiot proof flash, and perhaps most importantly the optional cheap winder motor. The only AE body Nikon had in production was the pricey EL, whose Copal Square shutter had not previously been considered motor drive friendly. Nikon took a chance anyway, grafting a quick-n-dirty winder modification to the baseplate and offering what had to be the crappiest most unreliable winder in camera history. Their goal was to jazz up the appeal of the now suddenly dowdy EL model with the newly white-hot must-have winder accessory. But the ELW received at best a lukewarm reception: the basic EL body was designed a few years earlier when Nikon still completely ruled 35mm photography, so it was overbuilt and still too expensive for the new budget market niche Canon had opened with the AE-1. The ELW clumsy pre-AI lens indexing system, CdS cells, aperture priority meter and lack of flash automation were also a tough sell against the robotic wow new Canon. To its credit, Nikon gave the venerable EL one more final makeover as the EL2, with silicon meter cell and AI lens mount upgrades: the last of the legendary old-guard Nikkormats and best/only incarnation with autoexposure (the FT3 being the culmination of manual mechanical Nikkormats). Of course, we all know Nikon eventually scored big when they repackaged the EL2 heart and soul into the more modern, compact, glamorous FE and FE2. These cleverly maintained a price and build margin over competing Canons, with the speedy 3.5 fps MD12 motor drive (and FE2 TTL flash) as advantage points. Re Camera Barn: like other traditional NYC camera retailers Olden and Willoughbys, by the mid-1970s the chain had become a rundown clip joint whose customer base had dwindled to naive walk-in trade and clueless tourists. Any photographer with savvy was buying their gear direct from the NYC mail order discount dealers advertising in the back pages of Popular Photography. These discounters also had retail space in NYC that operated as assembly lines of selling: little in the way of customer service or display, but joints like 47th Street Photo in the Diamond District had a line out the door of customers who already knew what they wanted to buy. Unlike Olden and Willoughbys, Camera Barn was able to pivot into wholesale OEM products via Uniphot-Levitt, Albinar and Star D. The profits from this enabled the Camera Barn storefronts to remain open several years past their expiration date, but eventually the chain dropped to just the one big store near Macys Herald Square (which did look like a literal barn when you walked into it). A good friend of mine worked the film counter at that location on and off for nearly twenty years: he kept quitting for other jobs because he loathed Camera Barn management and policies, but every couple years would grudgingly drift back for another stint. Talk about a love-hate relationship: I could never quite figure why they would re-hire him each time, let alone why he'd think anything would change. The bottom had dropped out of NYC full service "white glove" camera retail in the early '70s with the arrival of mail-order-centric discounters 47th Street Photo, B&H Photo, Adorama etc. Olden, Willoughbys, and Camera Barn transitioned from nice friendly shops to competing in The Hunger Games: "fleece the foreign tourists" became their last stand business model. I'll never forget the face of a veteran camera salesperson I'd known when he recounted applying for a staff position at Olden in 1978: the owner listened to his enthusiastic pitch re his breadth of knowledge and customer service record, then acidly replied "you're exactly the wrong type for my company: I don't WANT photography enthusiasts on my floor, I want disinterested sales sharks who will reliably push product I need them to sell week to week". Olden came to be known as a dusty museum, Willoughbys the place to showroom shop before you bought from a discounter, and Camera Barn as a dump to buy film in a hurry or find an arcane second-hand accessory unavailable elsewhere. Once they all finally wound down, B&H cleverly re-invented itself to become the lucrative combination of retail showroom, mail/web discounter, and professional vendor its been since the 1990s. To whatever degree anyone still needs an old-school camera store, B&H keeps the concept alive and relevant. Other discounters who came on the scene at the same time still survive in some form (i.e. Adorama), but B&H took the ball and ran to the moon with it. The best thing about Camera Barn from a "street" perspective was its annual catalog and reference book, which peaked in late 1975. In tribute to the Nikkormat ELW and Camera Barn, here's the Nikon advertorial page from that catalog :

