Hi--

>Thanks for your very informative reply about F3 focusing screens. The fact
>that you have successfully used the "B" screen - and find no improvement
>with the "D" version - suggests that a plain matt screen with no other
>doodads or enhancements might be the way to go.

I like it....!

>>> [there is often a trade-off in screens between brightness, contrast,
>>sharpness, and illumination evenness] <<

>Does this mean that it would not in fact be any easier to focus with, say,
>a 50/1.4 lens than with a 50/2, despite the extra stop's worth of light?
>And does it not suggest that a _much_ brighter screen (like a Beattie)
>might actually make focusing _more_ difficult? Hmm.

This seems to be true (if you have a 50mm f1.4, pressing the DOF button
with the aperture set at f2 sometimes seems to make focus easier). And
the slightly darker FE/FM/FA screens (assuming you can see them sharply)
also seem to be easier to use for (center, only!) focus. Hmmm, F3 screens
came in two series - maybe it is worth looking for an older, darker,
"non-red-dot" screen.....

>The problem is that I'm coming to Nikon SLRs after several years with a
>Leica M4, which for all its shortcomings and frustrating quirks (which led
>me to switch) does have a fabulously accurate rangefinder. I'm trying to
>get as close as possible to that kind of precision while still enjoying
>100% framing, a wider selection of lenses, and the ability to acquire new
>pieces of equipment at less than four-figure cost...
>Thanks again.
>-- Nick
> hartmann@interaccess.com (Nicholas Hartmann)

I never could get used to the Leica rf, so matt screen focus is easier/quicker for me.

>PS. Thanks for the tip about not using the 24 mm lenses wide open. Actually
>anything wider-angle than a 50 is likely to be used occasionally at most;
>I'm fondest of short teles, and thinking covetous thoughts about a 105/2.8.

They are nice!
David Ruether