I recently received an Olympus XZ1 as a gift, and wanted to buy a protective layer for the LCD view screen. Needless to say, the more I dug into it, the more complex the offerings. There seems to be cheap plastic films that are economical, but the expensive polycarbonate appears to have a strong following. Any opinions? I was looking at the AC-MAXX brand of screens. Their lens front protection also seems to be a bit enticing but a bit steep.
to be frank, i use the cheapest i can find on ebay, i have NEVER able to scratch that film; the lcd screen should be right around where your nose is and hardly you will scratched that area also for the lens, is good idea for a dslr because if the camera is dropped, the filter absorts the shock and might shatter it but it will keep the lens in good shape; in your case here, all this does is protect the small area where the optical is, how often will you be able to scratch it? also picture might come out different with a film in front of it, even thou it might say it will not affect, it will somehow; for filter users for dslr, every professional recommend taking photos without a filter because it does affect how the photo look
What you say makes perfect general sense, in that these catastrophic accidents are really rare. But, boy oh boy... when they do happen, one is kicking one's self over being penny wise but pound foolish, LOL... >.< At any rate, I wound up putting my money down for the AC MAXX version of the protection screen (about $20) which is about three times the amount of a regular protection film, but peace of mind works like that, doesn't it? Of course, that won't prevent the camera from being lost or stolen, but that's another issue. I found that taking the camera out and putting it back in to wherever one keeps it between shots is the biggest culprit and cause of screen scratches (along with the dirty T-shirt which one tries to clean the screen). The AC MAXX product actually sits above the camera screen, only contacting the outermost edges of it where it sticks. Of course, this can create other problems (like newton rings, LOL) but does offer superior protection. As for taking a photograph with or without filters, what you say is absolutely true, and I wholeheartedly agree. While minor color variationยน isn't that big an issue in today's digital world, it really matters if one is discussing refractive optics. The light transmission medium has to be perfectly neutral or else it will effect the picture irregardless of the color porperties Cheap filters can and do reduce picture sharpness, especially with smaller optics as there's less to play with. Thus, some photographers would say instead of buying a filter, buy insurance as this protects not just scratches, but against theft too, LOL... (1) The amount of variation in media transmission and viewing platforms means that one is never going to get the same color anyway. So the point of negating the color value changes from a UV filter is rather moot. For example, I set my monitor to emulate daylight, or about 6000K, while some people I know prefer a warmer tone. If one looked at the same scene in a computer section, one will almost intuitively know that the actual color fidelity of a picture matters very little as every single monitor display of it looks slightly different than its neighbor.
