Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Nikon DSLR Cameras
D3100
Question about filters
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Bill16" data-source="post: 168164" data-attributes="member: 15356"><p>Though I am new to photography, and I agree that a chain is only as strong as the weakest link so to speak. I can't help feeling doubt about a UV not being needed at all. I have no knowledge on how lenses or sensors are made and of what materials. But I do know UV light degrades a lot of man made materials like plastics, and other materials that might be used in the making of lenses and sensors. I believe this would be a slow process and wouldn't be apparent for some time, and a person might even believe that the picture quality being poorer is do to age alone. Though an avid bird enthusiest might find his/her camera and or lenses had possibly aged faster than others.</p><p>I believe lens hoods and lens covers are likely the best choice for protecting the lens from scratches. </p><p>What I am really unsure of is if the pro's of using a UV filter outside out weight the con's of a UV lens producing lower quality pictures.</p><p>I guess UV lens quality/prices vs camera and lens cost along with the person's income are what I think should really be balanced to help make the choice.</p><p></p><p>Anyway this is all just a train of thought I had, and I could be wrong. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bill16, post: 168164, member: 15356"] Though I am new to photography, and I agree that a chain is only as strong as the weakest link so to speak. I can't help feeling doubt about a UV not being needed at all. I have no knowledge on how lenses or sensors are made and of what materials. But I do know UV light degrades a lot of man made materials like plastics, and other materials that might be used in the making of lenses and sensors. I believe this would be a slow process and wouldn't be apparent for some time, and a person might even believe that the picture quality being poorer is do to age alone. Though an avid bird enthusiest might find his/her camera and or lenses had possibly aged faster than others. I believe lens hoods and lens covers are likely the best choice for protecting the lens from scratches. What I am really unsure of is if the pro's of using a UV filter outside out weight the con's of a UV lens producing lower quality pictures. I guess UV lens quality/prices vs camera and lens cost along with the person's income are what I think should really be balanced to help make the choice. Anyway this is all just a train of thought I had, and I could be wrong. :D [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Nikon DSLR Cameras
D3100
Question about filters
Top
