![]() Differences in multicoating are evolutionary and comparatively small. Multicoating itself was revolutionary - without it most modern high-element lens designs would be worthless. Single-coated lenses cut that roughly in half, and multicoated lenses can cut the loss to under a percent. Reflection losses in uncoated glass are in the 8-10% range. Coatings reduce the amount of light lost to reflection and also reduce the likelihood of flare. ![]() Higher end filters are "multicoated" with 3-7 coatings on each side. Mid-range filters often have a single coating of MgF2 on each side. ![]() Thick filters are usually easier to remove, and may be slightly more durable. Thin filters are less likely to cause vignetting with wide angle lenses. Some are more aggressive than others - An 元9 filter will block both more UV and visible light than an 元7. All UV filters block some visible light in the violet range as well. Unless you have a so-called "full-spectrum" digital camera or use certain types of film, UV filtration in a filter is redundant. A few use something like Schott BK-270, which is (in theory) very slightly better than BK-7. Most use the equivalent of Schott BK-7, which is far better suited to the purpose. A very few low-end filters use soda-ash "Window" glass. There are real differences in protective filters, including Whether you can detect the difference in a typical living room is a different question. I would expect far more consistent product as well. I'm certain that the $1895 cable is a better cable than the $0.59 cable, and I'm certain that there are tests which prove it. (There is no decimal point in that price): You can also spend $1895 for a 1.5 meter HDMI cable. You can buy a no-name 1.5 meter HDMI cable on Amazon for $0.59 cents: Marketing, Markup, and incremental improvements in quality.Ĭonsider HDMI cables. Prices went up probably because of all the new kids that want to be videomakers and vloggers, if I had to guess Some say they use it for protection (if protection like a gun or a condom I can't say) but if you're shooting seaside during a storm you probably are using an ND8 already and I don't see the point of stacking an UV on top of it. I have never used UV filters, they provide no effect at all and I'm not gonna add another piece of glass if it doesn't do anything useful. Not the best probably but definately better than alot of stuff you can get. I got a Nisi long exposure kit (4 filters) for less than 200 eur, basicly all the filters I'll ever need for landscape photography and they are suitable for other applications aswell.ĭidn't feel so expensive with their pouch and everything, decent quality filters. Anyone know what that is all about? Even Tiffen filters, and others that you saw near the bottom, going for 4-5 times the price of a B&W. Now, however, I am seeing all kinds of crazy prices for UV filters, stretching into many hundreds of dollars. The B&W cost $40-70, but you knew that you got quality. It was significantly more expensive, but if you cared about IQ, you got that instead of a cheap Tiffen filter for $10-15. In the old days (like 10-20 years ago), if you wanted to get a good filter, you got a B&W. Let's, for the sake of argument, assume it does ever so slightly, so please don't post that it does. Please, the intent of this post is not to rehash whether a filter causes a reduction in IQ. This subject has not only been beaten to death, but resurrected and beaten more times than I can count over the years.īut here's a new wrinkle (or at least a question).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |