Photography: Camera sensor size difference

Has this thread had a "racist" yet ?

just realised an error in my post
"if you use a good lenshood or matte box then multi coating probably essential"
is wrong if you are using a lenshood then it's not so important to have multicoating as you are less likely to have stray light entering the lens.

what filters are you after?

hoya for value B&W if you can afford it. Lee if you want big nd grads and a nice big lenshood and are likely to use 'gels' for cc and lighting correction of mixed sources.

just realised an error in my post
"if you use a good lenshood or matte box then multi coating probably essential"
is wrong if you are using a lenshood then it's not so important to have multicoating as you are less likely to have stray light entering the lens.

Makes sense. I presume the multicoating's party trick is to tame glare/reflections ?

what filters are you after?

Well, I need something to kill excessive light (I want to keep the aperture wide and ISO low), an ND would be the obvious choice (or a set) - but I want it to be infinitely variable (don't ask why!) - So I was thinking of stacking two polarizers a circular and a linear and turning the front filter to adjust the light getting to the camera. (?)

I also want something to stick on the front of my Nikon 80-200 f2.8 because it cost a small fortune and I am fucked if I scratch or otherwise knacker the front element. What do you reckon here, a UV or just a plain bit of glass (whatever they are called?).

hoya for value B&W if you can afford it. Lee if you want big nd grads and a nice big lenshood and are likely to use 'gels' for cc and lighting correction of mixed sources.

I think I will stick to screw in circular filters for the moment.

Cheers for the info I will have a look on t' 'bay for some Hoya/B&W action.

Oh, yeah, nearly forgot, racist.

GP - not dropped it in any shit I hope?

I fucking hate you. Jinxed me, tonight I killed my camera in a sewer I kinda want to cry.

Makes sense. I presume the multicoating's party trick is to tame glare/reflections ?

Well, I need something to kill excessive light (I want to keep the aperture wide and ISO low), an ND would be the obvious choice (or a set) - but I want it to be infinitely variable (don't ask why!) - So I was thinking of stacking two polarizers a circular and a linear and turning the front filter to adjust the light getting to the camera. (?)

the lens will probably vignette. and you'll have all sorts of problems if you pan the shot - as the light angle changes, so will your available light.

why do you want infinitely variable ? and why via filters?

I also want something to stick on the front of my Nikon 80-200 f2.8 because it cost a small fortune and I am fucked if I scratch or otherwise knacker the front element. What do you reckon here, a UV or just a plain bit of glass (whatever they are called?).

no! far more likely to damage the front of a lens this way. leave the UV off, keep a hood on all the time

Oh man, that sucks. Does it work at all? When I thought I'd knacked mine after covering it in red bull I left it in my airing cupboard for a few hours and it started working again, despite in a very sweet sticky way.

Makes sense. I presume the multicoating's party trick is to tame glare/reflections ?
Well, I need something to kill excessive light (I want to keep the aperture wide and ISO low), an ND would be the obvious choice (or a set) - but I want it to be infinitely variable (don't ask why!) - So I was thinking of stacking two polarizers a circular and a linear and turning the front filter to adjust the light getting to the camera. (?)
I also want something to stick on the front of my Nikon 80-200 f2.8 because it cost a small fortune and I am fucked if I scratch or otherwise knacker the front element. What do you reckon here, a UV or just a plain bit of glass (whatever they are called?).
I think I will stick to screw in circular filters for the moment.
Cheers for the info I will have a look on t' 'bay for some Hoya/B&W action.
Oh, yeah, nearly forgot, racist.

multicoating for reflections you can usuallt tell by looking at it if it's yellowy greeny magentary it's multi. just one colour it's single i think they usually have 'HMRC' or 'multicoated' on the side.

two polarisers? this will kill reflections up the contrast and change the colours are you sure you want to do that to the image? polarisers have their uses but their effects aren't allways wanted.

if you aren't using a lenshood then a good multicoated 1A skylight for the zoom.
as for protecting camera equipment? that's what insurance is for!

why do you want infinitely variable ? and why via filters?

Because I cannot control it in camera.

no! far more likely to damage the front of a lens this way. leave the UV off, keep a hood on all the time

Answers with no explanation no accepted. ;P

So any reasons I should not use a UV ?

two polarisers? this will kill reflections up the contrast and change the colours are you sure you want to do that to the image?

Yes !

if you aren't using a lenshood then a good multicoated 1A skylight for the zoom.

Would you choose a skylight over a clear filter or UV ?

Because I cannot control it in camera.

Answers with no explanation no accepted. ;P

So any reasons I should not use a UV ?

sorry, it was early. ok,here goes.

you drop your lens. most of the time this happens when you're taking it off your camera.

1. It lands on it's side. depending on the height, it's either be ok or it won't. Not much you can do.

2. it lands on it's end, glass down. If it lands on a flat surface, a hood will protect the face of the lens and absorb almost all the impact. If you have a filter and no hood, the filter takes the impact (remember the glass in a filter is only 1mm thick so breaks much more easily) and shards of filter glass will chip the face of your lens. The chassis of the lens absorbs the impact.