ben_hutcherson posted a nice summary of how the non-AI, AI, and AI-s lenses couple to their respective generations of camera body. I would only add that the "upgrade" to AI-s ended up being a wet firecracker during the film camera era. Pretty much no Nikon cameras that anyone cared (or still cares) about actually utilized the AI-s features fully. Other than the fussy, flaky, ill-fated FA camera that AI-s was invented to accommodate, there aren't any classic-era film bodies that strictly require the AI-s linear aperture lever for full practical functionality. The FG and 301-401-501 don't often fall into the category of beloved sought-after cult classic Nikon models, but they are perhaps the only ones that make any use of the AI-s focal length lug (mounting a tele lens will shift their AE metering to favor faster shutter speeds). The EM (and some of the above) are the only bodies that read the fixed max aperture lug near the rear element of both AI and AI-s lenses (it affects their autoflash metering, and program mode of the models that have program exposure). Many film and digital Nikon SLRs do "detect" an AI-s lens via the depression ground into their silver bayonet mounts, but then don't do anything much with that information. The convoluted FA design with its linear aperture requirement for program mode was simplified almost immediately into the FG system of "instant stop down" program metering. So unless you're a masochist babysitting a ticking-time-bomb Nikon FA, or a heavy user of auto flash metering with the two or three film bodies that couple with rear element lugs, you can safely ignore AI vs AI-s: just buy whichever version you can find at the best combination of condition and price. For 95% of Nikon film bodies, the most significant factor is pre-AI/non-AI vs AI/AI-s. if you have an AI body, you'll need AI or AI-s lenses for broadly compatible mounting and meter coupling. If you have a pre-AI camera model, you don't need to even think about it: all manual focus Nikkor lenses have the "rabbit ears" that couple with pre-AI meters. The big gray area of "gotcha" territory comes into play only with pre-AI lenses that have been hacked with aftermarket (non-Nikon) modifications for "AI compatibility". Nikon itself once provided a conversion service that swapped the old aperture rings for a genuine new AI aperture ring (as seen with the 28mm lens pictured earlier). Older pre-AI lenses updated with this genuine Nikon AI ring are safe to use on any Nikon film or digital camera body. Unfortunately Nikon's supply of genuine AI conversion rings was depleted decades ago, so a great many pre-AI lenses have been "unofficially" hacked by their owners or independent techs. The majority of these Frankensteined lenses omit a crucial modification to make them safely mount on many of Nikons DSLRs, because its a lot of extra work and wasn't even on the radar during the film era when most were hacked. These very common "partial AI" lenses are fine to use on most Nikon film cameras, but should be avoided if you plan to also use on Nikon DSLR (unless the seller explicitly states and shows the lens has a "EE-Minimum Aperture" post carved on its aperture ring). If unsure, stick to later AI/AI-s lenses, or lenses that have the genuine Nikon aperture ring update (two engraved sets of aperture numbers, and perforated rabbit ears). Other potential considerations would be the handful of lenses which were optically changed in the migration to AI-s, differences in operational feel, and the AF-D lens paradox. Some lenses like the 28mm f/2.8 got completely revised optics when they moved from AI to AI-s, others (mostly teles) were put in somewhat smaller barrels and/or got built-in lens hoods. The AI-s lenses all have much shorter focus ring travel (from close to far) than the AI or pre-AI: some photographers prefer this, others do not. The screw-drive AF and AF-D lenses can be an interesting alternative if you want to share lenses between manual focus and (some) autofocus Nikon cameras. They are all AI-s by nature, coupling mechanically to manual AI bodies and electronically to AF bodies. However:, they lack the old rabbit ears that couple to the old pre-AI film camera meters. Nikon provides dimples on the aperture ring showing where rabbit ears can be optionally installed if desired, but I've never actually seen an AF lens that was modified that way. You can still mount an AF-D lens on a pre-AI camera, but you'll need to use less convenient stopped down uncoupled meter mode. Same applies to the small handful of manual focus Nikon Series E lenses sold for the EM/FG: these are AI-s but have no rabbit ears.

