PDA

View Full Version : Lens Filters on Digital Cameras????



DigiCamBug
11-14-2004, 11:26 PM
I have come to believe that using UV filters or polarizing filters on digital cameras are not necessary. They had a purpose for film cameras because of the photochemical properties of film. Now, I believe that filters are only a way for camera suppliers to stuff your bill with unnecessary accessories.

What do you think?
If you use and believe a filter is a providing a benefit, what filter is it and what is it providing you?

ReF
11-15-2004, 02:56 AM
You don't believe in using a Polarizing Filter with a digital? I don't understand your reasoning. Is it because our awesome-cheapo digital cameras have built-in auto-polarizing properties? Are they completely useless on Digitals? Hhmmm... I don't think so. Sorry if I sound rude - I'm not trying to be, just trying to make a point.

Once I started using my polarizer, it feels like my camera can't go anywhere without it. How else would I shoot past the surface of water without glare? And what about the atmospheric scatter/haze/smog/dust/junk in the air? Heck it still doubles as a neutral density filter.

Infrared filters: I'd be mad to spend wads of cash on film based infrared photography when it is virtually free after purchasing the filter and a means to mount it.

UV filters: yes the D-slr are are obviously digital and UV filters almost serve no purpose when it comes to image output, but still, would you rather get a scratch or ding on your expensive lens or a $30 filter?

and the list goes on....

Rhys
11-15-2004, 10:21 AM
You don't believe in using a Polarizing Filter with a digital? I don't understand your reasoning. Is it because our awesome-cheapo digital cameras have built-in auto-polarizing properties? Are they completely useless on Digitals? Hhmmm... I don't think so. Sorry if I sound rude - I'm not trying to be, just trying to make a point.

Once I started using my polarizer, it feels like my camera can't go anywhere without it. How else would I shoot past the surface of water without glare? And what about the atmospheric scatter/haze/smog/dust/junk in the air? Heck it still doubles as a neutral density filter.

Infrared filters: I'd be mad to spend wads of cash on film based infrared photography when it is virtually free after purchasing the filter and a means to mount it.

UV filters: yes the D-slr are are obviously digital and UV filters almost serve no purpose when it comes to image output, but still, would you rather get a scratch or ding on your expensive lens or a $30 filter?

and the list goes on....


I used to use UV filters on my 35mm Nikons. Then I realised I was getting soft images that were pretty well worthless using a protective filter. I whipped the filter off and my photos gained a crispness I'd never before seen.

After messing about with loads of filters for 35mm I ended up with my essential filter kit:

Red - for dramatic skies, darkened vegetation etc
Green - for lighter vegetation and enhanced building outlines.
Orange - slightly less dramatic than the red.
Yellow - good for faces and people
Starburst - for those fun photos - handy for photographing glass and crystal.
Polariser - handy for eliminating reflections, glare and haze.

The latter two work with colour as well as black and white film. I'd say that of all the filters, the starburst and polariser were my favourites.

I used to cart around 4 boxes of Cokin A-series filters with all the warm-up and cool-down filters. Then I just said hang-it and went for simplicity.

With digital I don't actually use filters and I'm as happy as Larry about it.