Associate
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2012
- Posts
- 657
The "New Gear/Willy Waving" thread
- Thread starter Fusion
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 75,888
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Ha
http://www.lenstip.com/113.17-article-UV_filters_test_Hoya_72_mm_Pro1_Digital_MC_UV-0.html
I got 2 or 3 of those, you can see one there on the 50/1.4
No you actually said "buy the best you can afford" and that "cheap" (I quote) filters "have a much bigger impact (low contrast, flare)"
My point is that the price of a filter is no guarantee of optical quality. Quite the opposite. If anyone wants link I'll try and find it tomorrow.
If you're refining what you said to "bad filters are bad", then we are in agreement
Point taken. I was equating cheap to bad because many of the cheap ones are although there are a few bargains out there.
As I said, B+W filters have provided flawless service for years while Tiffen and Hoya (Lower end models) have all been poor and removed from my camera bag. Transmission % are about the least of my concern, build quality is paramount. Threads that cross and glass that shatters are a recipie for disaster.
Last edited:
The important thing to note with this review is that the UV blocking is counted as equal weighting as the visible light transmission.
If you compare The Hoya HMC ("winner") with the B+W MRC you can see that the B+W get 5/10 for the UV score and 9/10 for visible. The Hoya gets 10/10 for UV and 8/10 for visible. The thing is on digital the UV absorbtion value is meaningless (digital sensors aren't sensitive to UV and the sensor has a UV and IR filter anyway). For the flare th B+W get 14/15 and the Hoya 13/15.
So for things that we actually care about visually the B+W is better. More importantly, the B+W is much better build quality with the brass mount.
Is it worth the price difference? Perhaps not but If you are going to buy top end lenses and put a sheet of glass in front of it then I would hope it is as well made as the B+W filters. Nothing in photography has a linear cost-performance ratio. The best cost a lot more than the almost as good.
Anyway, I don't want to argue anything here. Sometimes a protective filter is vital, often it makes no difference, but has minimal affect on IQ so is harmless. Smashing a front element is expensive and best avoided! The lens hood has a bigger protective ability for standard use and improves IQ quite substantially. You certainly want to avoid stacking too many filters so if you are putting a CPL/ND/ND grad on and off it isa fairly pointless hassle to add and remove the UV as well
Last edited:
Exactly! Cheers!
Yup, I'm not arguing that expensive filters are bad or not worth the money, just that it's not the case that cheaper filters are always crap. Just don't buy exclusively by brand name or anecdotal evidence if there's objective data out there.
Currently getting great use out of my £22 10 stop ND filter
Last edited:
It does to me
I just bought the phantom 2 vision+I was reading the uk laws on these things and bizarrely if you make money from them you need a pilots licence (wtf!?) but if you use it for non profit you don't. That was from a PDF on the CAA site. Doesn't smack of people wildly flailing their arms in mad panic, at all, oh no!
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 6,412
- Location
- SE England
New Bag!
Perfect for travel, has a very small footprint. I'm amazed that I can fit nearly all my kit inside. I won't be packing it out with all this though! - three lens max for travel.
Perfect for travel, has a very small footprint. I'm amazed that I can fit nearly all my kit inside. I won't be packing it out with all this though! - three lens max for travel.
Just picked up my new tripod head, Arca-Swiss D4 geared, wanted one of these for ages and they're hard to find, and cost a fortune, decided to bite the bullet though,
The engineering of arca-swiss products is just so beautiful, it makes the manfrotto thing I was using feel like it was made from recycled christmas crackers, really impressed with it - can't wait to actually get out and use it in anger..
The engineering of arca-swiss products is just so beautiful, it makes the manfrotto thing I was using feel like it was made from recycled christmas crackers, really impressed with it - can't wait to actually get out and use it in anger..
I have just bought the Tamrac Jazz 85 [I think] which is very similar... great backpack style holder, esp. for the money, and very comfortable to wear.
Picked this up today... my first Canon L series
Okay, its the cheapest, non IS version, but it is still a thing of beauty... well, the results are 
Last edited:
I have just bought the Tamrac Jazz 85 [I think] which is very similar... great backpack style holder, esp. for the money, and very comfortable to wear.
