Screen Protectors - Yes, No, Maybe?

[pedaes]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 2/6/2020 at 6:51 PM, Jake said:

I bought a couple from this place. So far so good. 

https://www.protectionfilms24.com/c/ALL/leica-cl/

Cheap, and a quality product. 

Totally agree. They are not expensive but a quality product. Laser cut to exact screen size from a 3M made product.  I have them  on all my rear screens and when fitted you would not know they are there. Best fitted with a couple of drops of washing up liquid (as a wetting agent) mixed with water on the screen to allow film to be possitioned exactly and then 'smoothed' in place to remove solution. 

[AeroMirage]

1 hour ago, Einst_Stein said:

This reminds me a comment: "I never fasten my seat belt, and I am still alive!"

How completley true!!!

With serious money invested in the camera, why take any chances?

(Plus, they reduce glare.)

I always put a UV filter on ALL of my lenses as soon as I get them as well.

Protect the glass and help keep dust out of the lens.

"An ounce of prevention is worth...……."

 

 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[ramarren]

3 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

This reminds me a comment: "I never fasten my seat belt, and I am still alive!"

Chipping or cracking an LCD cover is a problem at a completely different level of risk and severity compared to smashing your skull into the windshield of a car at average road speeds. One evaluates precautions for the latter from that different basis of risk. 

A broken LCD screen costs a little money to replace. You can't replace a dead person no matter how hard you try.

That said, if you want to drive without your seat belt fastened or ride a motorcycle without a helmet, well, good luck to you. I choose to protect myself when doing things that can be deadly like that. 

I don't bother with an LCD protector because I don't care if there is a scratch on my LCD cover, and I know I can replace it for a couple of dollars if I crack it. If you prefer to protect it for some fraction of the cost of replacing it, well again, good luck to you. 

G

[ramarren]

2 hours ago, AeroMirage said:

How completley true!!!

With serious money invested in the camera, why take any chances?

(Plus, they reduce glare.)

I always put a UV filter on ALL of my lenses as soon as I get them as well.

Protect the glass and help keep dust out of the lens.

"An ounce of prevention is worth...……."

 

 

My direct experience with this is that, over time, a fine dust will form on the front of the lens behind the filter and cut contrast/reduce sharpness. It can only be removed by removing the filter an cleaning both it and the lens, which has its own risks. Never mind other issues with filters such as flatness problems, vignetting, etc. 

I buy my cameras as tools to do a job. What they cost is irrelevant presuming I can afford them. Whether they do the job I bought them to do is the only thing that matters. Wasting money and energy on things that could reduce their performance in the interests of preserving them seems a negative way to think about keeping them from damage to me. 

My Summilux 35mm f/1.4 (1972 version; about $2000 or so, is that "serious money"? I dunno, seemed a good price when I bought it) has been on my CL for almost a year. It has a lens hood fitted, and a hood hat fitted when it's sitting in my bag being stored. Otherwise, I carry it ready to make a photograph. I take care when handling and using it such that I don't scratch, dent, or get dirt on the front element. I dust it and clean it when it needs such. There is not a single mark on the lens, and it performs beautifully. Good enough for me. 

G

Edited February 15, 2020 by ramarren

[Jeff S]

3 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

This reminds me a comment: "I never fasten my seat belt, and I am still alive!"

Better analogy might be using a car ‘bra’ on the front to protect against dings.  Cosmetic damage only; not life and death. I don’t waste money on those ugly things either.  My car and screens all look nice as is, after years of use.

Guess this 5.5 year old thread won’t die.

Jeff

Edited February 15, 2020 by Jeff S

[Einst_Stein]

4 hours ago, Jeff S said:

Better analogy might be using a car ‘bra’ on the front to protect against dings.  Cosmetic damage only; not life and death. I don’t waste money on those ugly things either.  My car and screens all look nice as is, after years of use.

Guess this 5.5 year old thread won’t die.

Jeff

For those people who never fasten the seat belt, they may think it is the same as the car bra. 

Several years ago I once took a taxi to  airport. That taxi driver drove not only fast but also kept on passing other cars. I told him no hurry, I had planned enough time ahead of the flight.

The driver answered:” no worry, I don’t want to die too! I care my life no less than you do!.  

I think the assessment of the risk is always justified by whoever.

Edited February 16, 2020 by Einst_Stein

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 minute ago, Einst_Stein said:

For those people who never fasten the seat belt, they may think it is the same as the car bra. 

Several years ago I once take a taxi to the airport. That taxi driver drove not only fast but also kept on passing other cars. I told him no hurry, I have planned enough time ahead of the flight.

The driver answered:” no worry, I don’t want to die too! I care my life no less than you do!.  

I think the assessment of the risk is always justified by whoever.

Wrong analogy.  I was comparing the screen protector to a car bra, not a safety belt. Not wearing the latter is both illegal and foolish.

Jeff

[Einst_Stein]

1 minute ago, Jeff S said:

Wrong analogy.  I was comparing the screen protector to a car bra, not a safety belt. Not wearing the latter is both illegal and foolish.

Jeff

I am sure it is wrong analogy to you, 

[Jeff S]

Just now, Einst_Stein said:

I am sure it is wrong analogy to you, 

Yep, that's why I wrote it in the first place, silly.

Jeff

[Einst_Stein]

8 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Yep, that's why I wrote it in the first place, silly.

Jeff

Indeed.

 

[lykaman]

A long while ago I put a Giotto Glass screen protector on my V-Lux40, then realized it stopped the Touch' working.. live n learn.. I don't like the soft protectors, so it's an unprotected screen on the D-Lux7..  My (now gone) M-P240/X1/XVario all had Giottos on them... L

Edited February 16, 2020 by lykaman

[Einst_Stein]

On 2/15/2020 at 7:43 PM, lykaman said:

A long while ago I put a Giotto Glass screen protector on my V-Lux40, then realized it stopped the Touch' working.. live n learn.. I don't like the soft protectors, so it's an unprotected screen on the D-Lux7..  My (now gone) M-P240/X1/XVario all had Giottos on them... L

It's easy to find a tempered protection glass for touch screen.

It's like the smart phone. A protection glass has to do protection without blocking the normal operation. It's last century's technology!

 

[jaapv]

I manage to scratch my iPhone screens up rather badly and my cameras fare only slightly better. The only ones that do not scratch are the Sapphire ones. 

[Einst_Stein]

Most screen glass, be it on phone or camera, are about equal hard as the 9H screen protector. Sapphire is an exception.

But don't be fooled by the 9H hardness, it is not the same as the hardness defined by Mohs hardness scale, in which the scale is 1 to 10, with 10 the hardest.

Those tricky screen protector makers use  the pencil hardness for the grading. The hardest pencil is 9H, so a 9H screen protector means it is more or less as hard as, or better than a 9H pencil.

   

[jaapv]

Yes, but I don't care if a protector scratches - I do when it is the screen...

[Jake]

On 2/15/2020 at 5:39 PM, ramarren said:

What they cost is irrelevant presuming I can afford them.

That pretty much sums it up. . . You apparently can afford it, so f*ck it? Some of us can't afford a new tool, or don't want to spend the money to replace it no matter the cost. That definitely has an impact on one's approach. 

[lykaman]

7 minutes ago, Jake said:

That pretty much sums it up. . . You apparently can afford it, so f*ck it? Some of us can't afford a new tool, or don't want to spend the money to replace it no matter the cost. That definitely has an impact on one's approach. 

mmm I'm somewhat amazed, first off you choose to use the "F" word! Why? Secondly if you can afford to buy a Leica whatever model, surely your budget would stretch to a screen saver!!  ~~~~~ L

[Jake]

I'm sorry I offended your sensibilities with the F word. I was referring to the post that basically said if my "tool" breaks, I buy another. So protecting it is irrelevant. Not everybody has the means to replace or repair a "tool." So protecting it is dependent on the owner's financial means. And it's not a matter of reducing it's performance. Again, sorry for the expletive, but it seemed appropriate. 

[lykaman]

15 minutes ago, Jake said:

I'm sorry I offended your sensibilities with the F word. I was referring to the post that basically said if my "tool" breaks, I buy another. So protecting it is irrelevant. Not everybody has the means to replace or repair a "tool." So protecting it is dependent on the owner's financial means. And it's not a matter of reducing it's performance. Again, sorry for the expletive, but it seemed appropriate. 

Understood..............L 

Edited February 24, 2020 by lykaman

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jaapv]

20 minutes ago, Jake said:

I'm sorry I offended your sensibilities with the F word. I was referring to the post that basically said if my "tool" breaks, I buy another. So protecting it is irrelevant. Not everybody has the means to replace or repair a "tool." So protecting it is dependent on the owner's financial means. And it's not a matter of reducing it's performance. Again, sorry for the expletive, but it seemed appropriate. 

That is nonsense. A craftsman takes care of his tools. Not for the money, but to preserve the functionality, and yes, to preserve the joy of using them too.