Go Back   Team-BHP > Around the Corner > Shifting gears > Gadgets, Computers & Software


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 17th December 2011, 12:36   #9001
Senior - BHPian
 
R2D2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Punya Nagari
Posts: 1,748
Thanked: 910 Times
Default Re: The DSLR Thread

^^^
Hoods provide protection from flare and do offer some level of protection but not from airborne dust, residue or fingerprints. And if you do plonk UV/protector filters on the front of the lens make sure that they are not the cheap plain glass filters. Multicoated filters have far higher resistance to flare.

I live in a dry and dusty city (Pune, a Class 1 dust-bowl!) and do not cherish the thought of my lenses' front elements being cleaned either by me or by the Nikon service centre. Sometimes even a rocket blower can't get rid of the all the dust/residue that literally sticks on.

All my lenses have filters (except 2 because their design precludes their use) and I have not noticed any impact on image quality. In this world of PP we can always compensate if required.

PS - removing filters evertime you need to take a photograph is not practical. A mistake during frequent removal/fitting could damaged the delicate threads.

Last edited by R2D2 : 17th December 2011 at 12:39.
R2D2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th December 2011, 15:41   #9002
Senior - BHPian
 
clevermax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Tvm/Amsterdam
Posts: 1,566
Thanked: 360 Times
Default Re: The DSLR Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by R2D2 View Post
^^^
Hoods provide protection from flare and do offer some level of protection but not from airborne dust, residue or fingerprints. And if you do plonk UV/protector filters on the front of the lens make sure that they are not the cheap plain glass filters. Multicoated filters have far higher resistance to flare.

I live in a dry and dusty city (Pune, a Class 1 dust-bowl!) and do not cherish the thought of my lenses' front elements being cleaned either by me or by the Nikon service centre. Sometimes even a rocket blower can't get rid of the all the dust/residue that literally sticks on.

All my lenses have filters (except 2 because their design precludes their use) and I have not noticed any impact on image quality. In this world of PP we can always compensate if required.

PS - removing filters evertime you need to take a photograph is not practical. A mistake during frequent removal/fitting could damaged the delicate threads.
You guys never intend to clean the lens's outer glass surface to get rid of dust or fingerprints? Just asking out of my ignorance because I have a fingerprint on my new 18-55mm lens surface which I have not cleaned so far. If significant amount of fungus growth in most of the glass elements is not affecting the image quality much, I don't think a fingerprint will.
clevermax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th December 2011, 16:25   #9003
Senior - BHPian
 
R2D2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Punya Nagari
Posts: 1,748
Thanked: 910 Times
Default Re: The DSLR Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by clevermax View Post
You guys never intend to clean the lens's outer glass surface to get rid of dust or fingerprints? Just asking out of my ignorance because I have a fingerprint on my new 18-55mm lens surface which I have not cleaned so far. If significant amount of fungus growth in most of the glass elements is not affecting the image quality much, I don't think a fingerprint will.
A fingerprint on the front element won't impact the image neither will specks of dust. Infact it is fungus/markings on the lens' rear element that has an impact on the image. In fact even very badly scratched front elements don't have a noticeable impact image quality.

It is just some persons (like me) are a bit particular about keeping lenses squeaky clean and free of abrasions/scratches. I have never had to clean a front element due to the uv/protector filters. Thinking of a scratch on one of my lenses is an unpleasant or even horrifying thought.

Canon/Nikon 'exotics' (the large expensive zooms and teles) have a 'meniscus' front element that protects the glass inside. Important to remember that this element is a part of the optical formula not a screw on filter. Replacing a meniscus is far less expensive than replacing one of the ED/flourite elements within. Also, using a hood with these lenses is a must.

For all the brouhaha about filters impacting image quality do keep in mind most of these exotics use 52mm a drop-in neutral/clear filter at the rear. It prevents dust from getting into the barrel. This NC filter MUST be installed at all times. So there goes the "filter-impacts-image-quality" argument right outa the window!

Regards,
R2D2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th December 2011, 18:32   #9004
BHPian
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Pune, Melbourne
Posts: 609
Thanked: 339 Times
Default Re: The DSLR Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by R2D2 View Post

For all the brouhaha about filters impacting image quality do keep in mind most of these exotics use 52mm a drop-in neutral/clear filter at the rear. It prevents dust from getting into the barrel. This NC filter MUST be installed at all times. So there goes the "filter-impacts-image-quality" argument right outa the window!

Regards,
I am using a Hoya HD UV on my 31mm and yet to make my mind around UV/protection filter for 300mm. Lens hood looks adequate for the time being. What are you using for the optimus prime?
C300 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 17th December 2011, 19:02   #9005
Senior - BHPian
 
R2D2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Punya Nagari
Posts: 1,748
Thanked: 910 Times
Default Re: The DSLR Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by C300 View Post
I am using a Hoya HD UV on my 31mm and yet to make my mind around UV/protection filter for 300mm. Lens hood looks adequate for the time being. What are you using for the optimus prime?
I believe the Pentax 300mm F/4 can take filters, but you may want to check again. If yes I would use a Hoya HD/SHMC/HMC or similar good quality UV/protector. Using a hood + a UV/protector just adds to the level of protection.

OP cannot take filters. While I can treat the hood as optional with other lenses due to the uv/protector screw-on filters, with OP the hood is a must and Nikon mentions this in the manual. It takes 52mm filters (NC) or CPL of the drop-in type.

Last edited by R2D2 : 17th December 2011 at 19:03.
R2D2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th December 2011, 22:32   #9006
Senior - BHPian
 
clevermax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Tvm/Amsterdam
Posts: 1,566
Thanked: 360 Times
Default Re: The DSLR Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by R2D2 View Post
A fingerprint on the front element won't impact the image neither will specks of dust. Infact it is fungus/markings on the lens' rear element that has an impact on the image. In fact even very badly scratched front elements don't have a noticeable impact image quality.
Even fungus on rear elements are not affecting sharpness. I think they will only affect the contrast of the image because some light may get diffused off from such obstructions.

Took this picture today with my Minolta 70-210 which has a bad fungus growth in its most rear element, along with fungus growth in most of the other glass elements!
The DSLR Thread-_dsc1239sample.jpg
clevermax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th December 2011, 23:02   #9007
Senior - BHPian
 
R2D2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Punya Nagari
Posts: 1,748
Thanked: 910 Times
Default Re: The DSLR Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by clevermax View Post
Even fungus on rear elements are not affecting sharpness. I think they will only affect the contrast of the image because some light may get diffused off from such obstructions.

Took this picture today with my Minolta 70-210 which has a bad fungus growth in its most rear element, along with fungus growth in most of the other glass elements!
That's a nice photo. BTW how do you get the zoom effect..you know the crop/enlargement tracing itself or zooming back onto the original photo?

Yes, you are absolutely right, how much it affects IQ will depend on how much the fungus has spread (severity) over the element and where. Goes without saying that fungus, in the centre will have the max impact on colour, sharpness and contrast.

But the point I am trying to make is that contrary to popular belief it's the rear element that affects the image not the front. I was one of those misguided persons till I did a bit of detailed reading about lenses on the 'net. Well, live and learn!

I continue to use filters simply because I am absolutely particular about maintaining all my lenses and cameras in a pristine condition. My nearly decade old F100 film SLR looks as if it were freshly unboxed. My Bawa (Parsi) neighbour regularly asks me if I have some Bawa ancestry because of the way I maintain my car. But that's just me.

Cheers!
R2D2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th December 2011, 10:04   #9008
Senior - BHPian
 
shajufx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: BLR & Muscat
Posts: 1,618
Thanked: 366 Times
Default Re: The DSLR Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by R2D2 View Post
.........it's the rear element that affects the image not the front.....I continue to use filters simply because I am absolutely particular about maintaining all my lenses and cameras in a pristine condition.....
You are absolutely correct there. Its the rear element that can spoil an image due to fungus, dust etc. technically speaking the portion that's closest to the camera sensor. UV Filters are meant for dust protection, and atleast for me, nothing else. I should be getting my filters by tomorrow, my order is processed and authorized.

We can go on debating on the real necessity of a filter, but end of the day its a personal choice. I would never spend for it on a cheaper lens (even for a 40k Sigma 70-200 2.8, I was not bothered). Right now I have 4 top range/rated Nikon glasses, I care for them as babies, if not infants
shajufx is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 18th December 2011, 10:46   #9009
Senior - BHPian
 
R2D2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Punya Nagari
Posts: 1,748
Thanked: 910 Times
Default Re: The DSLR Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by shajufx View Post
UV Filters are meant for dust protection, and atleast for me, nothing else...but end of the day its a personal choice. I care for them as babies, if not infants
LOL! That's the thing Shaju once you invest in serious lenses your point of view about equipment care changes. I must add that in the past even my ordinary kit lenses had filters. The UV filters are only for protection against dust and fingerprints. As for impact on image quality - well, I for one haven't noticed it.

I waited for many, many, years to build up a good kit and strongly believe it merits good care.
R2D2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st December 2011, 11:52   #9010
Senior - BHPian
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Delhi
Posts: 2,105
Thanked: 983 Times
Default Re: The DSLR Thread

UV filters were originally designed to filter out the UV which would fog some films. Today this filter is used for

. Protect the lense front element from scratches
. Protect the lense from dust and fingerprints. Some times accumulated dirt requires vigorous cleaning which may destroy the front element coating
. In case your lense is dropped on hard surface, the filter may save the front lense element from breaking. Of course a lense hood will also prevent breaking the front element, unless you drop the lense front down on a sharp projection.

On the whole a good filter is an added insurance for an expensive lense.

A good filter will be made from top class glass which will be optically as good as top of the line lenses. Further the glass will be flat, free of distortions and in many cases multicoated. The coating reduces flare and increases transmission of light (though slightly, still every photon matters).

Fungus does not affect the image quality, but introduces distortion and reduced transmission of light. As the fungus is not uniform, the intensity variation is blotchy, impossible to correct, unless you take a "white balance" shot. As fungus may also eat away the lense coating the apparent "brightness" of the lense is also affected.
Aroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st December 2011, 13:27   #9011
Senior - BHPian
 
shajufx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: BLR & Muscat
Posts: 1,618
Thanked: 366 Times
Default Moisture Absorber

Quote:
Originally Posted by R2D2 View Post
....What is that anti humidity gadget called? I have a substantial investment in lenses and would like to use one of them over and above my silica gel pouches.
Really sorry for missing this point. I somehow forgot about this small thing in the bag that came with my lenses. Here it is. This was picked up from Singapore by my friend, you should find them in Ebay or accessory shops that sell camera stuff (never seen in India so far). It has a pull out plug for AC power charging. Dry stage shows blue gels, needs charging when it becomes pink. You put it in a bag that's highly moist, the blue becomes pink within few hours
The DSLR Thread-moi.jpg
shajufx is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 21st December 2011, 15:06   #9012
Senior - BHPian
 
clevermax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Tvm/Amsterdam
Posts: 1,566
Thanked: 360 Times
Default Re: Moisture Absorber

Quote:
Originally Posted by shajufx View Post
Really sorry for missing this point. I somehow forgot about this small thing in the bag that came with my lenses. Here it is. This was picked up from Singapore by my friend, you should find them in Ebay or accessory shops that sell camera stuff (never seen in India so far). It has a pull out plug for AC power charging. Dry stage shows blue gels, needs charging when it becomes pink. You put it in a bag that's highly moist, the blue becomes pink within few hours
Attachment 859069
I think one should use this along with an airtight box otherwise eventually the absorber will become saturated with moisture and it will stop absorbing any more water - as good as keeping the camera in the bag without one of these.

That reminds me of my pending Action Item - buying a dry box
clevermax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st December 2011, 15:12   #9013
Senior - BHPian
 
ajay_satpute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Pune
Posts: 1,792
Thanked: 1,312 Times
Default Re: The DSLR Thread

Masters

Which are the best rechargeable batteries for a P&S type camera? I have 4 of them and they dont last more than 1-2 hrs, even if charged for more than 7-8 hrs.
ajay_satpute is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 21st December 2011, 15:27   #9014
BHPian
 
mm403's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Pune
Posts: 156
Thanked: 73 Times
Default Re: The DSLR Thread

Ajay, I had the same problem for a SONY P&S. Sony world folks recommended Sony NI-MH Rechargeables. So far giving good results
mm403 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st December 2011, 15:33   #9015
BHPian
 
Jaguar's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 557
Thanked: 141 Times
Default Re: The DSLR Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajay_satpute View Post
Masters

Which are the best rechargeable batteries for a P&S type camera? I have 4 of them and they dont last more than 1-2 hrs, even if charged for more than 7-8 hrs.
Nothing beats Sanyo Eneloop.
Jaguar is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DSLR Video Discussion Sankar Gadgets, Computers & Software 129 18th August 2017 19:07
On a Temple Visiting Spree! Returned with only 1 wish. Need a DSLR! mclaren1885 Travelogues 23 27th July 2007 11:21


All times are GMT +5.5. The time now is 14:47.

Copyright 2000 - 2017, Team-BHP.com
Proudly powered by E2E Networks