3. (most likely scenario): lens lands at 45 degrees to the floor. A hood will protect the face of the lens and again, take the impact. If you're using a filter, the filter will take the impact. the glass will shatter and again, you risk it chipping the front of the lens. Plus the impact damage to the lens chassis is much more likely to make it fail.

So there are few situations where a filter will protect the front of the lens, and in some circumstances it'll make things worse. The only time I'd even consider using a skylight or UV filter solely to protect a lens is if you're shooting in to the wind in a sandstorm. And even then I'd use a lens hood.

If you want weirdy contrast stuff going on, why not PP it? I don't know if you've heard of this program called photoshop :P

"Would you choose a skylight over a clear filter or UV ?"
a filter that kills a bit of haze without changing colour would be my choice.
just checked and a 1A adds a bit of warmth so not that one B&W list a clear and a clear uv-haze.
Tiffen list a UV protector and a haze1 and haze2 all maintain colour. i guess check the manufacturers website or ask the spotty oik in the shop

sorry, it was early. ok,here goes.

1. It lands on it's side. depending on the height, it's either be ok or it won't. Not much you can do.

2. it lands on it's end, glass down. If it lands on a flat surface, a hood will protect the face of the lens and absorb almost all the impact. If you have a filter and no hood, the filter takes the impact (remember the glass in a filter is only 1mm thick so breaks much more easily) and shards of filter glass will chip the face of your lens. The chassis of the lens absorbs the impact.

3. (most likely scenario): lens lands at 45 degrees to the floor. A hood will protect the face of the lens and again, take the impact. If you're using a filter, the filter will take the impact. the glass will shatter and again, you risk it chipping the front of the lens. Plus the impact damage to the lens chassis is much more likely to make it fail.

So there are few situations where a filter will protect the front of the lens, and in some circumstances it'll make things worse. The only time I'd even consider using a skylight or UV filter solely to protect a lens is if you're shooting in to the wind in a sandstorm. And even then I'd use a lens hood.

If you want weirdy contrast stuff going on, why not PP it? I don't know if you've heard of this program called photoshop :P

Cheers for that detailed explanation Fred, not so sure about your idea that the most likely scenario in the case of a lens being dropped is that it lands at 45 degrees to the floor though, but I get the general idea.

I will look up that 'PotatoShop'™ program you mention.

"Would you choose a skylight over a clear filter or UV ?"
a filter that kills a bit of haze without changing colour would be my choice.
just checked and a 1A adds a bit of warmth so not that one B&W list a clear and a clear uv-haze.
Tiffen list a UV protector and a haze1 and haze2 all maintain colour. i guess check the manufacturers website or ask the spotty oik in the shop

Cheers MrsSmith.

Fred - I couldn't disagree with you more. Having dropped many lenses due being clumsy or pissed, and having two filters smash on me because of this, it's better to have a filter (neither time has scratched the lens at all). When I dropped my 70-200 without a filter on, I've dented the front of the lens, which will be expensive to repair and now can't put a filter on it and have to be extra careful.

Filters will protect the elements all the time, say if your lens cap falls off in your bag, and bits hit the filter rather than the lens. It's easier to clean. And also, the front glass element can take a surprising amount of wear and tear without effecting the image. It's the back element that needs looking after the most.

Plus, don't you find hoods get in the way? I find the a right pain in the arse.

each to their own I guess. it's not a hard and fast rule (a hood or a filter won't always protect your lens) but IMO a hood is better protection than a filter. And with a hood there's no risk of a filter breaking and damaging the front element. Not that you dont, but I put image quality ahead of anything else and I'm not spending £1000+ on a lens to stick another piece of (much cheaper) glass on the front.

do rear elements protrude on nikon lenses? most canon lenses that I've used have a recessed rear element.

FWIW tynan could use both if he's seriously worried.

Fred - I couldn't disagree with you more.

I'm sure you could :-)

Right photographers, how about this for your next camera:

It takes stuff like this:

Wicked!
More weird cameras here:
http://www.boyofblue.com/cameras/3rd_eye.html

I just got this: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=360141680766

OK, I know they are slow and have poor noise, but a full frame camera with 2300 actuations for less than £300....hopefully it will be good for experimenting, anyone got any cheap lenses?

which mount is it?

Nikon F, it's all in the ebay page.

just get those Nikon 50mm F/1.8 for starter, shouldn't cost much.

Nikon F, it's all in the ebay page.

just get those Nikon 50mm F/1.8 for starter, shouldn't cost much.

I have a brand new / boxed Nikon 50mm F/1.8 for sale . . . .

Just bought one of those cheap mirror lenses - it's hilarious ! 800mm focal length - or 1600mm with supplied 2x converter - quality seems ok, not too bad for a mirror lens. Great for looking at people from half a mile away. I won't have to leave home now, I can just stalk cyclists from the roof.

I thought you were doing that already. I wondered why I've not seen you stalkengering my commute lately.

I thought you were doing that already. I wondered why I've not seen you stalkengering my commute lately.

Look into the taxi windows, look deep, beyond the reflections, I am always there, naked.

Your skin is very pale, yet appears smooth. I am moist with desire. Moist.