New DSLR jitters...I am scared to use it!

[pmsandvodka]

I got a Rebel XT almost a month ago and have barely taken 2 dozen pics! I am too chicken to take it anywhere it might get dusty or dirty (ie: the beach, almost anywhere outdoors...) I am afraid to clean the lens...what if I scratch it??!! And although I have found the manual to be reader-friendly, I don't seem to be "getting' it...and am upset and frustrated. I am more of a hands-on learner...I wish I had a fellow DSLR user I could shadow for a week or so, lol. I never read a darn thing with my Kodak 7590, which I am still using today in spite of the scratch dead center on the lens (my son dropped it on Mother's Day...I couldn't even holler about it, bless his heart...). My Kodak was a wonderful camera and I was so excited about getting my Rebel...but I guess I need some reassurance or direction or something...Is this normal??? *sigh*

Thanks, in advance.
Susan

[Esoterra]

While it is normal to want to protect a new investment, I think you are a little paranoid. Relax, and go look for something to photograph that inspiries you, whether its sunsets, kids, landscapes... who knows. Enjoy the moment.

1) buy a UV filter for your lens to protect it from scratches- your local camera store will sell them for around 20$

2) Don't worry about dust and sand...yes you will get it in your camera but cleaning it isnt hard, or you can send it back to Cannon for a cleaning at a cost, and a little downtime, but its worth it!

3) Join a local camera club, or take a photography course (time and $$$ permitting) at your local college. You will imerse yourself in people that love photography and they can help you get the shots you want. I would recommend using your camera in AUTO mode for start so you can at least get pictures close to what you want, and then start practicing. The more you shoot, the better you will get!

Congrats on your new Rebel. A wonderful camera, and if used properly you will be SO glad that you upgraded from your scratched Kodak!

[DonSchap]

and fire off a twenty-round sequence of the dog... your kid... the hubby... your favorite plant... the mess in the basement. Be aware of the way things respond... the camera... the subject... your confidence. Remember: It's DIGITAL... there are no film costs. The costs are what you print... and you only print the good ones, right?

Get used to it.... and lay aside your fear. It is a tool... that does require some additional care, like anything better than a rock. It is designed to tolerate a good deal of use... for many years.

Stay out of high dust environments... don't snap in the rain... and for goodness sake, don't drop it. (With the kind of weather we're having this week... rain looks pretty slim.)

Experience is your best friend, here... no lie. You won't get any if you don't...


USE IT!

:D

[Rick M]

I bought my Oly E300 and I love using it because I know that in a couple of years, or maybe less, I will be replacing it and I want to have as many actuations on it as possible. I love my old film cameras and treasure them, but you have to realize that digital cameras are more like computers, and ten year old computers are worthless no matter how much or little they were used.

[Vich]

Well well well, just remember, PMS, Vodka, and $800 cameras don't mix! But otherwise, it's a pretty tough camera.

Sounds like you only have the one lens so dust inside is unlikely. It's very easy to use a blower if you do happen to get it dusty.

I take mine to the beach, and pretty much everywhere. I'm very concious of where it is around my neck so I don't bang it. I do hand it to my 4 year old, but she's very responsible, straps it around her neck, and I'm right there. She gets very excited and proud that Daddy trusted her with it, and knows not to take it on her own.

Try getting a padded shoulder bag that's made for cameras so you can tuck it away between shots. I've found that very helpful.

PS: As mentioned in another thread, my wife sewed a dust cover for it (with elasticized holes for lens and viewfinder. Sort of a salt-spray cover. Works great. We're thinking of producing/marketing it but need to work out the kinks. I wonder if such a thing might help relieve your fears. Wouldn't help at all with a drop, just spray and dust.

[pmsandvodka]

Thanks for your replies...all great suggestions! I am going to see if Powell's is open tomorrow (our local camera shop) and get a filter...I was just talking to a young man this evening and he suggested one as well. And, as this has been an extraordinarily stressful week, I decided I need some R&R and am planning to head for the hills on Monday...with my Rebel in hand. That should give me a good jump-start!

And Vich, I got a chuckle when I read your post...you are quite right, of course! I promise to keep the vodka shots to a minimum while taking my rebel shots! Actually, the nic came to me as a way to ward off sleezy cyber-creeps I would encounter while online...I wondered what would scare most men off and the combo of PMS and vodka sounded scary to me...let me say it works like a charm!

Thanks again to all for your input...I don't know anyone, except online, that is into photography. I am going to check out our local college and get into a class this Fall and remedy that...and also see if Powell's has any classes or clubs to join. And I will be here frequently, too, now that I have found this site.

Peace,

Susan

[DonSchap]

Where is the pic of that puppy, Vich?

I had my heart set on seeing that baggie.

BTW: Pick your... poison :p
13540

[aparmley]

While your at the Camera store pick up a lens cloth and some lens cleaning solution. That should eliminate your fear of cleaning your lens should you need to. . . I've wiped my lenses I don't know how many times with my lens cloth - never hurt it. . . as others stated - don't be paranoid and you'll be ok. in a month you'll laugh at yourself for this post.

GL

[coldrain]

I would not get an UV filter, for the simple reason that a filter, especially a cheap one, will possibly ruin some photos due to light reflections caused by the two sides of its glass.

I have no idea what an UV filter is supposed to guard against anyway... When you are not making a photo, the lens cap gives the protection needed. When you are making a photo, what exactly would an UV filter guard against? Blind seagulls?

With a good lens cleaning solution and cloth you can get accidental finger prints off the lens, any good camera store has good solutions for lens cleaning. And a soft brush for lenses to get dust and fine sand of the glass element before you clean it with the cloth.

Your camera is very sturdy, so do not worry about it so much. mine is still alive and well, and it has been through a lot the past year. And it will be fine for years to come.

[Vich]

I would not get an UV filter, for the simple reason that a filter, especially a cheap one, will possibly ruin some photos due to light reflections caused by the two sides of its glass.

I have no idea what an UV filter is supposed to guard against anyway... When you are not making a photo, the lens cap gives the protection needed. When you are making a photo, what exactly would an UV filter guard against? Blind seagulls?

With a good lens cleaning solution and cloth you can get accidental finger prints off the lens, any good camera store has good solutions for lens cleaning. And a soft brush for lenses to get dust and fine sand of the glass element before you clean it with the cloth.

Your camera is very sturdy, so do not worry about it so much. mine is still alive and well, and it has been through a lot the past year. And it will be fine for years to come.I have to disagree.

I'd guess the vast majority of photographers use a UV filter to protect the front element of their lens from scratches. I've considered that common knowlege and it seems universally accepted, with the occassional descenter.

True, a cheapo may introduce reflective issues (glare, CA) but I'd get a mid-grade one (Hoya) and go for the trade-off of a very occassional (maybe 1 in 1,000) ruined shot. For that matter; I'd wonder if that 1-in-1000 ruined shot would be any different without the filter.

Given her paranoia for damage, I would hardily recommend she get a good UV filter.

If you don't live at sea level, then you may even need it for UV protection (sunglasses for the camera).

For the kit lens, maybe it's not really worth it since the filter may be as expensive than the lens. Certianly for a more expensive one, I wouldn't think of exposing it to potential damage. Maybe because I walk around ready to shoot (cap removed) if in a photo-rich environment. Can you imagine doing a "shoot", let's say taking 50 - 100 photos in a 1 hour period, and replacing the lens cap each time? I doubt that any member here does that.

Note: Someone here mentioned last week that Hoya filters can be more difficult to clean. I have Hoya and BW and haven't really noticed but it's something to consider.

[coldrain]

Even though digital cameras are a lot less affaected by UV in the photo than film, of course filtering UV when NEEDED is a valid reason to use an UV filter. When needed though, not to have it on there all the time. And then, do get a good multi coated filter. Not a cheapo.

Now back to the damage question. How does a lens get scratched when making photos? I have no idea, to be frank. That is what the blind seagull remark was about. Lenses just do not get scratched, when you put the lens cap on when you are not making photos and when you take care cleaning it with a good brush and a good cleaning solution witha good cloth.

[coldrain]

Even though digital cameras are a lot less affaected by UV in the photo than film, of course filtering UV when NEEDED is a valid reason to use an UV filter. When needed though, not to have it on there all the time. And then, do get a good multi coated filter. Not a cheapo.

Now back to the damage question. How does a lens get scratched when making photos? I have no idea, to be frank. That is what the blind seagull remark was about. Lenses just do not get scratched, when you put the lens cap on when you are not making photos and when you take care cleaning it with a good brush and a good cleaning solution witha good cloth.

So... UV filter for protection, unless it is on a fine sandy beach with wind, is just not necessary and just because it gets recommended to people all the time it does not make it good practice.

