 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / December 2005Filters for Dummies (me)
Hi all I'm waiting for my first digital SLR and have a few questions about filters. I ordered a Canon 350D with a 17-85 IS and the 70-200 IS. I expect them to arrive early next week and one of the things I was wondering about was conversion filters. With a film camera, shooting with daylight film indoors required filters to remove the harsh green cast from fluorescent bulbs. Because we're not using any film, what do I do in artificial light situations with the DSLR. Also, besides a UV filter, what others would be recommended as starter filters for digital SLR? Thanks in advance from a digital newbie. Eugene Wendland > Hi all > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > remove the harsh green cast from fluorescent bulbs. Because we're not using > any film, what do I do in artificial light situations with the DSLR. White balance pretty much takes care of that. I guess a gray card is the next step for improving color accuracy. > Also, besides a UV filter, what others would be recommended as starter > filters for digital SLR? You really could skip the UV filter. Even if you got small scratches on the front, they won't show or be in focus. A circular polarizer is useful and graduated neutral density is about the only other thing you might want. Do think about the size though: 52mm, 77mm, etc. it can make sense to buy one set of 77mm filters and step up rings for smaller lenses. > Thanks in advance from a digital newbie. > > Eugene Wendland  SignaturePaul Furman http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives http://www.baynatives.com > You really could skip the UV filter. Even if you got small scratches on > the front, they won't show or be in focus. A circular polarizer is useful > and graduated neutral density is about the only other thing you might > want. I stuck a Heliopan 77mm Coated UV filter on my 70-200L and 24-70L lenses - after looking at the expensive glass at the end of both of these lenses, I decided that I didn't have the balls to risk scratching it. I've never regretted the decision. > I stuck a Heliopan 77mm Coated UV filter on my 70-200L and 24-70L lenses - > after looking at the expensive glass at the end of both of these lenses, I > decided that I didn't have the balls to risk scratching it. I've never > regretted the decision. How often did you exchange your Heliopan UV Filter for a new one? -Wolfgang >> I stuck a Heliopan 77mm Coated UV filter on my 70-200L and 24-70L lenses - >> after looking at the expensive glass at the end of both of these lenses, I >> decided that I didn't have the balls to risk scratching it. I've never >> regretted the decision. > >How often did you exchange your Heliopan UV Filter for a new one? Because I live by the west coast I've had occasion to take my camera to the beach for the day. Because summers on the coast tend to be gray and breezy, my filter usually ends up covered with dried sea spray and sand grit. When that happens I simply unscrew the filter and wash it with soap and water under the faucet. Finish off with a cleaning cloth and it's like new again. Can't do that with a camera lens. SignatureRay Fischer rfischer@sonic.net >>How often did you exchange your Heliopan UV Filter for a new one? > Because I live by the west coast I've had occasion to take my camera > to the beach for the day. Because summers on the coast tend to be > gray and breezy, my filter usually ends up covered with dried sea > spray and sand grit. Ok, that *is* a special circumstance of 'dirty' air, where a filter's a good idea. (So is sealing the camera, sand notoriously tries to get into everything.) I understand that you don't use the filter as a protection against non-airborne dangers, though? > When that happens I simply unscrew the filter and wash it with soap > and water under the faucet. Finish off with a cleaning cloth and it's > like new again. > Can't do that with a camera lens. There are some environmentally sealed lenses. :-) -Wolfgang >>>How often did you exchange your Heliopan UV Filter for a new one? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >filter's a good idea. (So is sealing the camera, sand notoriously >tries to get into everything.) Well, even that doesn't always work. At the beach I was changing lenses and actually dropped one. Good news: It didn't break. Bad news: It didn't break because sand is soft. >I understand that you don't use the filter as a protection against >non-airborne dangers, though? In, well, a lot of years a filter has saved a lens for me just once. >> When that happens I simply unscrew the filter and wash it with soap >> and water under the faucet. Finish off with a cleaning cloth and it's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >There are some environmentally sealed lenses. :-) Run 'em through the dishwasher? SignatureRay Fischer rfischer@sonic.net > Do think about the size though: 52mm, 77mm, etc. it can make sense to > buy one set of 77mm filters and step up rings for smaller lenses. Works well for polarizers--- the graduated ND's not so much. >> Hi all >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > and graduated neutral density is about the only other thing you might > want. With all due respect, it is much easier to replace scratched filters than scratched front elements. Much depends on where and how you will be shooting. In dusty environments a front protective filter is very valuable, as it is in wet environments (rain, ocean spray) where you will be wiping the front to remove moisture. The cons are a very slight degradation in image quality (probably not noticeable until you compare images side by side at 50x) and slightly more flare. With extreme wide angles at small apertures dust particles on the filter will be visible in the picture, but this is unusual unless the dust is very big. I heartily recommend a UV or clear front filter (multi-coated is best). And as others have commented a circular polarizer is very useful in many situations. Color correction filters are mostly not necessary with digital. There are special-effects filters that can be handy--cross filters, red enhancers, softs, etc.