Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-10-2014, 06:09 AM   #16
mee
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 5,255
QuoteOriginally posted by Thomas23456789 Quote
Do digital cameras need UV filters?
Not in the traditional sense. They do, however, provide some form of protection physically against scratches and the like though if you are concerned about that.

QuoteOriginally posted by Thomas23456789 Quote
Does a polarizing filter work/help with digital cameras?
Yep Polarizing filters still work with digital cameras!

09-10-2014, 11:47 AM   #17
Moderator PEG Judges
Kerrowdown's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Highlands of Scotland.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 30,691
QuoteOriginally posted by First Poster Quote
Do digital cameras need UV filters?
No, despite what the camera shop salesman tells you.

QuoteOriginally posted by First Poster Quote
Does a polarizing filter work/help with digital cameras?
Yes they do, but many of their advantages can now be replicated in post.

So No and Yes in that order.
09-10-2014, 03:12 PM   #18
Loyal Site Supporter
Canada_Rockies's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,144
QuoteOriginally posted by Kerrowdown Quote
No, despite what the camera shop salesman tells you.
Yes they do, but many of their advantages can now be replicated in post.

So No and Yes in that order.
Yep, I stopped using "protection" filters 25 years ago, and have never damaged a lens because of that.

SOME of the Polarizer benefits can be duplicated in post, but definitely not the most important ones: removing non-metallic reflections such as seeing through a water surface to what's underneath and seeing richer colours on foliage after a rainfall.
09-20-2014, 02:56 AM   #19
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,824
QuoteOriginally posted by RKKS08 Quote
I worked in so many countries I have difficulties to name them all, but I have no difficulties to name the regions where, after just one day outdoors, everything was covered with a thin oily film. It was mainly from getting energy by burning coal with a high percentage of sulfur. And there were often very fine metallic particels included. Western part of Turkey, East Germany, Taiwan, and some regions of what is today Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Bosnia come to mind.
You would have been better off worrying about your lungs.

QuoteOriginally posted by sterretje Quote
I will use them if I take photos in e.g. a blistering sand storm, though.
I don't know who started to circulate this sort of nonsense. Sand combined with wind seems to make a strong argument it seems but the reality is, you need a lot of of air velocity and combine this with a concentrated stream of sand to make any impact. Granted, some surfaces will need less sand and air to be damaged but we are talking about glass here , are we not ? The concentration of air velocity and sand has to be much greater then a decent storm at a beach can produce in order to damage your lenses. And if it does it will only happen over long, long periods of time, like years. And I have not ever seen any spectacle wearer (including myself) who has walked away from a stormy beach outing with translucent glasses. Some years ago I was walking along "Inch Beach" in Ireland (by the way Ryans Daughter was filmed there) on a day when the wind was howling ferociously. It was so bad the kiosk right next to the beach was covered in huge sand drifts. We couldn't open the door, the sand drift against the door was so high. I was told this is happening pretty often there, but did the windows of the kiosk facing the beach show any sand related damage ? No it did not.

Yet I walked on the beach for about an hour with my K-5 taking lots of pictures without filter (I don't own one) A photo is attached. Did my Pentax 60-250 suffer any damage ? No it did not. And the spectacles on my face din't either.

So best forget about this paranoia about beach and lens glass. Sand entering your camera if it is not sealed is a much greater consideration and I would worry more about this.

QuoteOriginally posted by ChrisJ Quote
Lenses are tougher than you think. Chris
You are spot on.

Greetings


Last edited by Schraubstock; 11-01-2014 at 04:25 PM.
09-20-2014, 03:29 AM - 1 Like   #20
Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,249
Polariser when I want reflections tamed? Yes.
Neutral density when I want to shoot wide open or use long exposures in bright light? Yes.
UV to protect the front element? Never.
Hood? Always.
09-20-2014, 08:19 AM   #21
Loyal Site Supporter
Canada_Rockies's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,144
QuoteOriginally posted by Sandy Hancock Quote
Polariser when I want reflections tamed? Yes.
Neutral density when I want to shoot wide open or use long exposures in bright light? Yes.
UV to protect the front element? Never.
Hood? Always.
Perfect advice here. I stopped using "protective" filters many years ago. One should also note that it is well known that press photographers use the always with them lens cleaning fluid and cloth. Spit on your tie and scrub the lens. They seem to have no problems.
09-22-2014, 08:53 AM   #22
Site Supporter
ChrisPlatt's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Queens NYC
Posts: 4,439
Protective filters are for sissies.
Real photographers never use 'em.

Chris
09-22-2014, 03:17 PM   #23
Pentaxian
Wired's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Edmonton, AB
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,494
Why spend $500-700-1500-2000+ on a lens and then throw a $40 UV filter on the front? Seems silly to me...

I've run filter free for 5 years. no issues with lens degredation, even a dropped DA*55 survived.

That being said, I do have UV/sky filters for my most used lenses, just one of each thread size. Why? Because if I'm in a situation that warrants its use I'm gonna slap it on... ie: when I shoot mountain bike racing with my UWA and get right in on them. Then yea, I need that filter.

09-22-2014, 04:12 PM   #24
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 320
QuoteOriginally posted by Schraubstock Quote
You would have been better off worrying about your lungs.

