Amaxx lcd screen protector
Posted 22/03/2016 - 22:17 - Helpful Comment
Link
Warm it with a hair dryer, but not too much as you don't want to loosen the adhesive on the lcd screen(s) themselves, then use dental floss between the protector and lcd screen.
Posted 22/03/2016 - 22:48
Link
JohnX wrote:
Warm it with a hair dryer, but not too much as you don't want to loosen the adhesive on the lcd screen(s) themselves, then use dental floss between the protector and lcd screen.
Cheers johnX.Warm it with a hair dryer, but not too much as you don't want to loosen the adhesive on the lcd screen(s) themselves, then use dental floss between the protector and lcd screen.
Perfect...both came off in seconds.
Posted 23/03/2016 - 21:52
Link
Why take it off, apart from the aethestic aspect, if you want to protect the screen? Far more effective than one of the film sort which is stuck to the screen but gives no impact protection?
(I have something similar with a hard screen, - and I like it )
(I have something similar with a hard screen, - and I like it )
K-3 II, K-3 and a K-70 from SRS (having now relegated the K-30 /"K-50" to a backup body), & some Sigma and Pentax lenses (and a lot of old 35mm gear!)
Posted 23/03/2016 - 22:15
Link
For purely cosmetic reasons, i didnt like the silver surround. The protector is also slightly smaller than the actual lcd screen (if you looked from the side you could see some of the screen protruding out).
I had a ccg screen protector on my kr, which i didnt mind, it had a black surround so didnt stand out.
I had a ccg screen protector on my kr, which i didnt mind, it had a black surround so didnt stand out.
Posted 26/03/2016 - 15:30
Link
jeallen01 wrote:
Why take it off, apart from the aethestic aspect, if you want to protect the screen? Far more effective than one of the film sort which is stuck to the screen but gives no impact protection?
(I have something similar with a hard screen, - and I like it )
Totally agree. A camera is a means to an end. The feel and ease of use is much more important than minor aesthetics. I have a K5ll which has small scratches on the protective hard screen as a result of small accident. The fact that that the camera was not damaged in any was much more important to me then and now than its "adjusted" cosmetics caused by the screen protector.
Why take it off, apart from the aethestic aspect, if you want to protect the screen? Far more effective than one of the film sort which is stuck to the screen but gives no impact protection?
(I have something similar with a hard screen, - and I like it )
Posted 26/03/2016 - 16:26
Link
BTW you can get the correct sized 3" rear and top screen ACMAXX3 protector set for the K-3 from "onlinefred62" on ebay.com - but, OTOH, it still has the silver-chrome edge to it which scarr1 does not like, but I think looks very smart!
K-3 II, K-3 and a K-70 from SRS (having now relegated the K-30 /"K-50" to a backup body), & some Sigma and Pentax lenses (and a lot of old 35mm gear!)
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
321 posts
14 years
durham
I bought a k3 from a forum member and it has the above screen protector on the rear and top screen. Its a hard glass type which sticks around the edge...has a silver/chrome edging to it.
I would like to remove it (i dont like the look of the chrome edging) but it does seem very well stuck, and im reluctant to try too hard in case i damage the the lcd screens.
Any thoughts to remove, or best leave them?