DSLR Shots and Discussions

HKYStormFront

yea i used to be big on UV filters... now i leave em bare unless i've got a CP on them and even then, it's a high dollar B+W filter, not some cheap wal mart crap

__________________
Patrick // 06 Frontier 6spd Nismosis // Mods: Uprev Tuned @ Z1 Motorsports: 257whp & 292 ft lbs
09 Pontiac G8 GXP // M6 // Sunroof // Tint... For now

onzedge

You cannot beat B+W quality.

__________________

Koni|Swift|Michelin|Motordyne|Berk|RJM Performance|Gates|SPL|Motul|Technafit|Ate Super Blue|Hawk
Tommy Kaira|Momo|Optima|Hella|Hotchkis|Red Line|ZSpeed|Stillen|B&M|H&R

alcheng

UV filter is needed, unless the lenses used within the lens are glass.

Most of the less expensive lenses are using polycarbonate material, light rays (including UV) going through the lens elements to the sensor, from time to time, the UV will turn the polycarbonate material into yellowish thus affect the quality thus the lifespan of the lens itself.

A good quality UV+anti-reflection filter is essential.


+ Heliopan

cgust

This argument only works for film bodies. Film sensors are definitely susceptible to UV and it can change the exposure of the photo. So the use of a UV filter would be needed to mitigate this. However, Im going to guess that most of us use digital cameras and their sensors are not effected in the way you describe and using UV filters can even introduce flair and color casts.

LunaZ

Yeah, I have B+W on mine but I have been debating taking them off as well.

__________________

2009 370Z Sport/Touring/Navigation | see my journal for mods
facebook: Be my friend... or not.

ZForce

The pros are still out to lunch on this debate stemming back to the SLR days. both have pro and cons and a little search -google on some of more renowned forums will keep your cup of tea refilling for hours.

Meh...UV until recently now Skylight , both give a different hue on skyline. Matter of preference.

Oh....and what beats B&W is Heliopan or any glass with Zeiis 's named stamped on it. Both make B&W seem like wal-fart quality....better BMW {bring more wallet) though, All a matter of opinion.

alcheng

uh..... buddy, my post was talking about UV damage on the polycarbonate lens....

cgust

Ha sorry never heard of this happening before. Must be a great lens indeed to be yellowed from the UV rays.

alcheng

In fact it's those cheap/less expensive lenses on the market nowadays.

They use polycarbonate instead of glass.

While glass provide better optical quality and will not turn yellowish, it is more costly.

Thus manufactures use polycarbonate thus to cut cost and weight. However, polycarbonate and plastic material lenses will turn yellowish from UV, thus the lens needs UV filter.

Well, if the lenses you are using are have glass lenses elements, then you are pretty much safe.

ZForce

Solution....shoot under low light indoors.

LunaZ

Yup.
I'm on photography specific forums, and I did do a Google search, but thanks for the suggestions.
Since we have a photography specific thread in here, I though I would see what my Z brothers had to say on the topic.

__________________

2009 370Z Sport/Touring/Navigation | see my journal for mods
facebook: Be my friend... or not.

Cmike2780

IMO, UV filters are only good for protecting the lens from physical damage. If you buy a quality lens to begin with and you take care of it, you don't really need it to add additional protection from UV. It's still good to have. A lot of the people I know agree that they'd rather break a $40 filter than a $900 lens. Coupled with a good quality lens hood, its a small investment to keep your lens from being damaged. If you have a cheap lens that yellows easily, why bother. As far as image quality, it makes no difference and may even make it worst if you buy a cheap UV filter.

As far as destroying the sensor, that's highly unlikely. Your lens is essentially a UV filter and very little UV actually makes it to the sensor. It's not sensitive to UV. You're also talking shutter speeds of fractions of a second in bright daylight conditions.

__________________

[09][MB][6-Spd MT][Touring][Stillen Gen III][K&N][Borla CBE][Evo-R]

Cmike2780

Found this while on YouTube yesterday. This made me cringe every time he throws it. you can fast forward to the Mark III @7:40


Actually an entertaining YouTube channel if you've never checked it out.

__________________

[09][MB][6-Spd MT][Touring][Stillen Gen III][K&N][Borla CBE][Evo-R]

ZForce

This was exactly what I have heard over the years from professional photo magazines and forums. You gave my response the detailed version in depth, but this is how I feel. I have been shooting film (SLR) actually I preferred slide film (AgfaChrome) in the early seventies and always used a UV. Then about in the early 2000's, read in a magazine to the other side of the coin. Which was... why place another piece of glass (no matter what the quality over a $900 plus lens to just distort it? They basically said treat the camera and lens with the same way you would caress your wife (that's my own analogy) and if you scratch the lens then oh well TBSS (too bad so sad). Which got me to thinking, I do not have that kind of money to be tossing around on a new lens if I scratch it, not on a federal employee salary. So I still opt use either a UV or testing a new B&W Skylight filter. I also have a good lens hood too. Plus with photoshop or LightRoom you can remove the haze or whatever the choosen filter adds if it does suit your particular shot. And the sharpening tools in both s/w prohragms mentioned are great. Hell.. I still use ACDSee sharpening tool over PS. Although I just broke down and purchased Light Room ver 3 (still running WinXP) and Scott Kelby's book.

Thanks for the feeback very good info.

onzedge

__________________

Koni|Swift|Michelin|Motordyne|Berk|RJM Performance|Gates|SPL|Motul|Technafit|Ate Super Blue|Hawk
Tommy Kaira|Momo|Optima|Hella|Hotchkis|Red Line|ZSpeed|Stillen|B&M|H&R