I don't know who started to circulate this sort of nonsense. Sand combined with wind seems to make a strong argument it seems but the reality is, you need a lot of of air velocity and combine this with a concentrated stream of sand to make any impact.
Greetings
Many years ago, i knew a guy who drove his car from California cross the American desert, a sudden windstorm came up, And the sand removed all the pain off of one side of his car, And etched every window on that side of his car. I saw the pictures. The size and type of the sand makes a big difference on whether it will get high enough to do any damage. Don't say it can't happen it can.

I don't recommend leaving a filter on your camera lens at all times, but I do recommend you have one just in case. Better safe than risking a $2000 Lens.
09-22-2014, 04:43 PM   #25
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York
Posts: 3,016
QuoteOriginally posted by promacjoe Quote
Many years ago, i knew a guy who drove his car from California cross the American desert, a sudden windstorm came up, And the sand removed all the pain off of one side of his car, And etched every window on that side of his car. I saw the pictures. The size and type of the sand makes a big difference on whether it will get high enough to do any damage. Don't say it can't happen it can.

I don't recommend leaving a filter on your camera lens at all times, but I do recommend you have one just in case. Better safe than risking a $2000 Lens.
Such a storm would also etch your bodies - camera body plus human body. If you were in that sandstorm your gear would be ruined regardless of filter usage.
09-22-2014, 08:29 PM   #26
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,824
QuoteOriginally posted by promacjoe Quote
Many years ago, i knew a guy who drove his car from California cross the American desert, a sudden windstorm came up, And the sand removed all the pain off of one side of his car, And etched every window...
Right, we are talking here of conditions that would suit a commercial sandblaster. It would strip the paint of the Sydney Harbour Bridge to its bare metal, and you would go out and take photos in conditions like that ? Good luck.

Cheers.
09-22-2014, 09:32 PM   #27
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 320
Yes, the situation that I described was extreme. But it only takes a 15 mile an hour wind to pick up enough sand and grit to start etching the coating on your lens. I have experienced that kind of event first hand. Luckily I had a protector filter on my lens. and my back was to the wind. And as I said in another post, My brother and his wife was out shooting in Yellowstone. His wife got a little too close to the geyser, and hot water splashed on the lens, and discolored the filter coating. If not for a filter, a $2200 Nikon lens would have been damaged.

As I said, I don't recommend leaving them on all the time, but I do recommend having them available.

And it is your choice whether to use them or even have them in your bag.
09-22-2014, 10:39 PM   #28
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,824
QuoteOriginally posted by promacjoe Quote
...it only takes a 15 mile an hour wind to pick up enough sand and grit to start etching the coating on your lens.
Obviously you have your reason to say this. But I am sorry, I just cannot accept this. See my post No.19 above.
If this was true of what you are saying half of my lenses would have to be "opaque" by now. But they are not and I have been in worse conditions then they were at the time at Inch Beach. A 15m/h wind and the bit of sand this will pick up just won't do it in my experience.

I buy your argument re geysers though, there are a lot of those in Rotorua (NZ), and I have to agree I would buy a cheap filter and then chuck it after close up geyser photography. That's a bit extreme though but under normal everyday shooting condition - no filter for me.

Cheers
09-23-2014, 07:50 AM   #29
Loyal Site Supporter
GlassJunkie's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: St Petersburg
Photos: Albums
Posts: 327
Opinions are like.... Well you know...

Yes there is sand, lost an objective lens in the gulf a few years back. Costly repair.... That said, New coatings? I don't trust them yet.... Oil in coal burning areas? Yes, add outdoor barbecue areas, inside industrial sites, boats (diesel), chainsaw competitions, model airplanes, etc. If you "get into" your photo taking, it's going to happen, pro or not... Pesticides in botanical gardens, yup. Coatings and human components need protection. Both don't like some of them. Many gardens use "misters" with reclaimed/ iron rich water. Eats coatings. Been there... Biota are the worst (bacteria, mold, fungus, airborn diatoms chitins at the shore or boat splash in salt water) DEADLY to lenses, regardless of coatings. And Saltwater spray (within 2 miles of shores)? Absolutely. Cameras don't like these anyway....

UV filters needed for UV control, nah. Usually use CPLs regularly. When no CPL or ND in use? High grade UV, B+W Nano, Bresson, Hoya HD or EVO, NISI LR... They even help an old "F" or "FA" lens with flare....

And when I sell/trade a lens? I get a better price since I watch the details. Makes "keeping the kit fresh" a heck of a lot cheaper...

---------- Post added 09-23-14 at 11:00 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by promacjoe Quote
...But it only takes a 15 mile an hour wind to pick up enough sand and grit to start etching the coating on your lens.

As I said, I don't recommend leaving them on all the time, but I do recommend having them available.

And it is your choice whether to use them or even have them in your bag.
WELL SAID.... I burn "filters" and high graded "NANO" coated ones 1-3 per year.... Just look at them in fluorescent light. Lots of dings, chem stains, Biota issues... Much better/ cheaper than burning an objective.....

On your 15 MPH, I agree on non-nano/ SMC, and I hear that NANO are more resistant to it. Not buying it yet... Windshields are toast at 25mph, ask the insurance companies in winter "sanding/ rocksalt" states. BTW rocksalt is very abrasive since it's not pure...
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, cameras, coatings, filters, gardens, lens, nano, pentax help, sand, uv, uv filters, water
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Canada: Hoya Pro1 Digital UV filters Le Ugim Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 5 11-27-2011 07:23 PM
For Sale - Sold: Filters UV/CPL/FLD + More Digital and Film in pretty much all sizes mackloon Sold Items 10 07-20-2011 07:18 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:49 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top