Has anyone compared footage shot in bright sunshine without any ND filters using a slightly higher shutter and closing down the lens (let's say F16 at 1/200th) and then using an ND or two and using something like F3.5 and 1/60th??

I have done somewhat exhaustive tests in bright sunshine and I seriously cannot see any image quality difference between the two. I would have expected a little bit of image degradation at really small apertures but I cannot see any ... they are probably there once one goes past F16 but my eyes cannot see any vast different ..each test seemed to have the same sharpness. Ok I couldn't tell what the actual aperture was but I did stop down quite a lot and it didn't seem to change the image so I just didn't bother with ND's after that.

It would be interesting if someone else has done this and can say 100% that at F22 the image really falls to pieces ...(which technically it should)

Chris

For me ND with out getting too technical is so I can use lower apertures for more depth of field (bokeh) in my shots.

One thing I love about my FS700. Flick on the ND's and I can stay at F2.8 or F1.8 if im using a prime.

Hey Chris,

I have privately considered this for a long time, The "certainties" are that you should stick to 1/50th. sec. shutter. Diffraction starts, depending on the sensor size of course, in my case Canon APS-C, at f11, it also depends on the lowest ISO that can be set, Canon setting 160, Magic Lantern can get it down to 50, So, anything brighter than those settings can accommodate is theoretically impossible. Right?

The photographer in me (you too, methinks) says "cr*p"! How often will a shutter speed faster than 1/50th affect the image enough to make it obvious? Yes, there are times when it does, but most times it does not.

How often will an external ND filter affect the white balance? Pretty much all the time in my experience.

If you are not in a studio or on a powerfully lit film set, you have no choice but to use the exposure settings on the camera to get it right.

I'm putting my parachute on in case I get shot down in flames, but I say ND filters should be a total no-no except in extenuating circumstances. For two reasons. First, I'd rather not have a white balance shift if I attach (or more likely remove) a ND filter. Second, most of the time with a larger sensor the fight is to get enough DoF, so the aperture needs to be as small as possible, before diffraction starts of course!

Dave

That's a good question I have wondered myself. When I first got the EA50 I was expecting the lack of ND to be a big problem. As I started using it, it ended up being much less significant than I thought. Shooting weddings and slow moving events it seems to do fine letting the iris close down and shutter increase. I haven't shot anything with a lot of action or pans though without ND on a bright day.
I did experiment one day with ND trying to keep the iris as open as I could for shallow DOF and it was a cloudy day and when the clouds moved and covered the sun I saw the camera gaining up so I had to take the ND off. But when it was bright enough my ND did help me keep the shallow look I was trying to get with the shutter low

uh short answer yes long answer hell yes! Well I guess if your not running and gunning with a EA-50 but if your doing weddings going inside to out and back and fourth the EA 50 is really a PITA having to change shutters on the fly.

It's not the first time you have asked this question :)

Is using no ND a crime? well, yes and no, my sony handicams don't have a ND and I never use one on those, the camera uses the shutter to compensate for too much light and on a bright sunny day that shutter is skyrocketing, do I see that in my image? Sometimes yes, especially when something is moving there is not a natural motion blur. Why don't I use a ND then? These camera's are real run and gun camera's, often used as unattended camera's where I don't have time to fiddle with settings or I also use them as manned camera's for shooting non repeatable events in rapidly changing light conditions, the image they output, even with very high shutterspeeds are good enough for my purpose.

When would I most certainly use a ND filter? When I want to keep my f-stop wide open on a fast prime in bright sunlight, here even the highest shutter won't do and in such a case I prefer to have the shutter at 1/50 or 1/100 depending on my framerate, then I set my iso and f-stop and use a variable ND to set the exposure.

I also would use the ND to avoid diffraction by having to resort to high f-stops, you could experiemnt with your camera to see when the image starts to deteriorate but I prefer to keep it around f5.6 for best results.

I saw a documentary at a theater that had a lot of moving shots outdoors without an ND and it gave me a splitting headache.

