If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
UV filter applied on CCD/CMOS (Nikon D80) ?
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) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
UV filter applied on CCD/CMOS (Nikon D80) ?
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
UV filter applied on CCD/CMOS (Nikon D80) ?
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
UV filter applied on CCD/CMOS (Nikon D80) ?
"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? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
UV filter applied on CCD/CMOS (Nikon D80) ?
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
UV filter applied on CCD/CMOS (Nikon D80) ?
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
UV filter applied on CCD/CMOS (Nikon D80) ?
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
UV filter applied on CCD/CMOS (Nikon D80) ?
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
UV filter applied on CCD/CMOS (Nikon D80) ?
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nikon Coolpix 5000 - cmos battery? | jb | Digital Photography | 1 | July 11th 06 07:39 AM |
FA - Nikon L1BC Filter & Misc Filter Package | kk4tl | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | September 27th 05 03:50 AM |
FA - Nikon L1BC Filter & Misc Filter Package | kk4tl | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | September 27th 05 03:50 AM |
Nikon concedes CMOS better... | Mark M | 35mm Photo Equipment | 2 | September 18th 04 02:04 AM |
Nikon concedes CMOS better... | Mark M | Digital Photography | 11 | September 17th 04 05:14 PM |