Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ed Rooney

Screen Protectors? How Do You Feel About Them (Sony)?

Recommended Posts

Mm mm, yummy. Mark of a good food photo when it makes my mouth water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to post this on the newer thread on the RX100 iii, but posting here is really more appropriate.

 

I've been working with this little camera for almost three months now, and there are no scratches, no visible damage whatsoever . . . so far. I agree with Peter Jordan:

 

"I carry my RX100 Mk 1 in my pocket every day, and I have had it for about 1000 days now.  I tried a Sony screen protector early on, but found it was so reflective I could not see anything except my unhappy reflection." 

 

Here is something I found yesterday on the subject of glare from a Sony screen protector. The narrator mentions it and shows it quickly in the middle of this too-long video . . . at about the 14 minute point.

 

 

I use a scratch-proof camera cloth to occasionally clean my iMac screen and my camera screens, all my various screens. I dip it in a 1-to1 mix of warm water and white vinegar, squeezing out most of the moister be fore using. Then I dry the screens with a second scratch-proof cloth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ed, the Mk2 recently came down to a price point in the UK that persuaded me to take the plunge; I'd also recently sold the Canon G9 which contributed to funds. The major reasons for purchase were small size, focal range, tilting screen (the Canon equivalent dosen't tilt down), and sensor reviews. As the G9 had acquired some screen scratches over the years I added the Sony screen protector which sticks around the screen rather than to it. My experience is that this protector is quite innocuous, and as I made the mistake of using a velcro fastening pouch on my belt to carry the Mk2 from which the camera escaped I can verify that it does not scratch easily and does it's job of protecting the screen. In short that's one more vote for the protector, although I don't use one on my Canon SLR as the screen folds inwards when not in use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you didn't watch the video, Joe?  ;)

 

Anyway, we have just two choices -- add a protector or don't. There's a case for each. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to post this on the newer thread on the RX100 iii, but posting here is really more appropriate.

 

I've been working with this little camera for almost three months now, and there are no scratches, no visible damage whatsoever . . . so far. I agree with Peter Jordan:

 

"I carry my RX100 Mk 1 in my pocket every day, and I have had it for about 1000 days now.  I tried a Sony screen protector early on, but found it was so reflective I could not see anything except my unhappy reflection." 

 

Here is something I found yesterday on the subject of glare from a Sony screen protector. The narrator mentions it and shows it quickly in the middle of this too-long video . . . at about the 14 minute point.

 

 

I use a scratch-proof camera cloth to occasionally clean my iMac screen and my camera screens, all my various screens. I dip it in a 1-to1 mix of warm water and white vinegar, squeezing out most of the moister be fore using. Then I dry the screens with a second scratch-proof cloth. 

 

Sony sceen protectors are overpriced (in Canada anyway) and virtually useless due to glare and reflections. The cheap Chinese optical glass ones avaible on eBay are 100% better IME. I've been pleased with the ones I now have on my NEX cameras. They cost me under ten bucks each.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I use a screen protector on all cameras, phones and ipads etc. I look for special offers on the matte ipad pro screen protectors and cut them to size with a craft knife. Works out to only a few pence per screen protector. You can get a lot of screen protectors from just one of these 3, and they're only £1.99. Really good quality as well  :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ed, not quite sure what your point is about the video. If it's the reflection then this isn't obvious when I have been out and about although we haven't had a great deal of bright sunlight in my part of the UK since purchase. If you are thinking of Mk2 v Mk3 then the longer zoom is more important to me than other factors. The little Sony is not meant as a replacement for my Canons. I would have preferred the Canon G7X with reputedly the same sensor, touch screen and star modes built in but the lack of a downward tilting screen was a deal breaker.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Joe

 

No offense meant. On the video, at just after the 14 minute mark, the narrator's comments and we see clearly that the screen protectors produce glare . . . and so I assumed you didn't watch that. 

 

Anyway, since I'm not 100% sure about my decision to go without a screen protector (I have one on all my other Sony cameras) I fell that I'm experimenting. With no protector: so far so good. 

 

Have a great Christmas, Joe.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None taken either Ed. I wish you many scratch free shooting days and I don't believe there is any right or wrong in this, just what suits an individual (a bit like UV filters); all I can say is that when the camera went bouncing down the street the screen survived intact and undamaged with the protector.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thr Chinese glass one sounds cheap and interesting.

