I hear you and I don't use "protective" filters myself; gave that up
long ago for decent lens hoods. However, something doesn't seem to
compute. I would assume (I know, assumptions are dangerous) that
1) multicoated surfaces pass 99.5% of the light and reflect only 0.5%
2) the low pass filter on the sensor is multicoated
3) the backside of the UV or other filter is multicoated
If all three are true then only 0.5% can be reflected back to the front
filter, 5-15% of that will be lost getting back to the front of the
lens, and 99.5% of that will pass out through the filter and only 0.5%
of that will get reflected back to the sensor and 5-15% of that will be
lost again trying to pass back through the lens. Seems to leave only a
teeny-tiny amount of light to cause any mischief.
So what's wrong with this analysis? I'm sure that assumption #1 is
pretty close to correct. If anything it may be 0.1% reflectivity rather
than 0.5%. Are #2 and #3 simply bad assumptions?
Chuck Norcutt
Wayne Culberson wrote:
>
>
>
>>The very best demolishing of the protective filter myth even not
>>taking into account the tests at Gary Reese's site.
>>
>>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=18960184
>>
>>
>>
>>Winsor
>>Long Beach, California, USA
>>
>
>
> Perhaps that explains why I had so many low contrast/flare pictures with the
> C5050 on the last trip to Bolivia. It was the first time I'd used a filter
> on the digital down there, an 81a of course. So it looks like there is no
> winning with a digital camera at high altitudes.
> Wayne
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|