The Konica Autoreflex T series has its own design charm, and most of the Hexanon lenses are superb (tho a lot harder to find now than other brands). But be warned: for better and worse a T2 or T3 is essentially just a Nikkormat FT with a different lens mount and shutter priority AE. The good: Konica has a rugged metal body like Nikkormat, and shares the same indestructible Copal Square mechanical shutter. The body design is arguably more aesthetically pleasing, and the shutter speed control is in the traditional top deck location preferred by most photographers. The AE system was years ahead of its time as an SLR feature, and very convenient. The bad: the Konicas use the same obsolete CdS meter electronics as Nikkormat, which is often completely dead or wildly inaccurate. If the CdS meter does still work, you'll find the Konica AE system is a one trick pony: the camera is meant to operate in AE at all times (manual meter mode is kinda hacky). Unlike the Nikkormat FT2/FT3, the Konica meters need a pair of odd size long discontinued mercury batteries. Modern substitutes can be made to work, but not easily due to the uncommon size and tricky battery compartment. The Konica T3 is one of my favorite cameras ever but I rarely use it due to erratic meter and hacky battery issues. The fantastic 50mm f/1.4 Hexanon works great adapted to mirrorless digital, so at least I can enjoy the lens. If you have some Konica lenses, the best surviving body to use them on is the later TC. Not as nicely built as T2 or T3, with a smaller range of shutter speeds (1/8 - 1/1000 + B), but the smaller lighter plastic body is convenient, the viewfinder is brighter and the meters often still work well. Nice underrated "user" camera.

In the world of vintage film cameras, its sometimes a good idea to respect a particularly specific run of bad luck with a model or two: it might mean that camera is just not a good prospect for you, no matter how wonderful it may be on paper or how popular and reliable it is for other people. Decades after they were made, Nikon FE and FM have a better than average rep for durability and reliability, but a small stubborn percentage do seem to pop up with film advance issues. More often than not it is due to some crud that can be cleaned away easily, or releasing a stuck pawl, after taking off the bottom plate. Sometimes it requires a deeper repair dive, which as with many other common cameras is not cost effective vs just buying another example and crossing your fingers. Since you have been burned twice by the normally reliable FE, and another time by the similar EL2, perhaps take it as a sign to try something else. If you are comfortable with the sleek Nikon AF film bodies, you can take advantage of their (usually) better pricing and availability, their excellent modern meters that use common household batteries, and the ruggedness of peak early models like the N8008s/F801s (which does meter with manual focus AI lenses and has an upgraded viewfinder, AF, and shutter over the slightly older N8008/F801). Drawback with AF film bodies is they have no split image or microprism focus aids in the finder, so MF lenses can be tricky to focus unless you get the screen changed out (possible with 8008s/F801s if you can find a compatible screen). NOW is the time to buy one or two of them. Long forgotten and invisible to film hipsters because it wasn't "retro" enough to pass as street jewelry, the 8008s/801s has recently been "rediscovered" by more practical film shooters so prices have gone from "almost free" to "skyrocketing". Despite all the whining posts re the dearth of any decent film stocks worth shooting, we seem to be at the probable peak era of cultural fascination with film cameras. Rising prices and scarcity of legendary vintage models with "classic looks" have shifted the craze toward once-disparaged electronic AF bodies: they're becoming sought after. The other option would be getting your FT3 properly serviced despite the unappealing cost. Its a dead reliable design aside from the CdS meter (which is found dead as a doornail or wildly inaccurate just as often in comparable Canon bodies like the FTb, you got lucky with yours). Or perhaps look for the earlier FT2: exactly the same as FT3 but manual indexing (not a big deal at all) and far more common. If you REALLY want to roll the dice and test your luck one final time with the compact Nikons, get the original FM (mechanical sister to the FE). These have the newer gallium meter cells with LED display that almost never fails or dies unless the camera was abused. You'd still run a slight risk of the lockup issue you've run into with previous FE and EL2 bodies, but this seems much less common with the FM. The later FM2 is a questionable choice today given the ludicrous price premium over original FM. Almost no one has a definite absolute use case requiring the 1/250 flash sync speed pr 1/4000 top shutter speed: these features in 2024 are "wants" not "needs". The one big advantage is ability to easily upgrade the focus screen to the ultimate K3 that came out later for FM3A (the most overpriced overhyped Nikon ever, eclipsing even the deadly "original F with plain prism" cult for wacky obsession). The "gotcha" with being able to upgrade the FM2/FE2/FE screen? Good luck finding a K3 at a reasonable price (or any price, really). With the K3 unobtanium as an accessory, its more practical to settle for the older cameras with K or K2 (or leapfrog the manual focus era altogether and jump straight into a Nikon AF film body with brighter screen).