--but these are mostly specialty items. Toby >>You really could skip the UV filter. Even if you got small scratches on >>the front, they won't show or be in focus. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I heartily recommend a UV or clear front filter (multi-coated is best). The thing is, you most want to protect a really expensive lens but with a really expensive lens, it's a shame to add flare or anything 'cause you paid so much for that perfect image. <sigh> :-) The best argument is for protecting a compromise lens that you might want to sell and keep the front element perfect but the good glass should never need to be sold. I'll concede it could be good for extreme environments but generally speaking glass is extremely durable. I'm not experienced with any damage so take my advice with a grain of salt. > > I heartily recommend a UV or clear front filter (multi-coated is best). > > The thing is, you most want to protect a really expensive lens but with > a really expensive lens, it's a shame to add flare or anything 'cause > you paid so much for that perfect image. <sigh> :-) Then take off the filter. Put it back on when you're done. This way you don't inadvertently scratch the lens during handling, if for some reason you don't want to use a lens cap. This whole UV filter debate has always seemed really silly to me. It's threaded; take it off when you don't want it. Put it back on when you do. What's the big deal? >>>You really could skip the UV filter. Even if you got small scratches on >>>the front, they won't show or be in focus. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > speaking glass is extremely durable. I'm not experienced with any damage > so take my advice with a grain of salt. I do video for a living, and the lenses that I use cost about $20,000 each. I would not dream of using them without a front filter. All it takes is a piece of grit harder than glass caught on your chamois or lens tissue to put a scratch on the lens, and coatings are very delicate. Granted I use the lenses in newsgathering situations which are more extreme than a normal shooter would generally experience, but I replace those front filters about every two to three years because they do get scratched. If I have to shoot into a bright light source I take them off, especially if I am using the short zoom at the wide end (4.8mm--nasty depth of field--shows up every speck on the filter); other than that the presence of that extra piece of glass is imperceptible. Toby Hi Eugene! Digital SLR's have WB (white balance) as most digital cameras. The Canon 350D has the following choices: Auto, Daylight, Shade, Cloudy, Tungsten, Fluorescent, Flash, and Custom. My understanding is that generally, these coincide more or less with the type of film and / or the type of filter you might use. By and large, the only filter you might want to buy is a circular polaroid. At any rate, if I were you, I would try the camera in many situations first before you buy any filter. I have found that even the circular polaroid can be a nuisance if you're in and out of the sun, especially with the 17-85 USM IS. The polaroid (I might be mistaken here) seems to close your lens by about 2 f stops. In the shade, you either have to take it out or up the ISO at times. With a lens hood on, it's very annoying. Regards, Marcel > Hi all > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Eugene Wendland You'll certainly want a circular polarizer and a graduated neutral density filter, especially if you plan on shooting landscapes. Go for the slim filters. If you get the ones with front threads, you'll still be able to pop the lens cap on it. Some ultra-slims don't have front threads. As Celcius pointed out, you'll lose two stops with a polarizer, so if you want to shoot at the same shutter speed and aperture, you'll have to bump up the ISO two stops. Otherwise, it's not that big a deal, especially if you're shooting on a tripod. If you haven't gotten one, do. Your pictures will be much sharper. The polarizing filter will darken the sky but not the clouds. Their effect is strongest at a right angle to the sun, so if the sun is low in the sky and you're shooting at wide angle, the sky can come out uneven. The part of the picture at a right angle to the sun will be darkest with the sky lightening towards and away from the sun. A graduated neutral density filter won't have this problem. That's why you'll probably want both. If you do buy filters, don't skimp on price. Try to buy coated filters as opposed to uncoated. They're more expensive, but worth it. Good brands are Hoya, B&W, and Heliopan. Oh, I'd also recommend a closeup +3 if you plan on taking any pictures of flowers and the like. Maybe even a +5. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.