Neutral Density is used in order to keep your shutter speed locked to twice your frame rate and to keep your shutter speed down and your lens at a proper f-stop for its optimum performance. Diffraction can kill the sharpness of your lens once you step down too far (roughly over f/22 for Full Frame, over f/16 for Super 35/APS-C, over f/12 for m4/3, etc) and we're not talking a little bit of shutter over 1/48 here. Here in Texas, it wouldn't be uncommon to be 1/500 or higher.

Higher shutter speed makes any and all motion look "strobey" akin to the way the opening scenes were shot in Saving Private Ryan. Like I said, watching an entire feature do it that way gave me a splitting headache in the theater, and, frankly, is one of the aspects of what makes for what is termed the "video look" as well as looking amateurish to me.

Thanks Guys

Yes, I have asked before but I popped this thread up for Steve Bobilin really. He is using ND's on his camera and is getting vignetting due to the ND's protruding too far forward so I figured a thread like this might be able to assist him in running without ND's and not getting the nasty vignetting

Chris

If he's getting vignetting then what brand of ND is he using?

He is using ND's on his camera and is getting vignetting due to the ND's protruding too far forward

He needs to look at low profile filters. I had low profile UV filters on my PDW-F350.

Other than that, pretty much what Gary says. High shutter speeds give a strobe like look to motion. Great if you are doing frame by frame analysis of say, a golf swing, but not so great for fluidity from frame to frame. So yes, if you want to have more control over your shots, ND's are sometimes necessary. It's easier of course, if your camera has a built in filter wheel so that it only takes a moment to dial in the ND that you need.

-gb-

I guess it was because I stacked the ND filters—they are inexpensive Tiffen I believe. I will have to test this out. I really did want to use the ND's in order to get that depth of field I like. I will try to see if I have that problem with just one filter.

Yeah, if you're stacking filters you are more likely to vignette, especially at wider focal lengths. I try to avoid stacking and instead figure out the strength I need in a single filter.

Hi Steve

You might also look at using a variable ND filter?? Then you have a range to play with. My issue is that I have two EA-50's plus a range of lenses which is a PITA for ND's .. At weddings I'm using at least 3 different lenses which means 3 sets of ND's

I could be wrong but I'm sure I saw a lens adapter for our cameras that had a variable ND built into the adapter ... would that work??? Dunno where I saw it but it would certainly solve the issue of using different lenses with different filter sizes and would definitely solve the vignetting problem!!!

Chris

Something like this?

FotodioX Vizelex ND Throttle Adapter VZLX-THRTL-EOS-NEX-PRO B&H

I broke my Genus Variable ND filter last year and simply have not replaced it. I just ramp up the the shutter speed if I'm outside and still want a shallow DOF - the act of constantly putting it on and taking it off during a busy wedding was a PITA and one more headache - even with the Xume magnetic filter adapters.

Pete

That's neat Pete ..it would certainly solve the different lens filter diameters as the ND is behind the lens! They also make one for Nikon to NEX

Yeah it was also too much complications for me too as all my lenses have different filter diameters so I just accept a higher shutter and it does seem to cause any ill effects I guess cos everyone moves slowly?

I wonder what quality the ND is inside the adapter?? The whole thing is under $100 and most ND's cost twice that? However it certainly solves the filter diameter issue

Chris I got the Fofodiox ND Throttle and it works great.
So far the quality is excellent, and the design is smart.

What's great about it besides only using 1 adapter for any EF lens is that with a lot of NDs you could get vignetting when attached to the lens front. But with the adapter ND before the lens and sensor you won't get any vignetting. Also the smooth variable chickpeas ND is flawless as well.

The only issue if it matters to any is that it's a dumb adapter, so you don't have iris control if it's not on the lens.

