What's with these LCD protectors?

I've seen a lot of posts about LCD protectors. Enough that I'm now paranoid about getting scratches on the LCD of my S50. But I've got a 3.5 year old S10 that I've never used a protector on, and although it does have marks that you can clearly see if you hold it at an angle such that light reflects off of it, they don't affect visibility in actual use. Now that my S50 has arrived, so far I've left the plastic film that ships with the camera on it. But it DOES affect the clarity of the display (at least I ASSUME it looks better underneath the plastic).

From what I can see from my S10, there's no need for them. Have I been unusually lucky with my previous camera? Have they found a new, softer, more easily damaged to make LCDs out of? Or are some of the people here just overly paranoid?

I'm really tempted to just pull the plastic off and go comando, but some of the posts here make me feel like that would be a foolish thing to do.

Ah, yet another thread on this....

Get rid of the factory film.
Drive down to your local BestBuy.
Buy the Fellowes LCD protective film for ~$15.
Fits nicely on a S45. (Not sure of LCD size on yours)
Be happy you did it.

It's worth the investment to keep from marring your LCD...
See other recent threads on same topic.

Doug

Doug M said:

See other recent threads on same topic.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what prompted my post to start with.

Darin C said:

I've got a 3.5 year old S10 that I've never used a protector on, and
although it does have marks that you can clearly see if you hold it
at an angle such that light reflects off of it, they don't affect
visibility in actual use.

Click to expand...

This is exactly why to use the PDA protector!!! A few $ and you have no marks on the screen!!!

mango said:

This is exactly why to use the PDA protector!!! A few $ and you
have no marks on the screen!!!

Click to expand...

Well, I realize those marks probably wouldn't be there if it I'd had used a screen protector, but like I said earlier, the marks don't affect it's use in any way. Even with the camera off, you have to hold it at the right angle to even see them.

I guess what I'm trying to discern is whether or not this is a real issue, or just something that a relatively small percentage of overly cautious people do. I've seen a lot of posts about protectors, and it's something I never even considered until reading them.

Unless something has changed in the durability of the LCDs since my old camera was made, OR I was just somehow lucky, right now I kind of draw an analogy to Grandmas from the 50s who would put plastic covers over their furniture so it wouldn't get dirty or worn. Sure, it would look good as new 10 years down the line if you took the plastic off, but who cares if the entire ten years WHILE YOU WERE ACTUALLY USING IT it looked and felt like plastic?

I don't have any experience with the LCD protectors mentioned, but I have read some posts by people who are not satisfied with how they look (bubbles, haziness induced by the plastic, etc.). I can see that the temporary protection that ships from the factory does produce does make the screen less clear than my non-protected S10 screen, even though it's gone through 3.5 years of abuse.

I mean no offense to those who believe it's a good practic, I'm just trying to understand if there's a new need that didn't make itself apparent during my use of my old camera.

Darin,

I got a chuckle thinking of myself in terms of the '50s grandma with the plastic sofa cover. However, I think it's a little different. The LCD front is the same material as a laptop notebook. Note how those devices fold up so protect the screen when in transit. The protectors we talk about are very different than the protector that ships with the camera. PDA protectors are less white and more clear. All I know is that when I got my camera in April 2002, I didn't get a protector. 4 days later, I returned it for 5 dead pixels. Durring the 5 days I tested it, I got very minor marks on the screen...the thing rubs on your nose when using the viesfinder and it's constructed of plastic. When I got the replacement, I got PDA protectors, applied one (bubbles gone after a day or so), and now I don't worry about handling the camera. I touch it with the cover closed as freely as you would a folded pocket knife. And with no harm to the LCD. If I didn't have the LCD protector, there would surely be many small scratches on the screen. What's the value vs hassle of using the protector? To me the value is much greater, considering how small the hassle was to get and apply the protector in the first place. Now...my camera is a year old, and the LCD screen is as new. Had I not protected the screen, I am certian that it would have many small scratches on it.