The FT3 is designed for the silver oxide but usually does equally well with alkalines unless they've tapered their voltage from age. Try swapping the silver batteries from one of your other cameras to be absolutely sure the misread isn't battery related. If it still reads about a stop off, consistently, there are two possible causes. One would be the AI ring snagging at f/16, potentially meaning the ring is also misloading the maximum aperture when the lens is mounted. Another possibility: in my experience: even a perfectly functioning Nikkormat FTn, FT2 or FT3 will have an odd tendency to read about 2/3rd to a stop off from any other Nikon camera (or other brand). All of my Nikkormat meters consistently underexpose by about 2/3rd stop. So despite the AI ring issue, the meter in your FT3 may actually be reading just fine within its typical variance. Whatever the underlying cause, as long as your FT3 meter error is consistently reading one stop off, you can easily compensate by setting a film speed that counteracts the error. If its underexposing by a stop, set the ASA ring to 100 instead of 200 for your roll of Kodacolor Gold. Lots of old cameras require fudging the film speed setting, even back when they were new: meters can vary quite a bit while still being "accurate".

This is another aspect of focus screens for medium format reflex cameras that can be very confusing to those who did not come of age back when they were in common daily use. While most of the focus screen chatter archived in discussion forums revolves around replacing the often dim dull standard screens of typical Hasselblad and Rolleiflex cameras, specific info re focusing aids like split image and microprism usually pertains to 35mm SLRs. These focus aids tend to perform noticeably better in 35mm SLRs, with their eyelevel prisms and wider-aperture lenses. Nikon, the leader in focus screen options, offered a staggering array of microprism and split image configurations optimized for different focal lengths, maximum apertures, and specialized photography tasks. When implemented in medium format 6x6 etc reflex TLR and SLR, focusing aids that were reliable wonders in 35mm SLRs fall somewhat short. Microprism spots, on average, are much harder to interpret. This is specially so in the Japanese camera brands that offered it for their systems: Mamiya, Bronica, etc seemed to just recycle the focus spots from 35mm format screens. The split image or microprism aren't usually scaled up to be proportionate to the larger format screen, resulting in small hard to interpret splits or micro-shimmer, both of which are also muddied by the slower f/2.8 or f/3.5 lenses. AFAIK, only Mamiya offered split and micro variations optimized for different lens apertures or focal lengths for their TLRs and SLRs: these are now super rare and hard to find. Then we have the ubiquitous gimmick of "split image surrounded by microprism donut collar" popularized in late '70s cameras, which enabled Nikon/Canon/Minolta/Pentax to pretend they offered "the best of both worlds" without the mfrg expense of a true interchangeable focus screen feature in their midrange 35mm SLRs (so users could choose what worked best for them: pure split image, pure microprism, or pure ground glass matte). This usually resulted in compromised, near-useless microprism functionality, where the microprism ring ended up just being an ugly distraction cluttering up the screen. When this dubious design is carried over to medium format cameras, its even more ugly and compromised (why on earth Hasselblad users compete on eBay to pay upwards of $500 for the split/micro Acute Matte D screen is beyond me: I tried one several times over several years and found the micro collar hopelessly unusable). The single most useful focus aid ever offered for any camera was exclusive to the Miranda DX3 35mm SLR: this was composed of a microprism dot surrounded by a microprism collar. Together, they could be used as one huge bright microprism aid, as you might expect. But in a novel twist, the center dot and ring also worked together to form a huge extra-bright split image that worked at any 360 degree angle! Wonderful concept that unfortunately died with the DX3 camera, Miranda's last ditch attempt to remain viable after the Olympus OM-1 upended the entire 35mm SLR field. The only medium format microprism focus aid I've ever seen that was truly helpful is the one built in to the old optional Hasselblad "bubble" screens. These were standard Rolleiflex-style dim ground glass matte, with or without a checker grid, which had an enormous microprism spot taking up the central one-third of the screen. Since it was so large, it often brightens the entire center subject enough to make focusing a breeze, and the built-in bubble magnifier makes the shimmering microprisms clearly reveal the exact point of focus. Oddly underrated today, they are probably the fastest easiest to focus screens available for 6x6 Hasselblads, aside from the recent Rick Oleson adaptions. Unfortunately nothing similar was or is available in Rolleiflex TLR size. All of this is subjective, of course: each photographer will prefer a different compromise. Broadly speaking, the most useful quality in a medium format focus screen is the "snap" or contrast in the overall plain matte portion of the screen. This is often more quick and easy to focus than the split image in the center, and crucial during the many occasions the split blacks out in low light. Compared to other currently available new options, the recent Oleson screens seem to offer the best plain matte contrast, so unless one absolutely needs the utmost blindingly bright screen I would probably default to the Oleson. For the longest time, he did not offer these for Hasselblad because Hasselblad requires a tricky metal frame, but 3D printing has now allowed Hasselblad owners to easily accurately reframe the Oleson screen. I'm going to try this alternative soon, hoping to dispense with my bright but funky Acute Mattes. Re fresnels: today this is a bit of a red herring, often irrelevant when replacing old screens with new tech screens. Separate fresnel plates came about during the original frosted ground glass era, as an add-on to reduce central hot spots and even out screen brightness to the corners. The fresnel does nothing to increase brightness, it just spreads it out more evenly across the screen. Up until roughly the late 1950s, most camera reflex screens were a sandwich composed of actual glass matte plate and a glass or plastic fresnel plate (and sometimes a third condenser plate added for Nikon, Canon, etc). By the late 1960s, advances in plastic molding led to the now standard single-piece focus screen with matte top surface and the fresnel pattern embossed on the bottom (any focus aids or grid lines are also molded in). The modern replacement upgrades sold today for Rolleiflex etc typically replace the entire original ground glass sandwich in the camera with a single plastic screen. The fresnel is embedded and finely etched in all of them, so there isn't really a "choice" of fresnels to concern yourself with (Hasselblad's nonsensical marketing blather about "superfine" fresnels in their Acute Matte notwithstanding). Aside from choosing your preferred brightness, contrast and focus aid compromise, the only screen "gotcha" you need to look out for is installation variations between various cameras. Most of the time, a new screen will replace the entire vintage screen system in your camera, but there are a few exceptions where you might need to retain a top cover glass or the original fresnel plate. You might also need to recycle exiting shims or add some that come with the new screen. Dedicated vendors like Maxwell or Oleson will supply this alert and special instructions when you order a screen for a camera model with such requirements.

Two failed camera bodies? You've had an unusually bad run with the Nikon AI coupling!! It almost never fails like that on most classic AI film cameras. The only coupling issues I've ever experienced were with the goofy AI-retrofitted Nikon F2 DP-11 or DP-12 meter prisms: these use an entirely different inverted coupler/track which is more vulnerable to impact damage, bending, or seizing. Re aging eyes: I recently had best-laid plans disrupted by vision changes myself. My myopia had been fairly stable for the past decade, so I decided to splurge and track down diopter correction lenses for all of my dozen classic Nikon film cameras. This took all of 2021 to acquire at a cost of about $150, since I needed the somewhat rare 0 or +0.5 diopters. This made all my Nikons much easier to focus, until they suddenly began getting blurry again a few months ago. To my vast annoyance, I was diagnosed with rapid-onset cataracts in my viewing eye: after corrective surgery all my diopters will be useless, and they're difficult to resell so thats $150 and a lot of acquisition effort wasted. While I didn't like the plastic feel or handling personally, the viewfinder of the FG really is stunning: the most enormous I've ever seen (a bit larger than even the huge Olympus OM or Pentax ME finders). A shame Nikon couldn't find a away to upgrade nicer bodies like the FM, FE or F3 with the FG finder: its so much larger, brighter and contrastier than those it almost embarrasses them. This alone might be worth the risk of FG reliability issues in your case: if you don't pay too much and get at least a couple years use from an FG, just discard it if/when it breaks. I don't remember the viewfinder of the N2000 or N2020: it may or may not have been carried over from the FG. The built-in motors and crude plastic bodies were a big "no" for me during the film era, although I did rather like the later more-refined N8008 (which is now finally getting the respect it always deserved: prices seem to be going up sharply).

