FILM - PL-C or PL-L...?

Yardbent

Yardbent

Messages
7,772
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
silly really

FILM - PL-C or PL-L...?

is the IQ unaltered using a PL-C on film ???.....:$
 
Circular you're meant to use with AF cameras; linear with manual focus.
 
photon said:
Circular you're meant to use with AF cameras; linear with manual focus.
Click to expand...

yes i understand the Circ is to do with the AF not being confused

perhaps I should explain more ..........

have an old 52mm Regent [?] PL-L from film days

just bought a 52mm Marumi PL-C for Nikon 55-200 AF-S VR

assuming the Marumi is far better quality than the Regent...can i use the Marumi on film camera too....and give away the Regent..?
 
IIRC, the need for circular pols rather than linear ones is dictated by AF and metering rather than by the snesor type (film or digital). Most AF bodies' manuals tell you to use circ pols and a circ pol will work just fine on older bodies that don't specify so IMO, it makes sense to spend the little extra on a circ pol to suit rather than risk trying a linear which may well give unexpected results.
 
thanks Nod

I am hopeless at explaining what what I need to know...:bonk:

I have BOTH new Circular filter and old linear

can I use the new Circ on my film camera..?

I suppose the answer is a BLINDING YES ...just curious...:thinking:
 
check out the sales for a free Regent PL_L ...:thumbs....................:cool:
 
Linear polarisers are supposed to upset both the AF and metering systems.

Some cameras may vary but I failed to upset the AF on my Canon 40D when I tried every which way with a linear PL, but I could get the exposure meter to read up to 2/3rds of a stop out.
 
Compensated for correctly, many photographers preferred using and the results from linear polarisers, whatever the camera type.
 
thanks both

will use the "better quality" Marumi PL-C

Regent PL-L to a good home
 
You could keep the linear pol and stack it in front of the circ pol to give an adjustable ND. Of course, that could give rise to some vignetting and/or colour cast but give it a try if you're into long exposures.
 
Although I've never done a side by side test, I'm under the impression that you will get more of an effect with a linear polariser.
 
Mohain said:
Although I've never done a side by side test, I'm under the impression that you will get more of an effect with a linear polariser.
Click to expand...

People say that, and you're the second one in this thread, but I've tried to find a difference between linear and circular polarisers, and couldn't detect anything, on any aspect of their function.

Which is no surprise really, as a circular polariser is just a linear polariser with the quarter-wave 'circularising' plate stuck on the back.

Main difference between polarisers I have found is that some cheap ones can affect sharpness quite badly on longer lenses (which magnifiy imperfections) which can only be a low grade polarising foil in the sandwich.
 
Nod said:
You could keep the linear pol and stack it in front of the circ pol to give an adjustable ND. .......
Click to expand...

I'm experimenting with MF on my D5000 with an old pre-Ai [which is a 52mm filter] so could give it a look... thanks
 
HoppyUK said:
Linear polarisers are supposed to upset both the AF and metering systems.

Some cameras may vary but I failed to upset the AF on my Canon 40D when I tried every which way with a linear PL, but I could get the exposure meter to read up to 2/3rds of a stop out.
Click to expand...

:plusone: on a Nikon, probably a D80 at the time. I wouldn't recommend buying a linear for a modern camera, but if you have one they're worth a try.

...and in answer to the question , yes :)
 
All the talk (and I have no reason to doubt it) is that linears have bad effects on AF and/or metering.

I agree with Mohain however so I do use LPLs but I check focus and adjust exposure in post processing as necessary.

I have not as yet found any PP technique to duplicate the effect of a polariser.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top