PDA

View Full Version : Quantaray MC UV filter - do I need this?



hollidunn
08-09-2005, 04:06 PM
When I purchased my D-70 the other day the salesman talked me into buying the Quantaray MC UV 67mm filter to "protect my lense from niches and scratches". Now I am wondering why I did this and if this is a useful thing to keep or if I should take it back. It was 24.00. Any reason this might be useful someday? I did buy the overpriced extended warranty from Ritz camera, but keep telling myself with 2 very young children in the house, it is a good idea to have it. And I assume it would cover any lense scratches since It is covered with any "normal or abnormal use" of the camera/lense.

D70FAN
08-09-2005, 06:13 PM
When I purchased my D-70 the other day the salesman talked me into buying the Quantaray MC UV 67mm filter to "protect my lense from niches and scratches". Now I am wondering why I did this and if this is a useful thing to keep or if I should take it back. It was 24.00. Any reason this might be useful someday? I did buy the overpriced extended warranty from Ritz camera, but keep telling myself with 2 very young children in the house, it is a good idea to have it. And I assume it would cover any lense scratches since It is covered with any "normal or abnormal use" of the camera/lense.

Both get a mild yes. I don't use filters and have never had a problem, but I would not recommend against using one (even though it is probably not necessary if you keep the lens cap on when not in use).

For an expensive camera (like most dSLR's) the $150 or so for the extended warranty makes sense.

tim11
08-09-2005, 06:42 PM
Firt of all, don't just assume your warranty covers lens scratch. You should make it clear with the salespeople, preferrably in writing. Lens replacement is very expensive.
I always use UV filter even if that make the cam more bulky. That way, at the least I don't have to clean the lens so often. Even in the city streets, all it takes is a wind draught and your lens will be dusted over; or when at the beach/ water fountain, you will get spray of water droplets. And then you need special tissue or clothe to clean that up.

hollidunn
08-09-2005, 11:45 PM
THanks. I'll keep it. My friend told me that I should keep it also because it will help keep the sky blue in the photo. I'll give it a try then!

Plus, if I ever want to take a picture of my dogs (pugs) who snort all the time, it might be useful to protect the lense from that. :p

jefframm
08-10-2005, 02:56 PM
My daughter asked to try my new D70, and thankfully i had put the UV filter on, as she proceeded to almost "grind" the lens cap into the glass trying to put it back on.

I would nornally have freaked, but knew the filter was what she was hitting....

jeff

D70FAN
08-10-2005, 03:06 PM
THanks. I'll keep it. My friend told me that I should keep it also because it will help keep the sky blue in the photo. I'll give it a try then!

Plus, if I ever want to take a picture of my dogs (pugs) who snort all the time, it might be useful to protect the lense from that. :p

I think your friend was thinking of a polarizing filter. In theory the UV/Haze filter (also sky filter) should only slightly filter UV and... Haze.

Yes, Pug-snot is definately a good reason to keep the filter on. ;)

thesween
08-10-2005, 03:45 PM
UV and 1A(skylight)filters make for good lens protection, but offer very little else in terms of results. So, my suggestion is to take them off when shooting. Polarizers do work quite well, I have several, and can truly make clouds and sky jump right off of an image. BUT, BUT, does anyone know what the deal is with using filters designed for film on a digital camera? That might be the big question, do they work at all? And if they work, do they produced the same results as they would with film, or even desirable results? For instance, I used a Tiffen 812 filter on my D70, but all it did was give the image a brown tint, which IS NOT what it's supposed to do. My guess is that whatever a filter used to do, you can now do on your desktop during workflow.

The biggest argument against filters period used to come from purists who felt that putting cheap glass(a filter) in front of expensive glass(your lens)makes no sense at all. In some ways, I agree. In others, no, not at all, since I used a number of different types of filters over the years with at least acceptable results, and in some cases, extraordinary results. But, of course, that was with film, not a sensor.

tim11
08-10-2005, 04:30 PM
..... So, my suggestion is to take them off when shooting.

Why bother? Technically, UV filter doesn't affect your camera light metering. IF it does, it's not noticeable anyway... unless you are a purists, maybe. I leave mine on all the time, even at night shootings, unless I need to clean the lens once in a while.
The polarising filter is the one that makes the sky blue, as you mentioned. Nice for bright sunny days. That's different story - it affects light metering a little.
Dogs are one good reason to have filter on. Also, I think camera lens attracts children's fingers like magnet.

thesween
08-11-2005, 02:49 PM
The bigger question, as I see it, is this - are ANY FILTERS suitable and effective for use on digital cameras? As to loss of light, most filters take at least a half stop, meaning they require opening up a half stop when used. Then again, this is how things worked with film. And this isn't meant to offend anyone, but I'm willing to bet that a lot of dSLR owners know nothing of F stops, and a great deal of other photography basics. It's just not how it is nowadays. And that's not a complaint, rather an observation.

Okay, the reason for taking a filter off goes back to what I said before; a lot of photogs find it counterproductive to put inexpensive glass in front of expensive glass. Some filters are fine optical attachments, others are no such thing. Given the fact that my various Nikkor(and other) glass is razor sharp, I really don't need to lose any of that sharpness with a low-end UV/Skylight filter that essentially adds nothing to the finished product.