Digital sensors are much more prone to recording reflections bouncing off a cheap filter than film.
I learned this first hand a couple years back when I purchased the cheapest filters I could "for protection" and found an ugly ghosting effect on any white highlights taken in bright sun. I switched to using a multicoated filter (aka "not cheap) and the problem went away. The folks at Canon said it was a reflection bouncing back from the cheap filter that was causing the ghosting. If you look all the filters marked "digital" are all multi-coated to reduce reflections, so I think the digital label is one part marketing ploy and one part making the product easy to identify for folks who don't necessarily know what they're looking for. Personally I rely on filters for protection. Because I feel much better cleaning a $40 filter than the front element of a $300+ lens. Another reason that I use filters is because many of the Canon lenses advertised as "weather sealed" are only weather sealed if they have a filter on the front, go figure. I wonder if the weather sealed Pentax lenses are the same way? Anyone know? One other thing is that I tend to shy away from hoods most of the time. They are big and bulky and just tend to get in my way. Though I can certainly see the advantages to using them. On 4/9/07, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why would a DSLR require different filters than used on a film camera? > Personally, I think the use of "DSLR" filters is hype and just a marketing > ploy. > > I stopped using protective filters a long time ago, and have stuck with > using good, deep lens hoods. In fact, I've sold most of my "protective" > filters, keeping only a few for those times when I may be working in > extremely poor conditions, i.e., sand storms in the Sahara, covering wild > fires and active volcanic eruptions, photographing tsunamis from the beach. > I do still have color correction and contrast filters that are sometimes > used with lenses on film cameras. > > Boris has commented that he wants to protect his expensive glass, and I can > certainly understand that. If you're nervous about you limited lenses, or > any expensive lens, get very high quality filters and don't diddle around > with filters "of various brands and quality ..." > > Shel > > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Bong Manayon > > > Thanks for posting your question, Roman. It is helping me a lot > > too...am in this debate with myself to filter or not to filter...? My > > hunch is to take off all the filters in shooting digital, but have not > > gotten over the "protection" issue. Somehow wanting to be ready in > > case Murphy strikes. My lenses have a UV of various brands and > > quality on them (I forget now which is which, I should take > > inventory...). > > > > Bong > > > > On 4/9/07, Roman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > What protecting glass / UV filter brands do you use on DSLR. > > > I've good experience with Sigma UV EX DG (for digital). Hoya UV Pro1 > > > Digital I recently purchased had hard dirt stuck to the glass from the > > > inner side that has been contacting with porolone in the filter case, so > > > cleaned it with ethanol first, but the image passing through the glass > > > is good. > > > > > > You? > > > -- > > > new photos ever so often... <http://roman.blakout.net/> > > > > > > -- > > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > > [email protected] > > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > > > > -- > > Bong Manayon > > http://www.bong.uni.cc > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > [email protected] > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- ~Nick Wright http://blog.phojonick.com/ http://www.phojonick.com/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
