Originally posted by GibbyTheMole Here's the thing about that "higher quality filter" thing. If an image with the filter present is virtually identical to one without, there's really not much "higher quality" you can demonstrate. Clear is clear. A better test would be strictly with and without the filter to judge detrimental effect on IQ.
I did a filter/no filter test awhile back, but the images were very large (they have to be to accurately compare) and so I deleted them from the links.
Here's the test page. No one was able to tell which with and which were without the filter.
If I have time, later today, I will repeat the test and post the comparison of with & without for your (and everyone else's) perusal. I'll use one of the sharpest lenses I have, fix the focus with the camera on a tripod, and shoot at the same manual setting for both. Then I'll post both, straight out of the camera, at 100%.
Although, the shots I posted above clearly demonstrate the sharpness & lack of other nasty things while using the filter, I'm willing to do it again. Stay tuned.
I might add that if the filters were in fact the total garbage others say they are, those photos I posted wouldn't be as sharp as they are.
|Their sharpness, contrast, and color character might satisfy you, but it's still far from the reality that many, including myself, have experienced, where it's SIGNIFICANTLY better to not use a filter at all if you have Zeikos on hand. The gap between filterless and filtered in terms of degradation is quite wide when compared to quality filters.
Some of us want to actually get the shot down mostly in the composition phase, rather than using a heck of a lot more PP or jpeg engine hocus pocus to do it.
Edit: I'm looking at the pics and while I'm not a pixel peeper, there appears to be some weirdness there, like a milkiness to a couple of the pics, lack of microcontrast, and weird color casts. They might be fine for you, again, but these PP examples are far from convincing.