Once out of their warranty period, the 18-55 kit lenses retain so little cash value they essentially become disposable. So no, proper professional repair won't be cost effective unless your friend just happens upon a really good repair shop that just happens to have a spare bayonet and is willing to replace it for almost no money. That being unlikely, I'd recommend simply buying a second hand replacement from eBay or another marketplace. These are very common plentiful lenses, very inexpensive to replace vs repair. The VRII version typically sells for approx $90 in mint condition, the identical earlier non-VR can often be had for $50. The non-VR that came bundled with my Nikon D40 nearly twenty years ago still works flawlessly: they are surprisingly durable unless they take a tumble off a loaded tripod as happened to your friend. Tracking down a spare lens bayonet for a DIY repair would be cheaper still, but require great care not to disturb or damage the electronics and ribbon cable when swapping the bayonet. OTOH, these internals may have already been damaged by the fall from the tripod. Given the inexpensive cost of a total replacement with this particular lens, it makes more sense to do that than waste time/effort trying to repair one that may have suffered hidden damage in a fall.

If you cannot get this Nikkormat FT3 to work for you, and want to replace it with another classic era manual Nikon body, I would suggest you look for something other than an FG20. The FG series were great little cameras in their day, with fantastic huge bright viewfinders, but they haven't aged well and many are developing electromechanical issues today. Instead, look for a Nikon EL2 (autoexposure sister of the FT3) or the first generation Nikon FE (autoexposure) or FM (manual exposure). These three are affordable, easy to find in good working condition, and notably more reliable than the smaller EM/FG bodies. The FE2/FM2 are also good choices but much more expensive due to their cult followings: if you don't need 1/250 flash sync or 1/4000th top shutter speed, the earlier FE/FM are identical and much cheaper.

The automatic indexing (AI) mechanism senses the widest aperture of the mounted lens, the smallest aperture just follows along for the ride. So you may not really have a significant problem as long as the system is still correctly recognizing the maximum aperture when you change lenses: you may just have the minor inconvenience that it won't let you set a smaller aperture than f/16. Not perfect or proper, but still quite usable for most normal photos (many Nikkor lenses only go to f/16 or f/22 anyway, and f/22 or smaller will trigger diffraction issues diminishing sharpness). Compare meter readings of your FT3 against your other cameras, aimed at the same subject, over the range of f/1.4 thru f/16. If your FT3 reads close to your other cameras, it is accurate up to the point it won't move past f/16. You can use it normally and not worry about having it repaired. If your FT3 readings are significantly different from your other cameras, something is more deeply defective in the meter coupling so you won't be able to rely on the meter. You could still use your FT3 unmetered if you use another camera or a handheld accessory meter to get light readings: just transfer the settings to your FT3. Alternatively, check if your Nikkormat read error is consistent with varied lighting and shutter/aperture settings: if it is reliably off by one or two stops, you can easily compensate by setting a false film speed to fool the meter into correct readings. The Nikkormats are wonderfully sturdy cameras, but unfortunately if they break down they are almost never worth the cost of repair. They are very tedious and tricky to disassemble for servicing compared to other Nikons, which means technicians must charge higher labor fees for repairs than most Nikkormats are worth today. The final FT3 is scarce and somewhat collectible, worth the repair cost if you intend to keep it for many years. But if you don't have a special feeling for it, I'd sell it and look for another that works properly. Do note these older Nikkormats often suffer from dirty or corroded internal electrical meter coupling rings (carbon resistor): this can also cause inaccurate, jumpy or dead meter readouts. Probably half the surviving Nikkormat FT series bodies suffer from this malady, and/or CdS meter cells that have worn out. The Nikkormat meters either work fine, or are way off/unresponsive. Other than the meter, Nikkormats are almost indestructible and as rugged as an F/F2.

