UV Filter Recommendations Please

I'm new to photography and own a D70 so please be gentle. ;-)

A photonerd I work with whom I hope very much to be like someday but
with digital, not film, recommended I get a UV filters for my lenses if
I plan on doing any outdoor digital photography.

He went on to explain that a strong dose of UV light could physically
damage the camera stating a direct UV hit could leave all my photos
thereafter with splotches and blotches on them; that the spots would
actually drift because the imaging elements in the camera would have
been damaged.

What brand filter do you recommend?
What brand filter offers the best fit on Nikkor lenses?
Anything I else I should know?

Thanks,
Avery

On 19 Jan 2005 00:29:34 -0800, "Avery"
wrote:

I'm new to photography and own a D70 so please be gentle. ;-)

A photonerd I work with whom I hope very much to be like someday but
with digital, not film, recommended I get a UV filters for my lenses if
I plan on doing any outdoor digital photography.

As if there is such a person who would never do outdoor
photography.... The union of agoraphobic photographers maybe?

He went on to explain that a strong dose of UV light could physically
damage the camera.

Yes, it could explode.

stating a direct UV hit could leave all my photos
thereafter with splotches and blotches on them; that the spots would
actually drift because the imaging elements in the camera would have
been damaged.

It's twaddle. Was he drunk?

The D70 has a mechanical shutter. If you took 100 (daylight) photos a
day, on average, for 2 seconds out of every 86,000 seconds, it is
actually allowing some light onto the sensor. (Okay, not many places
get 86,000 seconds of daylight, but anyway..) Compare this to any
digital camera that has an LCD preview, where the sensor is *ALWAYS*
exposed to light, do we see UV damage here? - NO.

So, digital point & shoot: about 28,000 seconds of exposure on a day
compared to the D70 - 2 seconds. Many of these P&S have much less
glass in their lenses than a DSLR, and regular glass is a natural UV
filter (it's opaque to about half of the UV spectrum).

BTW, what the **** is a 'direct UV hit' ?

What brand filter do you recommend?

Okay, UV filters have their uses. The best one (and peoples opinions
differ strongly here) is to protect the front element of the lens from
accidental damage (not from UV photon torpedoes of course, but *real*
things like sand, rocks, mud, acid rain, ash, bullets, blood & sweat)

Anything that costs more than $40 should be decent. Multi-coated on
both sides is best, brass is better than aluminum or other metals to
prevent thread-stick.

What brand filter offers the best fit on Nikkor lenses?

Well, the D70 kit lens is a peculiar size, and (to start with at
least) the 67mm filters were quite expensive. No 'brand' is any better
at 'fitting', if the filter is described as 67mm, it'll fit.

Anything I else I should know?

Loads.

But the most important thing: Don't listen to drunk people.

--
Owamanga!

Trying to take a picture of the sun would be a direct UV hit.
Thanks for all the great info; you haven't been drinking have you?

On 19 Jan 2005 06:14:02 -0800, "Avery"
wrote:

Trying to take a picture of the sun would be a direct UV hit.

People do this all the time, otherwise we wouldn't have sunset
pictures (BTW, at sunset, there is hardly any UV)

As soon as you decide that you want the sun in your picture, you'd be
advised (by me at least) to unscrew any filters you've put on, because
the real problem here will be flair.

Thanks for all the great info; you haven't been drinking have you?

It's 9:45 AM here, I do hope not. 11:00am is my lower limit, unless
it's a weekend or I'm in Spain.

--
Owamanga!

Avery wrote:
Trying to take a picture of the sun would be a direct UV hit.

Don't they have special filters for shooting the sun? Looking at the
sun directly for prolonged period can damage your eyesight, right? I
doubt a UV filter will help much.

Googling a bit:

http://www.mreclipse.com/Totality/To...l#Right_Filter

"When viewing or photographing the partial phases of any solar eclipse,
you must always use a solar filter. A solar filter is also needed for
observing all phases of an annular eclipse, when the disk of the Moon
does not block the entire face of the Sun. Even if 99% of the Sun is
covered, the remaining crescent or ring is dangerously bright. It is
like looking at a welder's torch; it will painlessly burn your eyes.
Failure to use a solar filter can result in serious eye damage or
permanent blindness. Do not look directly at the Sun without proper eye
protection!"

- Siddhartha

Avery wrote:
Trying to take a picture of the sun would be a direct UV hit.

Don't they have special filters for shooting the sun? Looking at the
sun directly for prolonged period can damage your eyesight, right? I
doubt a UV filter will help much.

Googling a bit:

http://www.mreclipse.com/Totality/To...l#Right_Filter

"When viewing or photographing the partial phases of any solar eclipse,
you must always use a solar filter. A solar filter is also needed for
observing all phases of an annular eclipse, when the disk of the Moon
does not block the entire face of the Sun. Even if 99% of the Sun is
covered, the remaining crescent or ring is dangerously bright. It is
like looking at a welder's torch; it will painlessly burn your eyes.
Failure to use a solar filter can result in serious eye damage or
permanent blindness. Do not look directly at the Sun without proper eye
protection!"

- Siddhartha

Thanks for the replies... I think I'm going to look into getting a
couple B+W UV 010 to start with. I've got the lens that came with the
D70 and a Nikkor 105mm micro lens.
Do I need to get the slimline filters for Nikkor lenses?

Thanks,
Avery

Avery wrote:

Do I need to get the slimline filters for Nikkor lenses?

The kit lens is cutting it close at 18mm. For the others, no, you don't,
because of the crop factor.

--
Jeremy |

"Siddhartha Jain" wrote in message
ps.com...
Avery wrote:
Trying to take a picture of the sun would be a direct UV hit.

Don't they have special filters for shooting the sun? Looking at the
sun directly for prolonged period can damage your eyesight, right? I
doubt a UV filter will help much.

Googling a bit:

http://www.mreclipse.com/Totality/To...l#Right_Filter

"When viewing or photographing the partial phases of any solar eclipse,
you must always use a solar filter. A solar filter is also needed for
observing all phases of an annular eclipse, when the disk of the Moon
does not block the entire face of the Sun. Even if 99% of the Sun is
covered, the remaining crescent or ring is dangerously bright. It is
like looking at a welder's torch; it will painlessly burn your eyes.
Failure to use a solar filter can result in serious eye damage or
permanent blindness. Do not look directly at the Sun without proper eye
protection!"


I photographed a total solar eclipse, and looked directly at it with no
protection. IMHO, and I mean very Humble, I think it's okay to look at a
TOTAL eclipse when it reaches totality. I did it and my eyes are fine, as
are the cameras. The trick here is TOTAL. Not many people actually
experience a total eclipse. What they often see is a partial eclipse, which
can burn your retinas.

There are special filters and tools for taking photos of the sun, but I have
no idea where to get them. Check the astronomy group.