> I do understand that there is a difference between our old filters
> and ones
> designed for digital. (not something just marked digital, like a
> "digital"
> tripod) Apparently, the coatings on the older filters were applied
> mainly to
> the front surface. Now, AR coatings are applied to the back surface
> as well,
> as it is said that sensors are more affected but light bouncing
> back and
> forth between elements and the sensor than in film. Is this true?
> Don't ask
> me, I'm just repeating what I've read in magazines.
It's interesting, when I'm shooting inside a car, with my E10, even
the hood on, I had a UV filter on a couple of times, and it flared
like crazy. There was no direct sun onto the lens (in fact, lens was
looking *away* from the sun. Had to turn it into B/W photo, drop down
the exposure, turn up the contrast, and play with color temp and tint
before it was halfway usable. i think now it might have been internal
reflections from the filter possibly? no sun or light on the front
part of cam at all. even shaded the sunroof, inside of car in shade.
it was wierd.
> On the general subject of filters, I continue to believe that
> filters should
> only be used when a specific effect is required. A protection
> filter is
> needed only when there will be something that you need protecting
> from, like
> sea spray or, in my case, when photographing welders. Don't ask me
> how I
> know this. Otherwise, a plain or UV filter will more likely degrade
> the
> image.
That's what i used to do w/ the zuikos, but on the E10, i can't put
the lenscap on with the hood on, and stuff keeps condensing on the
front element (horrible air qual where i live), so i tend to leave
the filter on.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|