Those appear to be custom made from raw materials, similar to what Rick Oleson currently does but apparently employing a more labor intensive process resulting in more brightness. The website confusion stems from a combination of language translation and MagicFlex trying to obscure the fact that they do sometimes accept returns/refunds if the customer is sufficiently strong willed (hence the offerings of "slightly used or B-stock" screens). As I noted previously, decades ago during the original BriteScreen era a couple of vendors did commonly recycle the original camera maker screens for their product: they would modify existing screens to be brighter but did not usually fabricate their own screens from raw materials. The option of buying raw materials from China to establish a custom independent focus screen business was a fairly late development, which came toward the end of BriteScreen dominance and made Rick Olesons first and second generation of screens possible. His later and current screens involve a secret sauce of custom mfrd raw materials enhanced by proprietary patents he licensed from the estate of the BriteScreen founder. Bill Maxwell screens are highly unusual made-from-scratch items, which partly explains their extraordinary high price. Unless his production process changed recently, AFAIK each Maxwell screen is individually crafted to order from fairly fragile materials, not the usual mass produced China-sourced fresnel sheets that form the basis for all other camera-brand and independent screens. Acute Matte is the random outlier in the mix, developed in the mid-1970s by Minolta as a selling point for their then-new XD-11 luxury 35mm SLR. AM is radically different from any other screen concept: instead of a textured surface capturing a viewing image, the entire AM screen is composed of tiny cones or microprisms that funnel a type of aerial image directly to the eye. This is notably brighter, and wonderful when implemented in 35mm SLR eyelevel prism finders. When used in larger cruder medium format waist level viewing systems, problems arise. it can be difficult to consistently identify the correct focus plane vs what seems to be the focus plane. Many Hasselblad photographers soon complained of more frequent missed focus with the Acute Matte, prompting Hasselblad to install split image focus aid versions as standard in their newer cameras (vs plain Acute Matte). They also developed the Acute Matte D update to dampen the aerial image issues, but it isn't dramatically more successful than the older Acute Matte in this regard. Both D and non-D have a tendency to trap moisture from the air between their thin layers, causing characteristic cloudiness or fresnel stain rings: not a fun discovery in your $500 screen when it happens. Hasselblad enthusiasts have developed a near-comical cult for the D version in recent years, but few photographers can truly verify the D as significantly reducing their missed focus issues. Acute Matte "is what it is" and a tad overrated: bright as the sun, but a pain to focus accurately/quickly. Many of us 'blad users take advantage of the easily interchangeable screen feature to swap back to the old type screen in good outdoor light: its more instinctive and quicker. Acute Matte (D or non-D alike) can give you a headache when you're in a hurry to nail precise focus. Minolta cut a deal in 1988 to give Hasselblad the medium format exclusive on Acute Matte, so it was never available in sizes for other camera brands: only Minolta 35mm SLRs and Hasselblads. So Acute Matte is irrelevant if you don't own a 'blad. Vintage customized BriteScreens, current Maxwells and perhaps the MagicFlex fall somewhere between standard construction matte screens and Acute Matte high tech: they can be super bright, don't have aerial parallax issues, but can still stumble a bit in focus ease. You really do need to try different screen techs and settle on the one most suitable for your eye/brain coordination. None is perfect in every aspect.