Hi Michael

I saw one from Fotodiox for Nikon to NEX and it does have iris control on the middle ring and then the top edge ring gives you ND control 0 - 10 so you have both ... My current adapters have iris control of course

http://www.amazon.com/Vizelex-Throttle-Mount-Adapter-Fotodiox/dp/B00OI98BBO

If you look carefully the blue ring is for iris and the top black ring is for ND

My only concern it that you can't go lower than ND2 so it really low light like receptions you would lose a bit of light... Not sure what an ND2 would lose in stops but there will be a loss and at dim weddings I do need as much light as possible ... I guess once it's night-time one could revert back to another adapter without any ND filters

Chris

My only concern it that you can't go lower than ND2 so it really low light like receptions you would lose a bit of light... Not sure what an ND2 would lose in stops but there will be a loss and at dim weddings I do need as much light as possible ... I guess once it's night-time one could revert back to another adapter without any ND filters

Chris

+1 Chris Harding
looking for adapter with ND start from 0

Hi Michael

I saw one from Fotodiox for Nikon to NEX and it does have iris control on the middle ring and then the top edge ring gives you ND control 0 - 10 so you have both ... My current adapters have iris control of course

http://www.amazon.com/Vizelex-Throttle-Mount-Adapter-Fotodiox/dp/B00OI98BBO

If you look carefully the blue ring is for iris and the top black ring is ND.

Chris

Chris you're lucky here in that this version isn't available in a EF to E Mount version.

Hi Michael

So EF lenses don't have an aperture ring at all??? I guess as long as the lens is fully open the ND will stop down the light ... at wedding receptions and Churches I'm normally full open anyway!!

Serggio - I have never seen a 0 -10 ND they usually always start at ND2 which makes your lens 1 stop under which isn't good in a low light situation at all .... The reason I use F1.8 at weddings is so I don't need to use a light ... if the adapter loses 1 stop then I might as well go back to and F2.8 lens again but yes it would be awesome for a built-in ND to go from clear to ND10!!

Chris

Chris you are correct - EF lenses have no Iris control so it's done in the adapter in my case (metabones) How do you deal with nailing focus at f1.8 in a wedding shoot - must be a chore with such a shallow DOF!

Pete

Hi Pete

I'm mainly shooting at 18mm on the Sigma lens so focus and peaking work really well .. at full wide there is more DOF than you think! I actually have more issues on the main camera at outdoor weddings with focus in bright light when I have to zoom in for the vows! Never really had any focus issues with the Sigma 18-35 at F1.8 but the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 at full zoom often is a struggle especially in sunshine. I find that peaking works a lot better when I'm only a few metres away and peaking is excellent. 5 metres from the couple at F2.8 and at 50mm zoom I often have to fight to get the image sharp!! I wonder if a big ND would assist on this ?? If you have an ND8 on the lens in bright sunshine would it help the focus peaking??? Maybe it's just the bright conditions at outdoor weddings but my images seem to lack contrast and I end up having to add a colour curve to that footage to make it more contrasty .. I'm not sure if the lack of contrast is just the bright conditions or a focus issue ??? The same lens at the reception is razor sharp!

Chris

Chris have you tried a different peaking colour? Also why not sacrifice some DOF for a higher f-stop, maybe F4 or F5.6 - would give you more focus latitude? I have the Tamron 24-70 and it's tack sharp - a nice lens than my Canon L glass!

I hate to recommend it as wedding shoots are hectic enough without extra gear to set up, but I have a SmallHD monitor and it's superb - it's inbuilt peaking is fantastic. Might be worth a try, just for ceremonies?

Pete

Thanks Pete

I do stop down quite significantly in fact on outdoor ceremonies so DOF is not an issue. It's getting an accurate focal point ... If I'm say 5 metres away from the bride and the lens is set to 4 metres she is going to be soft ..DOF just wont help there at all ...the closer you zoom the worse it becomes so whether the lens is wide open or at F16 one still needs to accurately nail the focus. I have no issue at all indoors but it's really tricky when you have a backlit wedding party ..I think it fools the peaking too ... lenses have excellent graduations for up close but as soon as you get past the 2m mark on the barrel there is nothing marked until infinity so that's super critical to get 100% right ... I was just wondering if (even just to focus) one had a heavy ND on the lens whether it would "help" the peaking in these situations?? Even if I physically measure out the bride to camera distance with a tape measure I STILL have an issue as there are no barrel graduations after 2m on the lens. I really don't think colour will make a difference but it's certainly worth a shot ...move the camera into a less bright scenario and peaking works great and the resulting image is sharp! It must be our very bright sun here!!! I might just try giving my camera lens some sunglasses on a bright day and see if peaking improves?