You have to decide for yourself. Personally, I don't view photography equipment I paid ~$500 a year ago to be disposible. Perhaps my view is like the 50's grandma? I don't know. I do have doormats outside my front and rear door, and small rugs just inside. Perhaps I'm overly careful about not scuffing my positions when compared to the average man? I don't really know.

Cheers.

no text

I posted the contrary opinioin a while back that while I agree LCD protectors will help protect from scratches, etc, the scratches that result without one are relatively minor and do not affect useability. I have an s45 with very heavy use (10k pics) in near abusive conditions (dusty, gritty backpacking, in and out of soft carry case all the time) and while there are certainly 'scratches' they are more of a fine, very shallow type, but I don't even notice them when the LCD is on, only when its off and I look at the LCD at an angle in the light.

So for me my camera is not a precious jewel that needs to be coddled and wrapped in protective care (excect for the lens - what may impact the quality of the end photos) - I expect it to be replaced/upgraded in, who knows, 3 years anyway. I see this as a personal choice - do you want the camera to appear in mint condition or are you willing to have it show some wear and tear. Couple that with the fact a protector is quite cheap and most folks decide its better for peace of mind to protect the LCD.

Al

Darin C said:

mango said:

This is exactly why to use the PDA protector!!! A few $ and you
have no marks on the screen!!!

Click to expand...

Well, I realize those marks probably wouldn't be there if it I'd
had used a screen protector, but like I said earlier, the marks
don't affect it's use in any way. Even with the camera off, you
have to hold it at the right angle to even see them.

I guess what I'm trying to discern is whether or not this is a real
issue, or just something that a relatively small percentage of
overly cautious people do. I've seen a lot of posts about
protectors, and it's something I never even considered until
reading them.

Unless something has changed in the durability of the LCDs since my
old camera was made, OR I was just somehow lucky, right now I kind
of draw an analogy to Grandmas from the 50s who would put plastic
covers over their furniture so it wouldn't get dirty or worn.
Sure, it would look good as new 10 years down the line if you took
the plastic off, but who cares if the entire ten years WHILE YOU
WERE ACTUALLY USING IT it looked and felt like plastic?

I don't have any experience with the LCD protectors mentioned, but
I have read some posts by people who are not satisfied with how
they look (bubbles, haziness induced by the plastic, etc.). I can
see that the temporary protection that ships from the factory does
produce does make the screen less clear than my non-protected S10
screen, even though it's gone through 3.5 years of abuse.

I mean no offense to those who believe it's a good practic, I'm
just trying to understand if there's a new need that didn't make
itself apparent during my use of my old camera.

Click to expand...

mango said:

Darin,

Durring the 5 days I tested it, I got very
minor marks on the screen...the thing rubs on your nose when using
the viesfinder and it's constructed of plastic.

Click to expand...

This made me start to think that something IS different... I just can't imagine objectionable wear to be evident in 5 days while my S10 has survived so long with such minor marks. And it hasn't lead a pristine life either... although it spends a lot of time in a case, I have many times thrown it naked into the pocket of babby pants or shorts and taken it to parties, the beach, etc. And I'm not even sure if I'd describe the marks it as has "scratches", it appears more like small scratches to the surface coating than the glass/plastic itself.

So, I peeled back a corner of the protective coating on the S50... they are DEFINITELY different. When you hold the S10 screen at an angle to light so that light reflects off of it, it has a very smooth glass-like surface (though I can't really tell if it's glass or plastic). The S50 is definitely plastic... the surface has a ripply texture like you'd expect plastic to have if you looked closely. The outer screen also looks clear or only lightly tinted, and doesn't look coated, while the screen on my S10 is much darker, and obviously has some kind of coating on it (glare-reducing, perhaps?).

So maybe they are indeed more fragile than the screen of my S10. If so, I can understand the need, as well as my own confusion based on my previous experience.

try the LCD protectors from daproducts.com. These are LCD protectors specifically made for digicams . I have used one when I had an S30 and found them to be quite good w/o any bubbles and like.

-octorm

noisebeam said:

So for me my camera is not a precious jewel that needs to be
coddled and wrapped in protective care (excect for the lens - what
may impact the quality of the end photos)

Click to expand...

And I agree completely... Aesthetics are not very important to me on a camera, functionality is. And I'm glad I feel that way, I'd hate to think I have to coddle it all the time. This is exactly what I was trying to determine... if the "need" for a protective cover was one that was mostly being touted by those who place higher value on the aesthetics of the camera, or if they really were fragile enough that they could easily get scratches that would impair appearance of the display during use.

Now that I see that the surfaces of the screens of the S50 and S10 are different, I realize that my experience with the S10 MIGHT not be indicitive of what to expect of the S50. So I can certainly see being "safe" and using the protectors IF they don't affect the appearance themselves.

Darin C said:

noisebeam said:

So for me my camera is not a precious jewel that needs to be
coddled and wrapped in protective care (excect for the lens - what
may impact the quality of the end photos)

Click to expand...

And I agree completely... Aesthetics are not very important to me
on a camera, functionality is. And I'm glad I feel that way, I'd
hate to think I have to coddle it all the time.

Click to expand...

Darin,

You should know...I'm not a 'coddler' of material goods. However, based on my analysis of the situation, I determined that I'd rather abrade an LCD protector rather than the actual LCD of my digicam durring regular use. And my determination that abrasions will occur of LCD protectors are not used was based on experience, not speculation.

Cheers, and enjoy your camers.

While the LCD outer surface may have changed between s10-s50, my s45 outer LCD covering is mirror like and does not have ripples.
Al

Darin C said:

noisebeam said:

So for me my camera is not a precious jewel that needs to be
coddled and wrapped in protective care (excect for the lens - what
may impact the quality of the end photos)

Click to expand...

And I agree completely... Aesthetics are not very important to me
on a camera, functionality is. And I'm glad I feel that way, I'd
hate to think I have to coddle it all the time. This is exactly
what I was trying to determine... if the "need" for a protective
cover was one that was mostly being touted by those who place
higher value on the aesthetics of the camera, or if they really
were fragile enough that they could easily get scratches that would
impair appearance of the display during use.

Now that I see that the surfaces of the screens of the S50 and S10
are different, I realize that my experience with the S10 MIGHT not
be indicitive of what to expect of the S50. So I can certainly see
being "safe" and using the protectors IF they don't affect the
appearance themselves.

Click to expand...

noisebeam said:

While the LCD outer surface may have changed between s10-s50, my
s45 outer LCD covering is mirror like and does not have ripples.
Al

Click to expand...

Hmm, well that's interesting. I didn't think much changed between the S45-S50 beyond the CCD and case color. And when I say ripples, I don't mean big noticeable ones, but when you look REALLY close at the surface at the reflection of light at an angle, there's just enough texture to it that you can tell it's plastic. The S10 looks like glass (though I don't know that it is).

mango said:

You should know...I'm not a 'coddler' of material goods.

Click to expand...

And I'm not trying to accuse anyone as being such, and I'm not even insinuating that it's "bad" to be one. I'm also not trying to invalidate anyone's opinion on the matter. If a grocery cart dings the side of your car, some people will say it gets them to work just the same, others will be upset because the aesthetics are reduced. Neither one is wrong.

The built-in LCD protector on the S45 (and I presume the S50) does not have an anti-glare surface, and as pointed out, is mirror-like in its texture. Adding the LCD protector might reduce glare, and make the LCD useable over a wider range of lighting conditions... can't say that it does for a fact, since I have had a DA protector on since the day after I bought my S45 (was really p* ed when I got a scratch the first day!).

noisebeam said:

Darin C said:

noisebeam said:

So for me my camera is not a precious jewel that needs to be
coddled and wrapped in protective care (excect for the lens - what
may impact the quality of the end photos)

Click to expand...

And I agree completely... Aesthetics are not very important to me
on a camera, functionality is. And I'm glad I feel that way, I'd
hate to think I have to coddle it all the time. This is exactly
what I was trying to determine... if the "need" for a protective
cover was one that was mostly being touted by those who place
higher value on the aesthetics of the camera, or if they really
were fragile enough that they could easily get scratches that would
impair appearance of the display during use.

