On 19 Dec 2000, at 23:24, Winsor Crosby wrote:
> >I've never been able to afford "high quality" filters. The el-cheapo ones
> >DO degrade the image slightly....
>
> I would think that a visible difference looking through the
> viewfinder would be due as much to the fact that the filter is not
> perfectly perpendicular to the axis of the lens when handheld. The
> test shots make the point though.
I held the filter up against the lens, but didn't screw it in. As far as I
know, it was as perpendicular to the axis as it would have been had I
actually mounted it. But, as you said, the test shots made the point.
I'm NOT saying that the difference was significant... just, to my eyes,
noticeable. I had read in one of those "How-to" articles that going
filterless would lead to sharper results, and since I'd never heard that
before thought I'd check it out.
Can't remember you mentioned it, but there's a significant price
difference here (Edmonton, Alberta Canada) between cheap and
"quality" filters. Cheap ones run CDN$10-$15 while "quality" ones go for
more than CDN$30. That's a fair chunk of change according to my
budget. Yes, I *know* I'm taking certain risks by not using a filter, but
it's been years since I've dropped a lens (or body with lens attached), so
I think the risk is minimal. (Of course, now that I've said that, I'll drop
something tomorrow and regret having said it!)
> I wonder sometimes whether filter quality should be the obsession it
> is sometimes.
IMHO, I think it's a matter of personal preference. For years, I kept a
UV filter on every lens "just in case." Now, I'm living life on the edge
and practicing "unsafe" photography. I feel that the non-presence of a
filter has slightly improved the sharpness of my images. Not that my
"safe era" shots were all that unsharp.
> I think most filters sold now are pretty high quality if not damaged in
> some way(excepting those little square French plastic ones).
Of course, you must be referring to Cokin filters? I have 'bout a half
dozen of their specialty "P" series. For what they do, they're pretty
good. What, specifically do you feel is "wrong" with them?
Regards,
Chris
-------------------------------------------------
Chris O'Neill (coneill@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Web: http://www.nucleus.com/~coneill
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|