Chris

Another thing to take a look at is the Xume system. Makes it
quick and easy to put on ND with the magnetic system.
I'd recommend buying the 82mm filters and then getting
step rings for all your lenses to 82mm, even if you have no 82mm
threaded lenses. It helps keep vignetting from happening.
And if you need the '0 ND' setting, you just snap off the ND filter.

Does anyone make a ND for E-mount that goes on before the lens, for using E mount lenses?

I have an idea that Pete had the Xume system but it broke so he doesn't use it anymore!!

So far the only adapter I have seen is the Fotodiox that has a built-in ND ... I really don't like cameras with built-in switchable ND's ..My Panny had them and you get a flash on the image when you switch but I see that Sony's cameras have very neat variable ND's just on a thumbwheel ..very cool and seamless adjustment.

You're not really supposed to be swapping filters mid-shot anyway.

Hi Gary

I had Panasonic AC-120's and all you needed was a light cloud over the sun and you got an on screen warning to change ND filters ...we are talking here about wedding ceremonies, outdoors, so the camera needs to run for the entire vows period or you lose audio. That camera seemed to have very weird exposure range for some reason and was the only camera I ever owned that had the issue. They were sold within 3 months because as a solo shooter I need a tripod mounted main camera locked on the couple to look after itself while I'm shooting cutaways with the 2nd camera.

No other camera with switchable ND's gave the same issue ...I still prefer a integral auto ND like some Panasonics have or just variable ND's but I cannot have a camera that cannot handle exposure differences due to a cloud passing over the sun! With my EA-50's I just set the lens to around F5.6 -F8 and let the camera adjust ISO in auto so I know I can leave it alone and it will do the job.

I'll check today and see if peaking appreciates less light rather than lots of light and will focus more accurately .... any thoughts on this Gary??

Chris

I'll check today and see if peaking appreciates less light rather than lots of light and will focus more accurately .... any thoughts on this Gary??

Peaking works best when you are properly exposed. If you're blowing out your image by overexposing it, there's not much detail to peak on.

You should set your ND filter to mid-range (usually about 4 stops depending on the base sensitivity of your camera) and then pick the most frictionless item to change to accommodate the changing light conditions, whether that be aperture, shutter, or ISO.

Thanks Gary

Sadly we cannot dictate where brides stand and often they want to have their backs to ocean/setting sun or lots of sky which kills the exposure and peaking too. (We do suggest but if normally falls on deaf ears)
One cannot except peaking to be truly effective when in sun in blasting into the lens. Maybe it would be a good idea to crank down the EV on the camera so the bride in underexposed then nail focus and then expose correctly. These are sent to try our patience!!

The assistance is much appreciated

Chris

I definitely feel your pain if circumstances beyond your control make you point the camera towards the path of a setting sun.

Just thought I'd share how peaking works, then you might be better able to tell how reliable it will be for you in different situations.

In the electronic image, higher detail equates to a higher frequency signal as there are more changes in light level within a smaller area, thus generating a faster change in the signal level. So peaking is the circuit that picks up on the high frequency transitions beyond a certain threshold and displays them as a bright white in B/W viewfinders or as a selectable color in color VFs. When you de-focus an image, it becomes blurry and has no rapid light to dark transitions and therefore, the electronic signal won't have any high frequencies in it.

