I agree it is a silly test, but it does show that filters effect image quality. With the example of 5 filters, each one contributed a small amount to the overall loss of quality. I agree, with a good filter the effect is unnoticeable, but it is there. The loss of light when you but any filter on, is evidence that it has an effect on your system.
Hood or filter or both?
- Thread starter handsy
- Start date
So very true. I am guilty of using a filter for protection 90% of the time. I take the filter off if Iam shooting for instance in an indoor situation where every bit of light is important. Most of the time the degradation is so slight I am not worried about. I am going to do some tests with the D800 because with 36 MPs it's a diffrent story in the amount of resolution.
Phillydog1958
Senior Member
Interesting test. I use filters and hoods. But, I'm paranoid about lens protection. If 50 filters degrade photo quality, logic follows that one filter can subtly degrade photo quality. It's a simple hypothesis.
I don't think too much should be read into the '50 filter' test.
Putting the whole idea of obscene amount of filters being used, it is not a controlled experiment in the least.
To make it even remotely 'scientific' the filters should have been of all the same make and model, and even more from the same batch.
That alleviates the issue of 'cheaper' filters clouding the results straight away, as no filter would be better or worse then one behind/in front of it.
Also, the amount of filters produces a barrel/scope/tube effect - was the base image they did without any filters taken with the same tubed affect or just a straight shot from the lens?
The variables are huge and vast from the 'experiment' they've done that any reading into it, should be taken with a large pinch of salt.
The only way you will know if a filter makes a difference is to take a pic with one on, and one without, then sit and pixel by pixel examine the differences.
Putting the whole idea of obscene amount of filters being used, it is not a controlled experiment in the least.
To make it even remotely 'scientific' the filters should have been of all the same make and model, and even more from the same batch.
That alleviates the issue of 'cheaper' filters clouding the results straight away, as no filter would be better or worse then one behind/in front of it.
Also, the amount of filters produces a barrel/scope/tube effect - was the base image they did without any filters taken with the same tubed affect or just a straight shot from the lens?
The variables are huge and vast from the 'experiment' they've done that any reading into it, should be taken with a large pinch of salt.
The only way you will know if a filter makes a difference is to take a pic with one on, and one without, then sit and pixel by pixel examine the differences.
Jeff, I have no doubt he is highly regarded as a photographer. I was questioning his treatment of his equipment, which I find puzzling, seeing as he is supposed to be "professional". Imagine treating the tools of YOUR trade with such disregard. Doesn't say much about the craftsman, does it!
fotojack, why do you use UV filters outdoors? Do you use them as protection? Digital sensors do not react to UV like film will and hence there is no UV issues to worry about, even in bright sunlight.
Phillydog1958
Senior Member
What are you guy's thoughts on a filter specifically designed for digital cameras versus film. Some argue that most filters are designed for film. I'm using Hoya Pro1 Digital UV Filters. They're made for digital cams.
Last edited:
The funny thing is that UV issues only occur on film, digital cameras do not treat UV light in the same manner so you won't get that yellowing effect you do with UV on film. Why then do they make UV filters for digital cameras? Simple, because people keep buying UV filters for digital cameras which causes no real harm but neither does it impart any added benefits. I guess it's just a habit that has been grandfathered into digital photography from years of being a mainstay of film photography.
Phillydog1958
Senior Member
Thanks for the information. Interesting point is that Hoya and possibly other filter manufacturers are marketing filters specifically designed for digital cams. Hmmm. . . I'll have to further examine this. I admit that they don't give detailed specifics as to how their digital cam filters make a difference. They sort of glaze over the technology.
I agree the 50 filter test is over the top and somewhat pointless. The example of 5 is reasonable. All glass has imperfections, more has more imperfections. I choose to limit those variables by not having additional glass.
Manna69247
Senior Member
My wife dropped my camera last weekend and the UV filter shattered in pieces. My own fault, I quickly hide it inside a blanket when we went out of the room where we were staying, then she picked up the blanket to put on the bed. She thought the lense broke and was very glad it was only the filter.
She supprised me today with a new filter, a Marumi C-PL, not UV. It was 4 times the price of the UV but I could not dissapoint her and tell her it was the wrong one. The good thing is I have a C-PL filter now to play with. Will still get an UV for protection, tomorrow. My equipment on my pocket is probably the same (if not more) as some professionals with Leica equipment.
She supprised me today with a new filter, a Marumi C-PL, not UV. It was 4 times the price of the UV but I could not dissapoint her and tell her it was the wrong one. The good thing is I have a C-PL filter now to play with. Will still get an UV for protection, tomorrow. My equipment on my pocket is probably the same (if not more) as some professionals with Leica equipment.
That's only because different lenses have different diameters. Look under the lens cap and you'll find a number that gives you the diameter in mm. Lens hoods are specifically made for every different lens.