A+ | A - | RESET
Fixed | Wide | Full | Reset

Capture360.Net

Cover Every Angle

  Advanced search
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
10:38 GMT - Thu 28 Mar 24

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: "Protective" Filters and Mythical Meteorites  (Read 5958 times)
0 Members and Guests are viewing this topic.
Dayo
Sheriff
*
Posts: 447


WWW
« at: 13:55 GMT - Thu 07 Jun 07 »

Read the article here
Logged
desDiChaDo
Conscript
*******
Posts: 1


« Reply #1 at: 21:12 GMT - Sat 09 Jun 07 »

I disagree.  Good multicoated filter, practically does not affects the image in any way, except only at very bizare lighting situations.  I use mostly MINOLTA filters, which are MC and made of optical glass.  I performed plenty of test trying to find any trace if image degradation - nada.  I published one test I made here - hxxp: www. pbase. com/zeevk/practical_filter_test.  Can anyone sees the difference?

On another side, I evidence plenty of cases the filter saved a lens from fatal damage, and although I personally disposed more than ten filters that suffered to much from scratches and stains, I have never damaged a lens (for more than 30 years of shooting).

I would not get even 1/2 the money people payed me for my old lenses if they had all the damage on the front glass instead on the 10$ filter!
Logged
Dayo
Sheriff
*
Posts: 447


WWW
« Reply #2 at: 18:26 GMT - Sun 10 Jun 07 »

In Ancient China, whenever there was an eclipse of the Sun, people thought a dragon was eating up the sun and ran to bang pots and pans to scare off the dragon.  Since the sun came back, they assumed it was because of their actions.

Relevance? Just because you haven't damaged a len in 30 years doesn't mean it has anything to do with filters.  I am sure you will admit that there are several people that have not damaged lenses in the same amount of time that do not use filters and likewise you will find many that have damaged lenses that use filters.  Also you will find that in some cases, having a filter on might have led to the damage.

You have an headache and the Doctor prescribes a drug and tells you 90% of people that have used the drug have recovered and the same percentage of those that have not used it have recovered as well.  What would you think?

Unless you can demonstrate that not using filters = definite damaged lenses then the filter is just a placebo.

As for your point that filters only have a -ve effect in bizzare lighting conditions and therefore it is not worth worrying about, that is my point exactly.  They offer "protection" in bizzare situations and we show this by not taking special precautions for your eyes and other body parts in the same situations when we fuss about protecting our lenses from projectiles.  Can you give me any rational reason why?  Why don't we go about with safety googles 24/7 or wear body armour all the time? I am sure if you go to the local hospital, you will find examples of cases where people could have been saved injury if they did on as a matter of routine.

Welcome to C360  ;D
Logged
zander
Partner
*
Posts: 117

Ayup me duck.


« Reply #3 at: 12:27 GMT - Thu 14 Jun 07 »

Are you sure you're not missing the point of desDiChaD's post.  He hasn't damaged a lens in 30 years, because he's had cheaper filters on the front of them that got damaged instead, thus saving the lens from damage.
Logged

Sometimes you've got to do your own thing...
...and sometimes you've got to follow the crowd.
Dayo
Sheriff
*
Posts: 447


WWW
« Reply #4 at: 14:50 GMT - Thu 14 Jun 07 »

Hi Zander.  I did get it.
Logged
Pages: [1]
Jump to:  

Latest Posts
by Dayo
[21:04 GMT - Tue 19 Aug 14]

[22:20 GMT - Sat 16 Aug 14]

[21:15 GMT - Wed 09 Apr 14]

by Dayo
[17:18 GMT - Tue 21 Jan 14]

[15:55 GMT - Sun 15 Sep 13]
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Corto design TinyPortal v0.9.8 © Bloc
Configured by Dayo Akanji
Contact