So going back to what Gary said about overexposure, if the image is blown out, there won't be any rapid transitions to dark around the edges of objects such as a person's body. Therefore, you won't get any peaking indication. Similarly, if your image is too dark, the same thing happens, hence the need for proper exposure levels and a sharply focused image to generate peaking indicators. If you have correct exposure, then you merely need to focus the image and presto, there's your high frequency detail of objects in focus and the peaking indicator will tell you that.

Regards,

-gb-

Thanks for that Greg .. Most informative!!

This tread is discussing filters and image sharpness. I know this is a basic old school rule but I thought I would throw it out there as a reminder. Fortunately today's cameras and adapters are affording us the opportunity to use a large selection of good lenses designed for 35mm still cameras. In my case I invested heavily in Canon "L" series glass over the years and now am quite happy I can utilize those lenses on my video cameras. There is a big difference in sharpness between my Sony kit lenses and the Canons. But...any lens is only going to be as sharp as the weakest element in the chain. Screwing anything in front of or behind the lens compromises sharpness if it does not match or exceed the capability of the lens it is attached to.

I could be wrong but I can not even imagine a $100 do it all ND like the Fofodiox ND Throttle would work on a good lens without having some negative impact on image quality, possibly in many ways. Like Chris said, "good NDs often cost a few hundred dollars".

Quality lenses are expensive because quality glass is expensive to make. We all want to save money but IMHO this is not the place to do it. If you put a Fofodiox or any other off brand cheepo adapter on a Nikon or Canon lens your not shooting Canon or Nikon anymore. Your shooting China cheap.

Again, not knocking anyone's choice of gear. Just saying we are talking about systems here. Your image will only be as good as the worst piece of glass in front of it.

Kind Regards,

Steve

I could be wrong but I can not even imagine a $100 do it all ND like the Fofodiox ND Throttle would work on a good lens without having some negative impact on image quality, possibly in many ways. Like Chris said, "good NDs often cost a few hundred dollars".

I don't think you're wrong. I agree with this sentiment 100%.

Quite a few hundred dollars actually! I bought a set of well known ND's with rave write-ups a while back and got awful IR contamination at an outdoor wedding. It's so important not to add anything into the chain that will drag down the image .. I bought a used Sigma lens last year and the seller included a prefitted UV filter ... I hesitated a bit but decided to leave it on as it didn't seem to unscrew easily... Footage from the lens was OK but always seemed to be a bit under all my other lenses. The other day I was cleaning lenses and yes, the glass on the UV was most definitely almost semi-opaque .. It of course had to come off and took a while but it shows that even an UV filter can destroy a lens's performance.

Sadly I very much doubt that the ND inside the Fotodiox is decent optical quality ... I'll currently struggle on without ND's (and without that UV too ..it seems "stained" and won't clean up .. probably a real cheap one)

My post about the chain of glass actually came from my early days of studying photography. I was taught that EVERY piece of glass mattered. Including UV filters and other protective glass that was supposed to have little effect on the image. They ALL effect it. So it never made sense to me that someone would spend big bucks for a lens and then put a super cheap filter on the front of it.

On cheap or very old lenses the first thing that fails optically is the lens coating. If you want to check it look at the lens surface horizontally, moving it around slowly with light on it. If you see the “oil slick” effect similar to bad finger prints but it does not wipe off your coating is shot. The only repair for that is the trash can.

Steve

Thanks Steve

Yep, this UV definitely has an oil slick on the glass and it won't even wet clean! Destined for the bin!! The front of the lens looked decidedly "dull" with the filter on and it's now bright! Dunno how I missed the fact that it actually had a UV on it but it's gone now ... as your foot note says .. we are all still learning !!

Chris

I just bought a rubber lens hood for my variable nd filter from genustech. looks great. Will test this weekend because it's winter here and still to fast dark outside.

it's a 77mm genustech variable nd filter. The rubber lens hood is a 82mm and it fits. So the inside of the nd filter is 77mm and the outside is a 82mm?
Without the nd filter the rubber lens doesn't fit a 77mm step up ring.

Looks good. Im interested to hear how it performs. I wish the EA50 had built-in ND. It's easier to shoot with out in the field than the FS700