Picked this up today... my first Canon L series
QUOTE]
Loved mine
It does to me
I was reading the uk laws on these things and bizarrely if you make money from them you need a pilots licence (wtf!?) but if you use it for non profit you don't. That was from a PDF on the CAA site. Doesn't smack of people wildly flailing their arms in mad panic, at all, oh no!
Yes there is more to that too, your craft needs to be tested or certified for air worthiness, you need to log all your flights, etc, etc. Although probable OTT some of it makes sense, it is after all a flying brick, and if you want to make money out of it, more the reason to force people to understand what they are getting into. I for one would welcome the CAA rules to be clear in every RTF kit sold, at least this way people would get educated on what they should, should not be doing.
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 2,212
- Location
- In My Command Center
I did buy this though:
And used it to make this:
Two questions if you dont mind -
1) did you use protune?
2) how do you play music over youtube without them kicking up a fuss?
many thanks and love the film
Yep, I agree. I think the sites selling them should have cleary set out pages, listing the laws and regulations for each country they sell them in, and constantly update them. I noticed the resellers have SOME information, but the direct websites to DJI for example, just list their products.
To be honest I'm quite interested in this, so will be looking at getting some sort of certification for this, IF it's not ludicrously expensive. I remember the laws, etc, were all over the place in the 80s & 90s with regards to RC copters, and around here they were only allowed to fly them on a field at certain times that had been agreed to. I've also read some things with wording that is so vague it seems to imply the phantom range doesn't need any licensing, but as soon as you step up to the DSLR mounted ones & above (the ones that are £2000-£10000 range), then that's where it applies.
Ideally I'm trying to find some clearly defined rules & regs, so I can read and make sense of them. So far I've found hideously over the top PDFs with insane amounts of irrelevant text as it covers all sorts of flight related vehicles. Some even state you have to have a pilots licence, which is extremely vague and off putting, after all, why would earning money make any difference to flying something? That's like saying you can drive a car without a licence as long as you're not taking products to sell in a shop.
The best part is that mine is being shipped direct from China. There's no way a spy drone from China is getting through customs without being checked
Last edited:
Its a 3rd party hood... the lens was second hand.
Loved mine
Well I'm glad there are others like you, as it means cheaper lenses for those on a budget, like me
.... the guy I bought this off was the same as you, and simple did not use it. The sharpness really is something else... at least compared to my other kit.Its a 3rd party hood... the lens was second hand.
Well I'm glad there are others like you, as it means cheaper lenses for those on a budget, like me
If you need the 70-200mm focal length then it's great but for me I was usually needing longer than 200mm or less. I have a 100mm f2.8l macro if I want uber sharp so there were only a few times it was good for what I wanted!
Sold mine to fund part of my Sigma 120-300 F2.8 S
Two questions if you dont mind -
1) did you use protune?
2) how do you play music over youtube without them kicking up a fuss?
many thanks and love the film
1) Yup, used Protune + CAMRAW white balance, graded it in Resolve after I cobbled it together in Premiere. Used 2.7K for most shots, 1440P for the POV ones with a dynamic stretch added to it
2) YouTube immediately picked it up, there's a box you can tick saying that you acknowledge you used it, it's up to the copyright holder to do something about it - the box you tick even says that most of the time nothing happens. You obviously can't monetize it and they can run ads before it.
And thanks! Video is quite a change from stills.
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 2,212
- Location
- In My Command Center
If you need the 70-200mm focal length then it's great but for me I was usually needing longer than 200mm or less. I have a 100mm f2.8l macro if I want uber sharp so there were only a few times it was good for what I wanted!
Sold mine to fund part of my Sigma 120-300 F2.8 S
I was wondering about getting a 1.4x TC to give a bit more reach if I find it lacking. It seems the combo gives great results, with little loss of sharpness, but 200 to 280mm is not the most impressive jump. I got this for cropped land/seascapes mostly, so don't need extreme length.
EDIT: I would like to protect the front element from damage... controversial subject I know, but I want to add a filter [sea spray my main concern]... what would you guys recommend for best quality v price for a decent UV?.... I'm using a Hoya Skylight in the mean time.
Last edited:
