|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 25th, 2008, 07:30 PM | #16 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 160
|
http://www.adorama.com/BW77CM.html
I am using the B+W clear glass filter on my EX1. UV filter will reduce about 10% light entering your lens. This info was from a photographer friend |
June 25th, 2008, 10:59 PM | #17 |
Major Player
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Way Far Away
Posts: 230
|
Perhaps our friend Ryan Avary would care to comment on the 10% light loss.....?
|
June 26th, 2008, 09:22 AM | #18 |
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: new york
Posts: 231
|
pretty certain that 10% number is way off.
even 1% for a schott glass filter is high. as of which filter, jonathan, i was down this road last month as i did not want a filter on mine either. so i bought 3 of the more expensive schott glass filters available, mounted each on a sturdy tripod and did some indoor and outdoor testing. spent some hours testing it and decided to stay with this one. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._Haze_010.html mostly because of the slimness of this model. solid brass ring and thinner than even the thinnest pro hoya mount. the visible difference between this model and the clear scheider model even at 200% under photoshop was minor. for samples both outdoors and indoors. i grabbed some un-edited videos i took recently for you to examine. one was with side light and normal to short telephoto one was with the sun in the back and to the side one was indoors 1st 2 grabs using quicktime and mac os' "grab" function last boy grab using vlc screen capture, a much smaller file. handheld with steadyshot on. all 3 with the slim b+w uv i noted above. paul |
June 26th, 2008, 09:29 AM | #19 |
Major Player
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Way Far Away
Posts: 230
|
Very nice work Paul. I always appreciate the level of your findings :)
Gotta run now....... |
June 26th, 2008, 12:07 PM | #20 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 160
|
|
June 26th, 2008, 02:41 PM | #21 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cambridge, MA
Posts: 65
|
|
June 28th, 2008, 09:34 PM | #22 |
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: new york
Posts: 231
|
hey J,
the entire video portion of my recent sample using DIVX 1080HD compression. very nice, down to 421mb for 9.5 minutes. perfect to place onto VIMEO.com http://www.vimeo.com/1248363 if you have the time, download the 421mb file and the resolution is amazing even with the DIVX. and N.B. B+W slim MRC coated UV filter used on this shoot...... paul |
August 1st, 2008, 09:47 AM | #23 | |
Sponsor: Schneider Optics
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Van Nuys, CA
Posts: 387
|
Quote:
Ryan Avery Schneider Optics |
|
August 1st, 2008, 09:50 AM | #24 | |
Sponsor: Schneider Optics
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Van Nuys, CA
Posts: 387
|
Quote:
Ryan Avery Schneider Optics |
|
August 1st, 2008, 10:27 AM | #25 | |
Sponsor: Schneider Optics
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Van Nuys, CA
Posts: 387
|
Quote:
Having said that, the amount of light reflected can be up to 10% with certain low-cost UV filters. 10% light reflectance is roughly equivalent to 1/5 of an f-stop. We refer to the light transmission number as the other side of the equation; 90% light transmission in this case. B+W MRC filters feature 99.8% light transmission. This means that the amount of light reflected is about 2/100 of an f-stop. Basically, no matter which way you go, you will be losing a neglible amount of light that should have no noticeable net effect on your exposure. What a poor quality filter will do is have a very negative effect on the quality of your image in terms of resolution, flare, and chromatic abberation. Ryan Avery Schneider Optics |
|
| ||||||
|
|