Screen Protector For Canon 1DX Camera

[Secretariat]

Does anyboby out there know where I can find a screen protector for a Canon 1DX camera?
Thanks.

[jmfurtado]

I bought this and I am satisfied:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/disGuard-Crystal-Screen-Protector-EOS-1D-X/dp/B0084ZWJUW/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1346066614&sr=8-4

jmf

[dilbert]

Why do you want to buy a screen protector for the screen protector?

[neuroanatomist]

Why do you want to buy a screen protector for the screen protector?

Why do I wear two pair of nitrile gloves in the lab?

[nightbreath]

Why do I wear two pair of nitrile gloves in the lab?

If you don't know, than you might not need to 

[dilbert]

Why do you want to buy a screen protector for the screen protector?

Why do I wear two pair of nitrile gloves in the lab?

Do the manufacturers explicitly support this?

Sometimes, wearing two layers of such things (such as condoms) increases the risk of failure because the material is not made to be used next to another layer of itself in that fashion.

So if you are doing so without explicit support from the manufacturer then you could quite easily be increasing your risk through foolishness.

And the reference here to condoms is quite deliberate as there is an urban myth in some parts that wearing two increases your protection because if one fails then the other is still in tact. The problem here is that condoms are designed and manufactured with the expectation that both sides of a condom will come into contact with skin when friction is being applied. When one side comes into contact with other condom material, the chance of failure goes up.
http://www.health.arizona.edu/health_topics/sexual_health/usingtwocondoms.htm

Reading here
http://www.nursingcenter.com/lnc/journalarticle?Article_ID=869728&Journal_ID=682710&Issue_ID=869721
seems to suggest that wearing thicker gloves offer the same level of protection that wearing double gloves gives.

Now all of that has nothing to do with using a protector for the protector.

The common misbelief is that the surface on the back of Canon cameras is an LCD surface as it is with Nikon cameras. That is incorrect. Canon build into the camera an LCD screen protector that is easily and cheaply replaced.

[neuroanatomist]

Why do I wear two pair of nitrile gloves in the lab?

Do the manufacturers explicitly support this?

Yes.

[charlesa]

Amazon has multiple, not very fine quality but better than nothing and they are cheap. Some also come with covers for the top LCD and the lower part below the main LCD where the file number is displayed.

[distant.star]

.
Sounds like different strokes for different folks.

[rixerr]

Actually though I picked up a screen protector, i really would rather not use it on such a great screen. I know with the 5d it was quite easy to replace the cover glass on top of the screen. The thing that I don't know about is whether this would be possible(easy and cheap) on the 1dx since there is now a resin filling apparently between screen and glass.

[drummstikk]

The common misbelief is that the surface on the back of Canon cameras is an LCD surface as it is with Nikon cameras. That is incorrect. Canon build into the camera an LCD screen protector that is easily and cheaply replaced.

I was not aware of this, and that's interesting to know. What I *was* aware of is that of the 5 Canon DSLR's I have owned in the last 7 years, including a 40D and 5D that I used LITERALLY to death (two worn out shutters and nearly a quarter million exposures total for each), none of these cameras has ever had ANY visible marks on the LCD glass. This  despite hundreds of miles of walking with the camera bouncing at the end of the neck straps against shirt buttons, zippers, metal doo-dads on credential holders and knock after knock against door jambs, door handles, counter tops, rocks and trees and thorns and other hazards of nature and sports competition, not to mention the occasional butterfinger drops onto hard floors or pavement. . .

To go a little further to stand this question on it's head, who can report marks or damage to their LCD that would have been prevented by a peel-and-stick screen protector? I'm not saying they are totally useless as there is no doubt there are threats out there I simply haven't run into, but it does seem to me these items have much greater utility as an upsell for dealers than as actual protection for the camera.

[dilbert]

The common misbelief is that the surface on the back of Canon cameras is an LCD surface as it is with Nikon cameras. That is incorrect. Canon build into the camera an LCD screen protector that is easily and cheaply replaced.

I was not aware of this, and that's interesting to know. What I *was* aware of is that of the 5 Canon DSLR's I have owned in the last 7 years, including a 40D and 5D that I used LITERALLY to death (two worn out shutters and nearly a quarter million exposures total for each), none of these cameras has ever had ANY visible marks on the LCD glass. This  despite hundreds of miles of walking with the camera bouncing at the end of the neck straps against shirt buttons, zippers, metal doo-dads on credential holders and knock after knock against door jambs, door handles, counter tops, rocks and trees and thorns and other hazards of nature and sports competition, not to mention the occasional butterfinger drops onto hard floors or pavement. . .

To go a little further to stand this question on it's head, who can report marks or damage to their LCD that would have been prevented by a peel-and-stick screen protector? I'm not saying they are totally useless as there is no doubt there are threats out there I simply haven't run into, but it does seem to me these items have much greater utility as an upsell for dealers than as actual protection for the camera.

I've had the LCD cover replaced twice when I've sent my camera to Canon for a clean and calibration.

The replacement screen is $20 or thereabouts. If you don't want to send your camera to Canon, I believe that you can also order the screens as a spare part.

[distant.star]

To go a little further to stand this question on it's head, who can report marks or damage to their LCD that would have been prevented by a peel-and-stick screen protector? I'm not saying they are totally useless as there is no doubt there are threats out there I simply haven't run into, but it does seem to me these items have much greater utility as an upsell for dealers than as actual protection for the camera.

Same experience. I've never seen a mark on them. I'm careful with the DSLR, but the S95 gets shoved into pockets with keys, coins, whatever. Once in a while I wipe them with an alcohol-based, disposal lens wipe -- and they come out smooth as Billie Holiday singing the Blues!

As the "accessory" manufacturing industry knows well, there is no end to what can be sold to the gadget and doodad addicts.

[Secretariat]

Does anybody out there know where I can get an LCD screen protector for a Canon 1DX?
Thanks.

[pwp]

This has been discussed in the past few days here:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8966.0

-PW