Had no idea another aftermarket focus screen specialist had entered the scene: its been a closed circle of Oleson and Maxwell for at least the past 20 years. Upon checking this new "magicflex" website, I have a strong suspicion you would not find a significant difference between his screen performance and your Maxwell, but if you can afford the risk to experiment it may be worth a try. How long have you been using a Rolleiflex, or any other vintage medium format reflex camera? If you are relatively new to them, it can take quite awhile to develop an instinct for focusing them quickly and/or accurately. Especially if you were previously using an AF camera or a 35mm SLR with reasonably modern screen: the magnified shielded eyelevel prism experience (and faster f/1.4 - f/1.8 - f/2.0 standard lens) can be quite a bit easier to manage. Since you have been somewhat disappointed with each of the screen alternatives you have tried, be aware you might be chasing a unicorn that does not exist. All medium format focus screens entail a compromise or tradeoff, which interacts with the visual sense parameters of each individual photographer's eyes. If you are hoping for a screen that is bright to the corners but also has a definitive, predictable "snap into focus" performance: you may never find one. If you do, you may discover performance annoyingly variable depending on the subject and environmental lighting. Back in the heyday of film when Rolleis, Mamiyas, Bronicas and Hasselblads were in wide professional use, there was one primary aftermarket screen vendor: BriteScreen. This company would purchase the camera maker screens in bulk, polish and coat them via proprietary means, and resell them at a premium. The screens were very bright indeed, but often harder to focus than the standard dimmer ground glass. This disparity between increased brightness vs ability to decisively "snap into focus" persisted thru several generations of screen technology and continues today: you cannot have your cake (brightness) and eat it too (snap). After a period of years, business for BriteScreen began to wane. Hasselblad owners migrated in droves to the new Hasselblad-branded Acute Matte screens, no longer interested in third-party alternatives. Mamiya and Bronica upgraded their standard screens to a brighter contrastier version: not as bright as Acute Matte or BriteScreen, but a good enough compromise that most owners did not feel an urgent need to replace. Ditto 35mm SLR mfrs, who had also stepped up with significantly better standard screens (i.e. Nikon K3 and the custom version of Acute Matte fitted to Minolta 35mm cameras) Bill Maxwell then appeared and almost immediately cornered the market for premium Rolleiflex TLR screen upgrades. BriteScreen eventually folded, and its owner unfortunately died some time afterward. During most of this era, Rick Oleson became the default budget or midrange alternative for those seeking a nicer screen that cost less than their entire camera. For many years, he sold a decent screen roughly comparable to the newer native screens sold with later-model cameras. These screens evolved over time depending on supply chain shifts: when Oleson could source improved plastics, his screens got incrementally better (and somewhat more expensive). A few years back, Rick Oleson acquired the rights to the final BriteScreen tech from the estate of its inventor, and began supplying his current screens which most people seem to feel offer the ideal compromise of brightness, snap, durability and affordability. These are less bright than the pricey Maxwells, but certainly bright enough for almost any normal use case, with reasonably good contrast/snap. So if you were disappointed by the Maxwell, and only liked the Oleson slightly better, I'm afraid you're out of options. My suggestion would be stay on the Oleson screen and learn to like it: chances that the new MagicFlex will be any better are fairly slim. At the prices asked, it appears MagicFlex is aiming for the Maxwell market and probably offers similar performance. I'm highly dubious of MagicFlex claim to have achieved the holy grail of blinding brightness AND high contrast snap. Perhaps search other photo forums and Reddit to see if anyone has purchased a MagicFlex and can personally rate it vs Oleson and Maxwell. Re Acute Matte: this is not an option for Rolleiflex or any other medium format camera. The AM screens are sized specifically for the drop-in screen compartment of Hasselblad bodies, which is barely the size of a 6x6 film frame. Most other brand cameras require a larger screen size to mechanically fit, Rolleiflex TLRs even larger due to their parallax correction feature. Fun fact: the Rolleiflex screen size is so large that it was trendy to buy and cut down the huge Mamiya RB/RZ67 screens as a budget alternative (this was such a popular idea that it wiped out the worldwide supply of modern Mamiya screens, leaving many Mamiya users stranded and furious). In any case, the Acute Matte is not a miracle cure: it is super bright, but displays odd viewing artifacts (rainbows, blobs, patterns) depending on eye position at the finder. Its also much harder and slower to focus than standard screens, even the ones with a split image aid. When using the slower wide angles like 40mm or 50mm f/4 Distagon, the Acute Matte becomes near useless for focus and is merely a bright framing device. The standard issue screen that came in the final run of Mamiya TLRs and RB/RZ runs rings around the Acute Matte: not quite as bright, but much better contrast and no artifacts. My understanding is the most current Oleson screen is somewhat improved above that standard: if you found that unsuitable, that leaves only the MagicFlex to audition. If that doesn't make you happy, you'll have to choose the best compromise among available screen types.