[ReF's temporary account]

Note: Someone here mentioned last week that Hoya filters can be more difficult to clean. I have Hoya and BW and haven't really noticed but it's something to consider.

funny, i hear that same thing somewhat often, and it's just hoya. i'm not really sure why though, cuz i've got multi-coated hoya filters and they aren't any different to clean than my lenses.

[cdifoto]

funny, i hear that same thing somewhat often, and it's just hoya. i'm not really sure why though, cuz i've got multi-coated hoya filters and they aren't any different to clean than my lenses.

Same here. I had a Hoya IR and now have a Hoya ND. No harder to clean than the len elements themselves.

[Esoterra]

pmsandvodka in regards to a UV filter, Vich is correct when he said that a majority of people use it to protect the front element (glass) of their lens. Ask yourself what is more important....protecting your camera (and the lens) or having a rare shot with light reflections! I did have a situation where the UV filter saved my lens, and it was a lot easier and less expensive to replace the filter than the lens element.

[coldrain]

What situation was that? And a lens hood offers protection a lot more, it is like a buffer zone for shocks if you do something really stupid. Glass of a broken filter will scratch the lens coatings.

[TenD]

I have to disagree.

I'd guess the vast majority of photographers use a UV filter to protect the front element of their lens from scratches. I've considered that common knowlege and it seems universally accepted, with the occassional descenter.

I would guess you are right there, but only because the vast majority walk in to a photo shop with a wad of cash and the photo shop they went to talked them into a high profit margin filter. Filters are a spiff up sale product at camera stores, relatively low price and high profit margin. Filters do effect the IQ, even the best ones affect luminance a little. The only place they offer help is in very harsh conditions, salt spray, driving rain, blowing sand. In most cases though, the hood and lens cap will provide all the protection you need. If you are in the habit of misting your lens with your breath and wiping it with your T-shirt, a filter for protection is probably a good buy.
From my research pros rarely use a filter for protection.
John Shaw recommends only using a filter when it's needed.

Quote: Michael Reichmann(Luminous landscape) "The one I always have along but rarely use is a UV filter. It's purpose is to protect the front lens element from the elements — snow, rain and sand. But, unless I'm shooting in nasty conditions I leave them off. A lens shade provides more than enough physical protection and is a must for preventing flare in any event." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml
Charlie Waite: reading "landscape" where charlie explains how and why he took his favorite photos the text mentions filters but only if needed for the scene: ND, 81a, 81b, etc.
Then there's this: http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/1054387
Even the best filter used in this test affected the luminance values, probably not enough to really see, but there is a measuable difference.

[TenD]

After reading a number of books and deciding not to put a UV protective filter on my lenses any more, I had a nasty accident. I was chasing some Bighorn Sheep in a rocky canyon in northern Wyoming. I was in a hurry trying to get a shot...I didn't but that's besides the point. I put my 80-200 f/2.8L on my tripod with my EOS 3 body and snapped a couple of photos. The sheep moved along so I did too, except I had forgotten to tighten my QR and when I picked up my pod the lens slid neatly out of the dovetail and the whole shebang crashed to the rocky ground from about 6 feet up, bounced off the hood, and then crashed over onto the body. I was afraid to pick it up. The only damage: small scratch on my lens hood, small scratch on my eyepiece. My hood saved me like no piece of glass ever could have.

[cdifoto]

I have a 77mm 3 stop ND filter and that's it.

[DonSchap]

I have a 77mm 3 stop ND filter and that's it.


Gettin ready for some big horn sheep, ehhh? :D

Conditions usually dictate your needs... can we leave it at that?

[D Thompson]

Conditions usually dictate your needs... can we leave it at that?
Yes, lets.

[TenD]

Gettin ready for some big horn sheep, ehhh? :D

Conditions usually dictate your needs... can we leave it at that?
Hey they aren't all that Baaaad!
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a359/EOSthree/bighorn.jpg
When you make that statement you are saying use a filter when you need it, not all of the time. I constantly see posts of severely vignetted photos and the poster asking what happened here, then finding out they had a Skylight and a UV and a polarizer mounted on a 17mm lens. I prefer not to have to shoot through a window and that is precisely what you are doing with a filter. Some windows are better than others, but there is a reason your lens cost $1K and even a good B+W filter only costs around $100.

[DonSchap]

There are excellent filters that combine features, like the Hoya CP/UV thin profile. They aren't cheap, but they combine light protection, glare reduction and minimizing vignetting with one shot. If your arm is being twisted and you actually are going to use a good filter... look no further.

That's some window of protection, there.

