Subject: | [OM] Re: Grand Junction |
---|---|
From: | Ali Shah <alizookoman@xxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Fri, 1 Sep 2006 10:24:01 -0700 (PDT) |
"The reason no filters are attached to the lens is that no physical filters are required if you're talking color filters. As we just discussed the only physical filters required for digital are polarizers and UV. But I'm not talking the weak UV people normally attach (unnecessarily in my opinion) fulltime to protect (ha, ha) their lenses. " I tried going without a UV on the ZD 50-200. However, I noticed a very tiny little scratch on the front element. I had the lens replaced and didnt want to chance it again. I figured since the E-500 has all those filters built-in I would try them while shooting in Monochrome. I guess I wanted to know if the built-in filters are just as effective as having a physical filter on the lens. I have to admit that I havent tried shooting in RAW just yet. Still messing around in JPEG/SHQ. Tho I am looking at getting a 4gb CF card in the next few days and then I will explore RAW. I will look into the 81 filters as well. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ============================================== List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx ============================================== |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | [OM] Re: Grey Points & White Balance Issues, Jeff Keller |
---|---|
Next by Date: | [OM] Re: magic pixels; please pass the mustard, Matthew Bristol |
Previous by Thread: | [OM] Re: Grand Junction, Chuck Norcutt |
Next by Thread: | [OM] Re: Grand Junction, Chuck Norcutt |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |