UV - or not UV?

"Pat" wrote in message
...
On Oct 19, 11:29 pm, Eric Stevens wrote:
I'm trapped in the middle of an argument involving 'experts' who have
diametrically opposing opinions about whether or not there is any
point in fitting UV filters to a digital camera.

I have long had the habit of fitting a UV filter to all my camera
lenses working on the theory that even if I don't always need to
filter UV I would rather damage a UV filter than the front element of
a lens. I have recently bought a D300 with a couple of Nikon lenses
and wish to fit UV filters to each lens.

Expert 1 tells me (insists) that a UV filter will not be necessary and
all that I want is a Marumi 'Digital High Grade' clear 'Lens Protect'
filter. Expert 2 tells me (insists) that what I need is are Hoya UV
filters.

Leaving out the question of the respective merits of Marumi vs Hoya,
what I would like to know is whether or not a UV filter serves any
purpose on a digital camera? What is the no doubt conflicting advice I
will receive from the members of the news group? :-)

Eric Stevens

You are asking the wrong question. The question isn't filter 1 v.
filter 2; it's "should I use a filter".

If you believe you should, then either of those filters is probably
just a good as the other. Flip a coin.

If you believe you should not, then don't use either.

The question of whether you should use a filter or not will burn on in
this NG for all of eternity. People are trying to argue personal
preference, which is not something one can argue.

If you pick one filter over the other, you'll **** off one of the two
if they know about the other. That's probably not good. If you like/
trust both experts, then call a reputable camera store and get a
recommendation. It'll be filter and you'll only mildly annoy both of
them. Then you can blame the camera store. That's not too bad. If
you go on without one, both experts will think you're a moron and
that's not good either.

So you real choice -- at least in the short one -- is political rather
and technical. Who do you want to annoy and how much does their
opinion matter to you?

Now, that is a great way to sum up this particular situation...

Take Care,
Dudley

"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
I'm trapped in the middle of an argument involving 'experts' who have
diametrically opposing opinions about whether or not there is any
point in fitting UV filters to a digital camera.

I have long had the habit of fitting a UV filter to all my camera
lenses working on the theory that even if I don't always need to
filter UV I would rather damage a UV filter than the front element of
a lens. I have recently bought a D300 with a couple of Nikon lenses
and wish to fit UV filters to each lens.

Expert 1 tells me (insists) that a UV filter will not be necessary and
all that I want is a Marumi 'Digital High Grade' clear 'Lens Protect'
filter. Expert 2 tells me (insists) that what I need is are Hoya UV
filters.

Leaving out the question of the respective merits of Marumi vs Hoya,
what I would like to know is whether or not a UV filter serves any
purpose on a digital camera? What is the no doubt conflicting advice I
will receive from the members of the news group? :-)



I haven't read all the replies, but as others have pointed out, this is what
a logician would call a false dichotomy. It's not "either, or." As far as
a permanent filter goes, I've found that many of my images would have been
better served by a skylight filter. 90% of my shots from Ireland would have
been served well by that. But those were shot on Velvia. Today I shoot
digital for the most part, and shooting in RAW, I can adjust the white
balance to anything I want, so slight variations of color cast are not a
problem. So, instead of a full time filter to protect my lenses, I use lens
hoods.

Also, filters allow for a higher markup for salesmen--they want to sell them
almost more than the lens itself. That probably isn't true for the Hoya.

bino wrote:
"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
I'm trapped in the middle of an argument involving 'experts' who have
diametrically opposing opinions about whether or not there is any
point in fitting UV filters to a digital camera.

I have long had the habit of fitting a UV filter to all my camera
lenses working on the theory that even if I don't always need to
filter UV I would rather damage a UV filter than the front element of
a lens. I have recently bought a D300 with a couple of Nikon lenses
and wish to fit UV filters to each lens.

Expert 1 tells me (insists) that a UV filter will not be necessary and
all that I want is a Marumi 'Digital High Grade' clear 'Lens Protect'
filter. Expert 2 tells me (insists) that what I need is are Hoya UV
filters.

Leaving out the question of the respective merits of Marumi vs Hoya,
what I would like to know is whether or not a UV filter serves any
purpose on a digital camera? What is the no doubt conflicting advice I
will receive from the members of the news group? :-)



I haven't read all the replies, but as others have pointed out, this is
what a logician would call a false dichotomy. It's not "either, or."
As far as a permanent filter goes, I've found that many of my images
would have been better served by a skylight filter. 90% of my shots
from Ireland would have been served well by that. But those were shot
on Velvia. Today I shoot digital for the most part, and shooting in
RAW, I can adjust the white balance to anything I want, so slight
variations of color cast are not a problem. So, instead of a full time
filter to protect my lenses, I use lens hoods.

Also, filters allow for a higher markup for salesmen--they want to sell
them almost more than the lens itself. That probably isn't true for the
Hoya.

In some cases, the profit on a filter might be higher than on the camera
body, and not just in relative terms!

--
john mcwilliams

Eric Stevens wrote:

I'm trapped in the middle of an argument involving 'experts' who have
diametrically opposing opinions about whether or not there is any
point in fitting UV filters to a digital camera.

Why ask even more 'experts'? Why not just try one out for yourself?

--
Chris Malcolm

On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:03:53 -0700 (PDT), Pat
wrote:

On Oct 19, 11:29*pm, Eric Stevens wrote:
I'm trapped in the middle of an argument involving 'experts' who have
diametrically opposing opinions about whether or not there is any
point in fitting UV filters to a digital camera.

I have long had the habit of fitting a UV filter to all my camera
lenses working on the theory that even if I don't always need to
filter UV I would rather damage a UV filter than the front element of
a lens. I have recently bought a D300 with a couple of Nikon lenses
and wish to fit UV filters to each lens.

Expert 1 tells me (insists) that a UV filter will not be necessary and
all that I want is a Marumi 'Digital High Grade' clear 'Lens Protect'
filter. Expert 2 tells *me (insists) that what I need is are Hoya UV
filters.

Leaving out the question of the respective merits of Marumi vs Hoya,
what I would like to know is whether or not a UV filter serves any
purpose on a digital camera? What is the no doubt conflicting advice I
will receive from the members of the news group? * :-)

Eric Stevens

You are asking the wrong question. The question isn't filter 1 v.
filter 2; it's "should I use a filter".

There is no doubt that I should use something to protect my lens. Mire
camera is likely to be dragged through fire scenes (than which nothing
is more depressing) or used to document the details of an X000hp
engine (marine) which has lunched itself. Under these conditions I can
guarantee that my hands won't be clean and that my camera won't stay
that way either.

I NEED something to protect the front element. Its not just the crap
which ends up on the front which worries me but its the potential for
scratching or smearing when I attempt to clean it. But then that's
work. I also have a boat which I take to sea and there is the risk of
salt spray whether in the form of droplets or aerosols. Having an
unprotected +$1000 lens in these circumstances worries me.

If you believe you should, then either of those filters is probably
just a good as the other. Flip a coin.

I've now decided there is little point in the Hoya UV. I will use the
cheaper Marumi protective glass.

If you believe you should not, then don't use either.

The question of whether you should use a filter or not will burn on in
this NG for all of eternity. People are trying to argue personal
preference, which is not something one can argue.

If you pick one filter over the other, you'll **** off one of the two
if they know about the other. That's probably not good. If you like/
trust both experts, then call a reputable camera store and get a
recommendation. It'll be filter and you'll only mildly annoy both of
them. Then you can blame the camera store. That's not too bad. If
you go on without one, both experts will think you're a moron and
that's not good either.

So you real choice -- at least in the short one -- is political rather
and technical. Who do you want to annoy and how much does their
opinion matter to you?

They are both in the same camera store and I won't annoy either if I
have a sound technical reason for my choice.



Eric Stevens

On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 21:00:40 -0400, "bino" wrote:

"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
.. .
I'm trapped in the middle of an argument involving 'experts' who have
diametrically opposing opinions about whether or not there is any
point in fitting UV filters to a digital camera.

I have long had the habit of fitting a UV filter to all my camera
lenses working on the theory that even if I don't always need to
filter UV I would rather damage a UV filter than the front element of
a lens. I have recently bought a D300 with a couple of Nikon lenses
and wish to fit UV filters to each lens.

Expert 1 tells me (insists) that a UV filter will not be necessary and
all that I want is a Marumi 'Digital High Grade' clear 'Lens Protect'
filter. Expert 2 tells me (insists) that what I need is are Hoya UV
filters.

Leaving out the question of the respective merits of Marumi vs Hoya,
what I would like to know is whether or not a UV filter serves any
purpose on a digital camera? What is the no doubt conflicting advice I
will receive from the members of the news group? :-)



I haven't read all the replies, but as others have pointed out, this is what
a logician would call a false dichotomy. It's not "either, or." As far as
a permanent filter goes, I've found that many of my images would have been
better served by a skylight filter. 90% of my shots from Ireland would have
been served well by that. But those were shot on Velvia. Today I shoot
digital for the most part, and shooting in RAW, I can adjust the white
balance to anything I want, so slight variations of color cast are not a
problem. So, instead of a full time filter to protect my lenses, I use lens
hoods.

Forgive me, but transferring to digital the decisions you have made
with Velvia is no more appropriate than me transferring to Velvia the
decisions I have made with Ilford panchromatic films. If it was that
easy I wouldn't have had to ask the question in the first place.

Also, filters allow for a higher markup for salesmen--they want to sell them
almost more than the lens itself. That probably isn't true for the Hoya.



Eric Stevens

"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 21:00:40 -0400, "bino" wrote:

"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
. ..
I'm trapped in the middle of an argument involving 'experts' who have
diametrically opposing opinions about whether or not there is any
point in fitting UV filters to a digital camera.

I have long had the habit of fitting a UV filter to all my camera
lenses working on the theory that even if I don't always need to
filter UV I would rather damage a UV filter than the front element of
a lens. I have recently bought a D300 with a couple of Nikon lenses
and wish to fit UV filters to each lens.

Expert 1 tells me (insists) that a UV filter will not be necessary and
all that I want is a Marumi 'Digital High Grade' clear 'Lens Protect'
filter. Expert 2 tells me (insists) that what I need is are Hoya UV
filters.

Leaving out the question of the respective merits of Marumi vs Hoya,
what I would like to know is whether or not a UV filter serves any
purpose on a digital camera? What is the no doubt conflicting advice I
will receive from the members of the news group? :-)



I haven't read all the replies, but as others have pointed out, this is
what
a logician would call a false dichotomy. It's not "either, or." As far
as
a permanent filter goes, I've found that many of my images would have been
better served by a skylight filter. 90% of my shots from Ireland would
have
been served well by that. But those were shot on Velvia. Today I shoot
digital for the most part, and shooting in RAW, I can adjust the white
balance to anything I want, so slight variations of color cast are not a
problem. So, instead of a full time filter to protect my lenses, I use
lens
hoods.

Forgive me, but transferring to digital the decisions you have made
with Velvia is no more appropriate than me transferring to Velvia the
decisions I have made with Ilford panchromatic films. If it was that
easy I wouldn't have had to ask the question in the first place.


Why not just stuff cotton in your ears, Eric? For most shooting, a sky
light filter will remove the general color cast you get from just about any
shot not in direct sunlight, where a UV filter will remove UV, which you
won't find until about 16,000 feet. I've an idea, why not just buy all the
filters the salesmen recommend, and all the other stuff, too. You won't be
any better off, but at least they'll be happy.

Not all "electronic sensors" are the same. The spectral responsivity of
silicon is far less than film on a normalized basis. I HAVE worked on
UV sensors, but they used sensor materials other than silicon. Silicon
responsivity peaks in the near IR.

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Don Stauffer wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
Second, by all accounts film reacts to UV quite
differently from
digital - and this is the crux of my question. I know where I am with
film, but is it correct that digital cameras are not bothered by UV
and hence don't need a UV filter? This is where the body of the camera
might very well make a difference.
Eric Stevens
Yes, it is true that silicon sensors do not react very much to UV.

Electronic sensors *are* sensitive to UV. But virtually
all digital cameras put an Anti Aliasing filter in front
of the sensor, and that filter also blocks UV. There is
also commonly an infra-red blocking filter too.

If you want to shoot Infra Red or Ultra Violet, it is
possible with many cameras to have the filters in front
of the sensor removed.

Generally speaking, DSLRs make very good IR cameras
compared to doing the same work with film.

Don Stauffer wrote:
Not all "electronic sensors" are the same. The spectral responsivity of
silicon is far less than film on a normalized basis. I HAVE worked on
UV sensors, but they used sensor materials other than silicon. Silicon
responsivity peaks in the near IR.

But the point was that saying "silicon sensors do not
react very much to UV" was not accurate. In fact,
digital cameras are more useful for UV photography than
are film cameras.

... it is our concensus that digital cameras offer a
number of benefits over conventional film based UV
photography. These include: short exposure time
(often less than a couple of seconds); immediate
review of the image; easy placement of images into
documents; electronic exportation of images for
correspondence; and rapid image processing (an image
can be captured, adjusted, and printed in less than
30 minutes). In addition, the portability of the
equipment allows for documentation of an object under
UV illumination on-site.
http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/waac/.../wn23-205.html

Similar first hand accounts from people use digital
cameras for UV photography are easy to find.

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Don Stauffer wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
Second, by all accounts film reacts to UV quite
differently from
digital - and this is the crux of my question. I know where I am with
film, but is it correct that digital cameras are not bothered by UV
and hence don't need a UV filter? This is where the body of the camera
might very well make a difference.
Eric Stevens
Yes, it is true that silicon sensors do not react very much to UV.
Electronic sensors *are* sensitive to UV. But
virtually
all digital cameras put an Anti Aliasing filter in front
of the sensor, and that filter also blocks UV. There is
also commonly an infra-red blocking filter too.
If you want to shoot Infra Red or Ultra Violet, it is
possible with many cameras to have the filters in front
of the sensor removed.
Generally speaking, DSLRs make very good IR cameras
compared to doing the same work with film.


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

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 07:26:08 -0400, "bino" wrote:

"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 21:00:40 -0400, "bino" wrote:

"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
I'm trapped in the middle of an argument involving 'experts' who have
diametrically opposing opinions about whether or not there is any
point in fitting UV filters to a digital camera.

I have long had the habit of fitting a UV filter to all my camera
lenses working on the theory that even if I don't always need to
filter UV I would rather damage a UV filter than the front element of
a lens. I have recently bought a D300 with a couple of Nikon lenses
and wish to fit UV filters to each lens.

Expert 1 tells me (insists) that a UV filter will not be necessary and
all that I want is a Marumi 'Digital High Grade' clear 'Lens Protect'
filter. Expert 2 tells me (insists) that what I need is are Hoya UV
filters.

Leaving out the question of the respective merits of Marumi vs Hoya,
what I would like to know is whether or not a UV filter serves any
purpose on a digital camera? What is the no doubt conflicting advice I
will receive from the members of the news group? :-)



I haven't read all the replies, but as others have pointed out, this is
what
a logician would call a false dichotomy. It's not "either, or." As far
as
a permanent filter goes, I've found that many of my images would have been
better served by a skylight filter. 90% of my shots from Ireland would
have
been served well by that. But those were shot on Velvia. Today I shoot
digital for the most part, and shooting in RAW, I can adjust the white
balance to anything I want, so slight variations of color cast are not a
problem. So, instead of a full time filter to protect my lenses, I use
lens
hoods.

Forgive me, but transferring to digital the decisions you have made
with Velvia is no more appropriate than me transferring to Velvia the
decisions I have made with Ilford panchromatic films. If it was that
easy I wouldn't have had to ask the question in the first place.


Why not just stuff cotton in your ears, Eric? For most shooting, a sky
light filter will remove the general color cast you get from just about any
shot not in direct sunlight, where a UV filter will remove UV, which you
won't find until about 16,000 feet. I've an idea, why not just buy all the
filters the salesmen recommend, and all the other stuff, too. You won't be
any better off, but at least they'll be happy.

Give me a reason for a choice of filter for my digital camera based on
your experience with digital and I will accept it. But give me a
reason for a choice of filter for my digital camera based on your
experience with a Fuji colour film and I should rightly question it.

Would you accept my recommendation to use a red or orange filter to
get a deep rich sky and snowy white fluffy clouds? Especially if I
told you this was based on my experience with panchromatic film?



Eric Stevens