Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Filter Quality

Subject: Re: [OM] Filter Quality
From: Skip Williams <om@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 20:51:50 -0500
I don't have solid, documented evidence that B+W are superior, but I'm putting 
my dollars with a well-known, quality product.  I'd bet that Heliopan or Hoya 
MC or others are also of similar quality.  I will not put my dollars into 
no-name or store brands.  

Perhaps I'm a bit snobbish, but I'm not interested in spending my time testing 
filters.  I'll just buy something with a known quality and be done with it.  
I've thrown all my old filters out, so I won't be doing any testing to back up 
my theory.  YMMV

Skip


>
>Subject: Re: [OM] Filter Quality
>   From: "Danrich" <danrich@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>   Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 13:02:21 -1000
>     To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>Aloha Skip
>You feel the B&W have the best coatings?
>Have any picture examples?
>What makes B&W the best to you?
>XDan
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Skip Williams
>Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 12:25 PM
>To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [OM] Filter Quality
>
>Everyone should do themselves a favor a throw away all their old, crappy
>1A or UV filters and replace them with brass-cell, B+W, MRC multi-coated
>filters.  That way you won't have to ever ask yourself if the filter was
>a significant contributor to picture quality.  
>
>With the vast amount of cash spent on cameras and lenses, it never
>ceases to amaze me at the photographers who try to be cheapskates and
>save a few bucks on filters and outdated film.  It's like putting cheap
>gas in a Ferarri.
>
>Skip
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>Please reply to [skipwilliams at pobox.com]
>Direct responses to the email address on the header may get lost
>----------------------------------------------------------------->
>>Subject: Re: [OM] Filter Quality
>>   From: Fernando Gonzalez Gentile <fgnzalez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>   Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 17:32:50 -0300
>>     To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>on 9/09/2003 11:41, Danrich at danrich@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>>> the cheapest filter in UV
>>> category?
>>Not quite a test but a surprise. I had bought a $5 Sakar UV filter and
>>pictured a big station TV antenna at night on Provia 100F with the
>21/3.5.
>>(Mike would know which picture I am talking about, I had sent him a
>previous
>>attempt on Kodak ProImage100)
>>I kept it on during 30 sec exposure and got some funny effect: a very
>narrow
>>straight line (a ray) of red light escaping from a red light in the
>antenna,
>>which couldn't be produced either by flare or by the atmospheric
>conditions.
>>I shot the scene four times varying some parameters and tripod position
>just
>>some centimeters and it only happened once, of course in the better
>composed
>>attempt. I sort of liked it, but now I'm unscrewing this filter on any
>>difficult lighting conditions.
>>
>>Fernando.   
>>
>>
>>< 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 >
>
>< 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 >
>
>
>< 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 >

< 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 >




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz