UV filter applied on CCD/CMOS (Nikon D80) ?

Hello,

First post from a DSLR newbie, please bear with me.

I got a Nikon D80 with a Nikkor 18-55VR objective, and I bought a Sigma
18-200 for convenience. A friend of mine suggested I buy some Hoya
filters as well, at least a UV filter for taking photos in bright
sunshine. He insisted that I could keep it on all times as a protector
as well, it wouldn't affect the quality of the pictures in other conditions.

So I went shopping, and the seller told me the CCD sensors on modern
DSLRs were already coated with an anti-UV layer, and UV filters were
therefore useless, or recommended for film cameras only. I trusted him
and bought a simple lens protector.

I could not find any information relevant to the existence of UV-filter
coatings on CCDs. Any definite answer ?

Thank you.

Lorenzo

Lorenzo Sandini wrote:
First post from a DSLR newbie, please bear with me.

Bears are nasty animals, and if you have one with you,
you're due some real respect.

I got a Nikon D80 with a Nikkor 18-55VR objective, and I bought a Sigma

This is not a microscope, it's a camera. That is not an
objective, it's the freaking *lense*! :-)

18-200 for convenience.

It's a good thing you got it for convenience, because
you don't exactly have the two highest quality lenses
that Nikon ever made... :-(

A friend of mine suggested I buy some Hoya
filters as well, at least a UV filter for taking photos in bright
sunshine.

At that point, you can begin to disregard everything he
ever says about photography. Smile, listen... and let
it all pass. Whatever a UV filter might be for, bright
sunshine isn't part of it!

He insisted that I could keep it on all times as a protector
as well, it wouldn't affect the quality of the pictures in other conditions.

Well, you _can_ keep it on at all times, and yes it will
act as a protector. Whether you need a protector for
the front of your lense is a question that will draw all
sorts of arguments both for and against. Generally, you
don't. But if you are taking pictures in a welding
shop, at the beach, or some other equally hostile place,
it might well be worth having a protective filter.

Whatever, don't kid yourself that adding another couple
of air/glass transitions isn't going to affect the
quality of your pictures. Of course... it may not
affect it enough for you to notice, so that too will
draw all sorts of pro and con arguments.

Basically, it's a choice you'll have to make for
yourself, based on what you can glean from the soon to
start arguments... ;-)

So I went shopping, and the seller told me the CCD sensors on modern
DSLRs were already coated with an anti-UV layer, and UV filters were

Well, no they are *not* coated. But yes there is an
Anti-Aliasing filter in front of the sensor, and one
effect is that both Infra Red and Ultra Violet are
intentionally reduced at the sensor.

therefore useless, or recommended for film cameras only. I trusted him
and bought a simple lens protector.

That's the correct decision, assuming you actually want
to degrade your images with a filter that does nothing
in front of the lense...

A UV filter wouldn't do anything useful in comparison.

I could not find any information relevant to the existence of UV-filter
coatings on CCDs. Any definite answer ?

There are virtually always on going threads in the various
newsgroups on photography about exactly that. There are also
untold numbers of web sites that will give you information.

www.google.com is your friend...

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Lorenzo Sandini wrote:
First post from a DSLR newbie, please bear with me.

Bears are nasty animals, and if you have one with you,
you're due some real respect.

I wouldn't go out to the usenet without one.

I got a Nikon D80 with a Nikkor 18-55VR objective, and I bought a Sigma

This is not a microscope, it's a camera. That is not an
objective, it's the freaking *lense*! :-)

Lens has always sounded like "lentil" (lens culinaris) to me, so I
prefer to use objective (as in "objektiivi" in finnish). But for my
first appearance in here I'll accept the criticism as contructive.

18-200 for convenience.

It's a good thing you got it for convenience, because
you don't exactly have the two highest quality lenses
that Nikon ever made... :-(

According to what I read here and there, I certainly agree, and I am
taking recommendations for my next lens (ooh look, I wrote lens). again,
I am only a beginner...

A friend of mine suggested I buy some Hoya
filters as well, at least a UV filter for taking photos in bright
sunshine.

At that point, you can begin to disregard everything he
ever says about photography. Smile, listen... and let
it all pass. Whatever a UV filter might be for, bright
sunshine isn't part of it!

Aaaah, friends. What would we do without 'em ? Well, next sunshine will
be in 6 months or so, so plenty of time to make my mind. (Greetings from
Finland btw)

He insisted that I could keep it on all times as a protector
as well, it wouldn't affect the quality of the pictures in other conditions.

Well, you _can_ keep it on at all times, and yes it will
act as a protector. Whether you need a protector for
the front of your lense is a question that will draw all
sorts of arguments both for and against. Generally, you
don't. But if you are taking pictures in a welding
shop, at the beach, or some other equally hostile place,
it might well be worth having a protective filter.

A welding shop would be an interesting place to take photos, thank you
for the recommendation. Now that I have a lens protector (see ? I wrote
lens again), I really need to find hostile places

long snip

Thank you for your answer, I'll probably keep the lens protector where
it is needed, and take photos without whenever I can. As for UV light,
I'll remember this the next time I'll climb the K2 or the Everest.

Lorenzo

Lorenzo Sandini wrote:
[]
Lens has always sounded like "lentil" (lens culinaris) to me, so I
prefer to use objective (as in "objektiivi" in finnish). But for my
first appearance in here I'll accept the criticism as contructive.


I have no problems with the term objective.

David

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
Lorenzo Sandini wrote:
First post from a DSLR newbie, please bear with me.

Bears are nasty animals, and if you have one with you,
you're due some real respect.

I got a Nikon D80 with a Nikkor 18-55VR objective, and I bought a Sigma

This is not a microscope, it's a camera. That is not an
objective, it's the freaking *lense*! :-)

Hmmm, you arrogant arsehole! The OP is in Finland, so English isn't his
first language. Objective is technically correct, as is lens. However lense
is not the common spelling of lens. It is sort of correct, but not the
accepted version. As for "freaking"

intr. & tr.v. freak·ing, Slang

To experience or cause to experience frightening hallucinations or feelings
of paranoia, especially as a result of taking a drug. Often used with out.
To behave or cause to behave irrationally and uncontrollably. Often used
with out.
To become or cause to become greatly excited or upset. Often used with out.

So how can a lens "freak out"???

I bet Lorenzo speaks better English that you speak Finnish! The Internet,
and usenet are global. What will you do next correct the 90% of the English
speaking World that uses the word colour, instead of the USA variant color?

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
..

This is not a microscope, it's a camera. That is not an
objective, it's the freaking *lense*! :-)

..
In optics terminology the main imageforming lens of a camera is
frequently termed an "objective" lens. This differentiates it from any
lenses in the viewfinder, rangefinder, etc.

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:51:17 -0400, "*" wrote:


"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
Lorenzo Sandini wrote:
First post from a DSLR newbie, please bear with me.

Bears are nasty animals, and if you have one with you,
you're due some real respect.

I got a Nikon D80 with a Nikkor 18-55VR objective, and I bought a Sigma

This is not a microscope, it's a camera. That is not an
objective, it's the freaking *lense*! :-)

Hmmm, you arrogant arsehole! The OP is in Finland, so English isn't his
first language. Objective is technically correct, as is lens. However lense
is not the common spelling of lens. It is sort of correct, but not the
accepted version. As for "freaking"

intr. & tr.v. freak·ing, Slang

To experience or cause to experience frightening hallucinations or feelings
of paranoia, especially as a result of taking a drug. Often used with out.
To behave or cause to behave irrationally and uncontrollably. Often used
with out.
To become or cause to become greatly excited or upset. Often used with out.

So how can a lens "freak out"???

I bet Lorenzo speaks better English that you speak Finnish! The Internet,
and usenet are global. What will you do next correct the 90% of the English
speaking World that uses the word colour, instead of the USA variant color?

"Freaking" is also a bowdlerism, if you want to get technical.

David J Taylor wrote:

Lorenzo Sandini wrote:
[]
Lens has always sounded like "lentil" (lens culinaris) to me, so I
prefer to use objective (as in "objektiivi" in finnish). But for my
first appearance in here I'll accept the criticism as contructive.

I have no problems with the term objective.

As long as it's not used subjectively?

That said (the devil made me do it!), is what we know about CCD sensors
in this context applicable to CMOS sensors as well? I'm about to order a
Nikon D90, and I'm wondering if there are any practical (as versus the
obvious deep technical and economic) aspects that will be different.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

Lorenzo Sandini wrote:

A welding shop would be an interesting place to take photos, thank you
for the recommendation. Now that I have a lens protector (see ? I wrote
lens again), I really need to find hostile places

long snip

Thank you for your answer, I'll probably keep the lens protector where
it is needed, and take photos without whenever I can. As for UV light,
I'll remember this the next time I'll climb the K2 or the Everest.

Lorenzo

You *******... The closest thing I've got here is the rockies.. It's
just not the same..

:P

P.

Blinky the Shark wrote:
David J Taylor wrote:

Lorenzo Sandini wrote:
[]
Lens has always sounded like "lentil" (lens culinaris) to me, so I
prefer to use objective (as in "objektiivi" in finnish). But for my
first appearance in here I'll accept the criticism as contructive.

I have no problems with the term objective.

As long as it's not used subjectively?

G

That said (the devil made me do it!), is what we know about CCD
sensors in this context applicable to CMOS sensors as well? I'm
about to order a Nikon D90, and I'm wondering if there are any
practical (as versus the obvious deep technical and economic) aspects
that will be different.

Blinky,

I see no reason for any significant difference if, as Floyd said, it's the
anti-alias filter which (happens as a side effect) to filter out much of
the UV. I've seen nothing to suggest that the spectral responses of the
imaging sensors are significantly different. Of course, there are bound
to be slight differences between different sensors.

I've seen some purple flowers reproduce differently on digital to their
apparent colour (to me), but I've never systematically investigated
whether the errors can be changed with extra UV filters.

Enjoy the D90 - I would love to be able to afford one, but the D60 is more
my level right now!

Cheers,
David