Hoya 77mm Circular Polarizer/UV Haze (HMC) Multi-Coated Glass Filter - Ultra Thin (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=155155&is=REG&addedTroughType=search)

Mfr# 017727 • B&H# HOUVCPU77

[TenD]

I have a CP, 81a, .3, .6 and .9 GND filters.

[Vich]

I have a 77mm 3 stop ND filter and that's it.
I'm surprised Don, given all the dirt you've been around.

Ted, regarding your window comment, not all windows are equal. After all, the lens itself has several glass elements. If you place your lens pressed up to the window (no light behind it) reflection is neglegible. In the case of a filter, the edges of the glass are also covered. It really shouldn't matter much if it's lens grade glass, and the coating may even improve matters.

Obviously I'm just guessing. A scratched lens can happen so quickly and I'll keep using a UV filter because I'm not the maticulous person who always remembers to replace the lens cap. I've yet to scratch a UV filter but I'm not prepared to ruin any of my $400 to $1300 lenses with a simple accident. I will however start doing some tests and research with/without. A Multi-Coated filter is advertised as improving the reflective qualitities and I'm not yet prepared to disbelieve them.

In the OP's case, I would still hardily recommend a UV filter. Any IQ degredation will be occassional or neglegible.

[DonSchap]

You weather-sealed lens isn't "weather-sealed" until that UV filter is in place. :p

Use a good filter... and stop this nonsense. They are not sold because they look cool. :cool:

[coldrain]

You weather-sealed lens isn't "weather-sealed" until that UV filter is in place. :p

Use a good filter... and stop this nonsense. They are not sold because they look cool. :cool:
More nonsense from Don... They are sold because of all this "protect your lenses with UV filters" crap. If you feel the need to protect your lenses, use the lens cap and sun hood.

It is a bit of a shame to spend lots of money on good lenses and then put some piece of glass on it that will prohibit it to perform as well as it can.

Filters are there for when they are needed, and UV filters are sometimes needed to... filter UV. That is why they are there. They do not call them "scratch filters".

[TenD]

If your arm is being twisted and you actually are going to use a good filter... look no further.

Nobody will ever twist my arm, I used to believe in the "And when you put your new 28-200(JUNK, sold it on ebay)lens on your camera you'll need a filter to protect it" hype. After reading may books on photography I don't have any protective filters on any of my glass.
Why don't they slap a UV filter on lenses used in testing? Because they want the attributes of the lens, not what may or may not be introduced by the filter. I want the attributes of my lenses too. If you truly worry about a scratch on your front element, then fine, slap a piece of relatively cheap glass on the front of it. Most people also don't know a small scratch on the front element won't even show up in the photos. The rearmost element, the one most don't even worry about, the one that is fully exposed when changing lenses, will cause all kinds of problems if scratched. And to top it off, most in the filter for protection camp don't bother with decent filters, they slap on whatever the photo shop sells them, because the photo shop told them they needed one. The clerk told them they needed one because their manager told them to push the filter because it would bring in more $$ to the sale.


Use a good filter... and stop this nonsense. They are not sold because they look cool.
They sell them because they have a high profit margin on them. Slapping a relatively cheap piece of glass on your 1k+ lens is nonsense. Most long fast glass doesn't even have the option of putting a filter in front of the lens, and these lenses cost more than all of the lenses and filters in most peoples bags.

[Vich]

More nonsense from Don... They are sold because of all this "protect your lenses with UV filters" crap. If you feel the need to protect your lenses, use the lens cap and sun hood.

It is a bit of a shame to spend lots of money on good lenses and then put some piece of glass on it that will prohibit it to perform as well as it can.

Filters are there for when they are needed, and UV filters are sometimes needed to... filter UV. That is why they are there. They do not call them "scratch filters".DonS, I don't think UV filters have rubber seals. The BW Multicoated filter does have a RainX like quality to diffuse raindrops though.

Does anyone have a link to a more indisputable study? The LL link was speculation that the filter caused the problems and had no before-after photos. The smugmug one did show differences (before after) but lacked exif data, but it seemed clear that the filter probably made the difference, particularly with the cheapo Tiffin.

This should be a simple matter of fact, not a subject of controversy or forceful insistance..



Most long fast glass doesn't even have the option of putting a filter in front of the lens, and these lenses cost more than all of the lenses and filters in most peoples bags.
Curious, what do they do if they need a polarizer or other filter? If they don't have threads, maybe its because the element size simply isn't available? I have never handled a $6K ultra-zoom, but this arguement doesn't seem to prove anything regarding UV filter interference.

[DonSchap]

13591

To prevent arbitrary gun fire in the hood... from doing in your rig, of course! This lens had no protective filter... and now it is scratched... from inventory.

Thread parody... not to be taken seriously

[coldrain]

Here is a lovely filter induced problem. It took the photo with my 12-24mm Tokina, with a circular polarized light filter from Hama (said to be sourced from Hoya). It is not a very cheap one, just not a top multicoated one. And I have seen problems with a B&W multicoated one on my Sigma too, just not like this.

As you can see, on the left side all of a sudden there is this light haze in the photo. And the sun was not entering the lens or frontal lens element, just probably it did manage to hit the surface of the glass of the filter, creating this effect. And in this photo the CP filter did add to the photo. Imagine if it just had been an UV filter, then all it had added was that haze.

[cwphoto]

Curious, what do they do if they need a polarizer or other filter? If they don't have threads, maybe its because the element size simply isn't available? I have never handled a $6K ultra-zoom, but this arguement doesn't seem to prove anything regarding UV filter interference.

Vich, they have a filter bay at the rear of the lens. Here's a few designed for the Canon super-teles:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=search&Q=&b=8&mnp=0.0&mxp=0.0&shs=drop-in+filter&ci=1&ac=&Submit.x=17&Submit.y=4

[cwphoto]

From my research pros rarely use a filter for protection.

No 'permanent' filters here either. Although this argument could get uglier than the P&S vs SLR debate so I'm just gonna state my position and keep the feuding to the regulars.:D

[Esoterra]

looking at the original post, it seems that she is worried about scratching her lens, so based off off this info, a UV filter seems appropriate!

[coldrain]

looking at the original post, it seems that she is worried about scratching her lens, so based off off this info, a UV filter seems appropriate!
Not really. How many lenses have you scratched? And how? Really, you do not easily scratch a lens, most scratching occurs when you are cleaning it with inappropriate stuff or without cleaning dust/sand with a brush first. You do not scratch a lens while making photos. When storing the lens in a bag, you put on the lens cap. still no scratching. When you drop the lens, the filter is not going to do any good. A lenshood might though.

So... still not sure what is good about a UV filter as standard. Unless you know of other very obvious reasons why a lens would scratch... and where an UV filter would actually make sense. Unless of course it would be the blind seagul.

[cwphoto]

I'm with you Coldy. Fifteen years of changing lenses up to maybe fifty times a day - I've dropped a few but NEVER scratched the front element.

But I always use a hood so maybe that has something to do with it.;)

However if she feels better using a filter than whatever floats her boat.:)

[Esoterra]

However if she feels better using a filter than whatever floats her boat.:)

Exactly my point!

[woffles]

Get a LENS PEN, great for taking care of your lens. Also get a 50mm f1.8 lens. About $79 new. Will blow the socks off the kit lens and give you a backup if nothing else. Also, great lens to help with learning to use your camera. Great lens for low light. Will make those indoor shots at night much easier. I don't bother with filters anymore except a B&W circular polarizer which is actually a useful filter that can bring out the color in your skys and remove reflections on water, wet rocks and plants. Have fun, crawl on the ground, shoot from a ladder, be creative and post shots!

[Vich]

Well Gosh. I'm feeling like a newbee who never changes lenses for fear of dust, haha. Quite honestly; I'm forgetful. I would go to the beach and simply forget to mount the protective filter, or forget the cleaning kit and want to risk using my tee shirt.

If a filter gets scratched up (from tee-shirt cleaning most likely) then that would cause visible reflective effects. Clearly, that link on dgrin.com showing visible filter reflection showed scratches. It was so entirely unscientific, with no declaration to the condition of said filter. Indeed, a badly scratched front element, at the right aperture, would show the same thing.

Short of an authoritative and conclusive study, this remains just two camps of differing opinion it seems. Neither having solid reason, both maybe having flaws in their arguements.

One thing's clear. If you use a naked lens, you'll get what the lens manufacturer intended, including any failings due to front lighting (lens CA). In the absense of a conclusive study, I don't think I find fault with either camp. However the "safe side" of this arguement is to go with what the manufacturer intended, a naked lens with the appropriate filter as lighting conditions demand.

Therefore; I think I'll remove my filters however and stock my bag with a cleaning kit and filters - and pay more attention to lens caps and hoods. See if it makes a difference, but not expecting it to.

You're right, I've never damaged a UV filter (that I know of). And if I develop better hood and lens cap habits, I probably never will. I also get careless with cleaning habits, something known to cause problems (regardless of filter use). Also; UV filters are admittedly known to reduce light by 2 to 10 %.