I don't see a problem either way. I like screen protectors, and with the M3's pop up viewfinder, I look through it and don't use the screen for framing, so glare would not be an issue anyway.

I also use Intelligent Auto so I don't fiddle around in the menu in bright light. If need arises, I can create a shadow with my body for menu scrolling.

So..for me and my use of the M3, I think I'll try to find that glass screen protector.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only screen protector I ever used was on my Leica (before I sold it on) and hated it. Not sure what make it was but it degraded the screen image.

 

Allan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I'd post an update on the condition of my RX100 iii screen without a protector.

 

I've been using the little camera for about 4 months now, and so far there is not a visible scratch. I clean out the section where I sometimes carry it in my lightest shoulder bag, using duck tape to pick up any tiny flotsam or jetsam. I've also been carrying it in a few pockets of a few coats. 

 

So I'm convinced that it's made of sterner stuff than the earlier Sony screens. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I'd post an update on the condition of my RX100 iii screen without a protector.

 

I've been using the little camera for about 4 months now, and so far there is not a visible scratch. I clean out the section where I sometimes carry it in my lightest shoulder bag, using duck tape to pick up any tiny flotsam or jetsam. I've also been carrying it in a few pockets of a few coats. 

 

So I'm convinced that it's made of sterner stuff than the earlier Sony screens. 

 

Sounds like it is made of the right stuff, perhaps the same stuff as Sony DSLR screens, which are very tough IME. Never needed a protector on mine. The NEX "true black" screens are a different story, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, John -- really a mess, those NEX screens, like the snow in NYC after a day or two: dirty and nasty. Other than the screens, the NEX are terrific cameras

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a 3" Folix screen protector in the drawer so I put it on my newly aquired mklll. I may soon starting signing myself, David "The cautious one"
However, it's good to hear the original screen is made of sterner stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, that's too bad, David, because you've just created a situation where you will be getting very unhelpful glare on your new RX100's screen.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, that's too bad, David, because you've just created a situation where you will be getting very unhelpful glare on your new RX100's screen.  

Ain't much glare around currewntly from the dull rainy sky's this side of the pond;-) Maybe that's why it doesn't look too bad, but I can't remember what it was like before the saver went on

While I have your attention how have you got your screen and viewfinder brightness set up, Auto, Sunny or Manually set?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have both the Monitor (screen) and the Viewfinder on Auto, which I assume are the factory presets. But understand that I'm no tech sophisticate, nor am I a gear head. My assignment career was back in the film age, and my interest in photography revolves around the subject and then the interpretation. Cameras are just tools for taking pictures, as important as they are. (I would not want to try to make a Queen Ann desk without tools, of course.) By the way, I'm overdue for an eye examination. 

Edited by Ed Rooney
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An update: I've had my Sony RX100 iii for almost a year now and still there are no scratches, no marks, on the screen that is not covered with a screen protector.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My rather battered, paint peeled, NEX 6 has the original cheapo plastic screen protector that I fitted when the camera was new. Still appears fine, although I don't make a lot of use of the screen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a look at used Sony a7 in a camera store recently, and the screen was a total mess. The owner had somehow managed to rub the original coating almost completely off. An inexpensive, made in China, glass screen protector would have saved it and fetched a higher trade-in value. As it is, I don't imagine that the store gave the original owner much for the camera. Screen protectors still seem like a good idea to me. It sounds as if the RX100's screen must be more durable that the high-priced a7's. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The latter versions of the rx100 must be better than the first.  I wish I had put a screen saver on mine, a lot of the finish has worn off and most of the time I keep it in its little case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The latter versions of the rx100 must be better than the first.  I wish I had put a screen saver on mine, a lot of the finish has worn off and most of the time I keep it in its little case.

 

Have a look here:

http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2011/04/18/replacing-nex-lcd-cover-glass/

(by David Kilpatrick - well known to this forum)

The process for the RX100 is the same.

 

wim

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, wim. I've been looking for that piece. I still own a NEX-3, with a very damaged screen. 

 

We all miss DavidK in the forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.