Now that I see that the surfaces of the screens of the S50 and S10
are different, I realize that my experience with the S10 MIGHT not
be indicitive of what to expect of the S50. So I can certainly see
being "safe" and using the protectors IF they don't affect the
appearance themselves.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Dave Gard
http://www.pbase.com/gard

Darin C said:

If a grocery cart dings
the side of your car, some people will say it gets them to work
just the same, others will be upset because the aesthetics are
reduced. Neither one is wrong.

Click to expand...

In the same vein, if someone were to tell you, that you could pay a few bucks and then all grocery carts within 3 feet of your car would magically be made of silly-putty, would you refuse to pay, even if you were originally in the "it gets me to work just the same" camp??

mango said:

In the same vein, if someone were to tell you, that you could pay a
few bucks and then all grocery carts within 3 feet of your car
would magically be made of silly-putty, would you refuse to pay,
even if you were originally in the "it gets me to work just the
same" camp??

Click to expand...

Well first off, I never said I was in the "still gets me to work" camp. ;-) But I think a better analogy is Stoneguard. If you're not familiar, it's a thin clear plastic film that is applied to the nose of your car to help prevent nicks. Kind of an almost invisible bra. It's several hundred dollars to have applied, but in comparison to the $25,000 or more car you're putting it on, is a closer comparison considering we are talking about $500 cameras. But the issue I'm trying to get a handle on is the "almost" in the invisible part. From what I've read in these forums, there are a lot of people who are unhappy with the performance of their screen protectors. While the LCD may look "almost" as good as it does without the plastic there, it doesn't look JUST as good. Using my S10 as my only experience, the few mars it has after 3.5 years of abuse has resulted in ZERO degredation of the appearance of the display while in use. And you have to really look to see the marks when it is off, you only see them when light is reflecting on the surface. So in THIS case, I see no value in screen protectors, because you can't get much better than zero degradation.

But after carefully comparing the S10 screen to the S50 screen, I'm fully prepared to accept the fact that the S50 screen is more easily scratched, making my experience with the s10 irrelevant to the usefullness of a protector for the S50.

In the end, the big question is: in typical use, will an S50 screen get scratched enough to actually degrade the clarity of the display to a level that is worse than the degradation that a screen protecor may cause?

Using the car analogy, you could have Stoneguard applied to the entire exterior of your car, but it wouldn't have quite the luster of bare paint. Is it worth paying for a slight but definite degradation of the appearance to prevent the POSSIBILITY of worse degradation?

Darin C said:

Using the car analogy, you could have Stoneguard applied to the
entire exterior of your car, but it wouldn't have quite the luster
of bare paint. Is it worth paying for a slight but definite
degradation of the appearance to prevent the POSSIBILITY of worse
degradation?

Click to expand...

You got it! You know the conclusion I reached. Reach your own, and enjoy your camera.

I've got the Purplemoo protectors for my S50. Look at the following pictures.





One could make the argument that these screen protectors degrade LCD viewing worse than any incidental nicks and scratches that one may accumulate over the years.

I'm seriously contemplating doing the unthinkable and leaving my LCD bare to the elements. Though I may be branded a rebel and a fool.

Darin C said:

I've seen a lot of posts about LCD protectors. Enough that I'm now
paranoid about getting scratches on the LCD of my S50. But I've
got a 3.5 year old S10 that I've never used a protector on, and
although it does have marks that you can clearly see if you hold it
at an angle such that light reflects off of it, they don't affect
visibility in actual use. Now that my S50 has arrived, so far I've
left the plastic film that ships with the camera on it. But it
DOES affect the clarity of the display (at least I ASSUME it looks
better underneath the plastic).

From what I can see from my S10, there's no need for them. Have I
been unusually lucky with my previous camera? Have they found a
new, softer, more easily damaged to make LCDs out of? Or are some
of the people here just overly paranoid?

I'm really tempted to just pull the plastic off and go comando, but
some of the posts here make me feel like that would be a foolish
thing to do.

Click to expand...