I'd still sure like to see a (real) study, ie: not just someone loudly justifying their own practice. Anyone?

[cdifoto]

Well Gosh. I'm feeling like a newbee who never changes lenses for fear of dust, haha. Quite honestly; I'm forgetful. I would go to the beach and simply forget to mount the protective filter, or forget the cleaning kit and want to risk using my tee shirt.

If a filter gets scratched up (from tee-shirt cleaning most likely) then that would cause visible reflective effects. Clearly, that link on dgrin.com showing visible filter reflection showed scratches. It was so entirely unscientific, with no declaration to the condition of said filter. Indeed, a badly scratched front element, at the right aperture, would show the same thing.

Short of an authoritative and conclusive study, this remains just two camps of differing opinion it seems. Neither having solid reason, both maybe having flaws in their arguements.

One thing's clear. If you use a naked lens, you'll get what the lens manufacturer intended, including any failings due to front lighting (lens CA). In the absense of a conclusive study, I don't think I find fault with either camp. However the "safe side" of this arguement is to go with what the manufacturer intended, a naked lens with the appropriate filter as lighting conditions demand.

Therefore; I think I'll remove my filters however and stock my bag with a cleaning kit and filters - and pay more attention to lens caps and hoods. See if it makes a difference, but not expecting it to.

You're right, I've never damaged a UV filter (that I know of). And if I develop better hood and lens cap habits, I probably never will. I also get careless with cleaning habits, something known to cause problems (regardless of filter use). Also; UV filters are admittedly known to reduce light by 2 to 10 %.

I'd still sure like to see a (real) study, ie: not just someone loudly justifying their own practice. Anyone?


I don't think this is something you can study scientifically. You use a filter for its benefits and live with its drawbacks. You remove it when you don't need or want its benefits and/or cannot live with its drawbacks.

[Vich]

I don't think this is something you can study scientifically. You use a filter for its benefits and live with its drawbacks. You remove it when you don't need or want its benefits and/or cannot live with its drawbacks.
Yeah, it's just identifying those items. People show a few shots and say "there, see". I'm glad they showed their basis so I can evaluate their claim. That's all.

So far, my Hoya manual says their MCF has 4% light reduction, and non Multi-Coated 10%. I spent 1 hour doing Google searches and read the 2 references above finding only what any scientist would dismiss.

So I do my own tests I suppose. Tripod, tough conditions, different f-stops, different filters. Make sure filters are freshly clean. With/without hood. Sounds like 3 - 400 shots. Sigh. I'd happily just believe someone elses.

Anyhow, it's hardly important enough for me to bother about. It would only buy me the confidence of making a stance, or chiming in on some future thread. For myself, I'm OK with going naked and improving care habits.

[cdifoto]

I just don't feel like spending a hundred bucks on a filter when 5-10 filters later I can either have a new lens or two, more strobes to add to my single, or be that much closer to upgrading from these XTs.

There's just so much more crap..err gear...to prioritize.

[mcenut]

I used to have UV filters on all my lenses until one day I downloaded about 200 pictures all with the same dark objects on them. At first I thought it was dust on the sensor, but then I realized it was dust on the underside of the UV filter.

One of my failed pictures with all the dust particles circled.
http://img60.imageshack.us/img60/5149/tooeleclouds001smallerue0.jpg

[cwphoto]

That's sensor dust MCE. It is impossible for dust on the filter and/or lens element to appear sharp in the image.:)

[Vich]

That's sensor dust MCE. It is impossible for dust on the filter and/or lens element to appear sharp in the image.:)Or maybe rear element.

[cwphoto]

Or maybe rear element.

Can't be rear element either, physically impossible. Remember there are only two planes of focus in a photographic image: the focal plane and the subject plane.

Everything else is out of focus by definition. Now DoF can cover a wide field either side of the subject plane, but depth of focus at the focal plane doesn't come anywhere near the rear lens element. That's why you only ever see sensor dust at smallish apertures (say below f/11) - and that's for dust that's less than a millimeter in front of the sensor. As for dust that's more than 3cm in front of the sensor - not possible at any aperture supported by the camera system.

[mcenut]

I found it hard to believe too. I looked everywhere for the dust and found it on the underside of the UV filter. I was shooting with the sun at an angle to the lens. I think that, combined with the polarizing filter, made the dust particles so pronounced. Once I removed the UV filter the spots went away.