| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/04/2005 11:24:12 AM · #1 |
| OK I jsut got off the phone with Canon. The word is that digital cameras DO NOT NEED UV filters. The sensor is not like film in that way. If you want to cut glare Canon suggests using a high quality Circular Polarizer. |
|
|
|
04/04/2005 11:29:38 AM · #2 |
| They are a cheap way to protect the lens front element, though, even if you don't shoot with them on. |
|
|
|
04/04/2005 11:32:15 AM · #3 |
I keep UV filters on my lens for the simple reason of protecton.
|
|
|
|
04/04/2005 11:37:56 AM · #4 |
| Why would you buy a good quality lens and they put a cheap filter on over the lens with the idea of protecting it. If you are going to do that save your money and get a lower quality lens. Just learn to be careful and take care of your equipment..... |
|
|
|
04/04/2005 11:50:10 AM · #5 |
I am very careful with my equipment and keep a lens hood on in addition to the UV filter and take it off right before I'm ready to shoot. I don't have a true SLR with interchangeable lenses so if something does happen to the lens front element then I have to send the whole camera out for repair. Part of the reason I keep it on is so that I don't have to directly clean the front element and also it's psychological peace of mind. Especially in areas that are windy with seawater spray, dust or other matter in the air, I would rather clean that off of a filter. Just my quirkyness, I guess.
Originally posted by gwphoto:
Why would you buy a good quality lens and they put a cheap filter on over the lens with the idea of protecting it. If you are going to do that save your money and get a lower quality lens. Just learn to be careful and take care of your equipment..... |
|
|
|
|
04/04/2005 11:56:19 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by gwphoto:
Why would you buy a good quality lens and they put a cheap filter on over the lens with the idea of protecting it. If you are going to do that save your money and get a lower quality lens. Just learn to be careful and take care of your equipment..... |
This assumes a cheap filter, not a high quality one. And it assumes that the filter will degrade the lens performance which I am not convinced is the case with the the better filters.
I'm with Olyuzi. It gives me more freedom to shoot at the beach and like places.
|
|
|
|
04/04/2005 12:03:55 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by gwphoto:
Why would you buy a good quality lens and they put a cheap filter on over the lens with the idea of protecting it. If you are going to do that save your money and get a lower quality lens. Just learn to be careful and take care of your equipment..... |
This assumes a cheap filter, not a high quality one. And it assumes that the filter will degrade the lens performance which I am not convinced is the case with the the better filters.
I'm with Olyuzi. It gives me more freedom to shoot at the beach and like places. |
He assumed a cheap filter because Olyuzi said "They are a cheap way to protect the lens front element, though, even if you don't shoot with them on."
|
|
|
|
04/04/2005 12:15:58 PM · #8 |
| I was just trying to pass on some info. If you choose to still use a UV filter have at it. I learned a long time ago from listening to pros and trial an air. Do what you will... |
|
|
|
04/04/2005 12:34:03 PM · #9 |
Just to clarify, ThatCloud, when I said "cheap" I meant in the relative sense. I purchased a high quality B&W filter for my camera ($40) which I think would be a lot cheaper that sending out the lens for repair. I don't however see any difference in image quality when shooting with it on or off.
Before I puchased the B&W I was at my local camera shop and the salesman was trying to talk me into buying the cheapest available filter in stock saying that even with the cheapest filter I would see no differences in image quality. He said only with very high end lenses would I see a difference. For the extra $20 I opted for the B&W.
Just one other note...I would also rather have a filter on my camera shooting in smoky conditions, like at parties or night clubs.
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
He assumed a cheap filter because Olyuzi said "They are a cheap way to protect the lens front element, though, even if you don't shoot with them on." |
|
|
|
|
04/04/2005 12:41:08 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
...I would also rather have a filter on my camera shooting in smoky conditions, like at parties or night clubs. |
Add concerts where they are using a smoke machine to the list.
|
|
|
|
04/04/2005 08:57:08 PM · #11 |
I agree with gwphoto.
You don't need a UV filter for any optical reasons. In controlled settings like in a studio, there is no benefit to having a UV filter that I can see. If you are outside in uncontrolled situation where it can be damaged, it may protect your lens from damage, that's all it can do. Will a cheap UV filter negatively affect the photo? Not sure.
Maybe someone can take a nice shot without a filter, then with an expensive UV filter, and then with a cheap UV filter, post them without labels and we can look at them and guess if ther are any difference.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/14/2025 05:16:24 PM EDT.
