and help to keep the site free for all
Beginner Hoya filter or not
- Thread starter val d5000
- Start date
- Messages
- 23,648
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
I assume you mean the lens that came with your D5200 doesn't have a filter? UV filters aren't essential, but if you are clumsy or think that you are likely to scratch/damage the front element (glass) of your lens UV filters are a good way to protect against this. Using the lens hood is your first line of defence though, and often all you need.
If you're after recommendations then the one I have is a Hoya Revo and after testing on a tripod I can't see any discernible difference in IQ with and without the filter.
- Messages
- 1,076
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Err.. a lens would be a good start, I'd have thought..
After that, which filter sort of depends on what you want it to do.
Bit of legacy from film is the permanently attached UV or Skylight filter. Ultra-Violet light is outside the visible spectrum, so we don't see it, but, 'film' can, so particularly strong UV situations (out-doors) could over excite the silver halide and make pictures come out a bit over-exposed. In doors, under tungsten or fluorescent lights, not a problem really, but if there's no UV light around, then there's nothing for the filter to filter, so let in all we wanted anyway, and we''d leave a UV or Skylight on the front all the while, 'cos they cost a fiver, where lenses cost a lot more, and they could save the front element getting scratched.
Legacy then, is still to fit a UV or Skylight on a lens used on digital.. digi-sensors don't work like film, and are actually 'tuned' to visible light with filtering screens in the chip, and so exposures tend not to get fooled by strong UV, so not really 'needed'... but, still cheaper to replace than multi-coated lenses, and marginally useful for 'protection'..
At which point we get into the age old debate about what's the point of having £500 worth of precision ground glass infront of your camera, if you then stick a 'cheap' bit of £5 picture glass in front of it to distort what it sees, and caus 'flare' .. use a hood and look after the lens properly....
Personally, I dont see the two as exclusive, you can use a UV 'protection' filter AND a hood to eliminate flare, and still cheaper to replace a UV filter than an expensive multi-coated lens, and my photo's probably aren't going to be so wonderful that any-one will grumble by the minute amount of IQ reduction one may cause.. and if I ever get to a situation it might make a difference... well, I can always take it off!
Otherwise... 'best' filter depends what you want to do...
I use a polarising filter to saturate colour in strong sun, and reduce unwanted reflections off car bodywork, or motorbike chrome or water and 'stuff'; Grey-Grad(s) to hold back bright sky in landscapes, balancing brightness between sky and land... and not much else these days. Those two you cannot 'replicate' in photo-shop post-process, though, while the cult of the one-touch 'insta-grimace' effects filter has pretty much made most 'primary' effects filters pretty redundant in the over-load of 'cheese'
Only other one you cat rally replicate in post, is 'Neutral-Density' or 'big-stoppa' filters that darken the whole frame so are often used to allow extremely long exposures and turn nicely babling water into a milky cliche'd mess.. but since that ones almost as cliche'd as the soft focus soft spot, vignette sepia toned insta-grimaces, I tend to avid them too!
After that, which filter sort of depends on what you want it to do.
Bit of legacy from film is the permanently attached UV or Skylight filter. Ultra-Violet light is outside the visible spectrum, so we don't see it, but, 'film' can, so particularly strong UV situations (out-doors) could over excite the silver halide and make pictures come out a bit over-exposed. In doors, under tungsten or fluorescent lights, not a problem really, but if there's no UV light around, then there's nothing for the filter to filter, so let in all we wanted anyway, and we''d leave a UV or Skylight on the front all the while, 'cos they cost a fiver, where lenses cost a lot more, and they could save the front element getting scratched.
Legacy then, is still to fit a UV or Skylight on a lens used on digital.. digi-sensors don't work like film, and are actually 'tuned' to visible light with filtering screens in the chip, and so exposures tend not to get fooled by strong UV, so not really 'needed'... but, still cheaper to replace than multi-coated lenses, and marginally useful for 'protection'..
At which point we get into the age old debate about what's the point of having £500 worth of precision ground glass infront of your camera, if you then stick a 'cheap' bit of £5 picture glass in front of it to distort what it sees, and caus 'flare' .. use a hood and look after the lens properly....
Personally, I dont see the two as exclusive, you can use a UV 'protection' filter AND a hood to eliminate flare, and still cheaper to replace a UV filter than an expensive multi-coated lens, and my photo's probably aren't going to be so wonderful that any-one will grumble by the minute amount of IQ reduction one may cause.. and if I ever get to a situation it might make a difference... well, I can always take it off!
Otherwise... 'best' filter depends what you want to do...
I use a polarising filter to saturate colour in strong sun, and reduce unwanted reflections off car bodywork, or motorbike chrome or water and 'stuff'; Grey-Grad(s) to hold back bright sky in landscapes, balancing brightness between sky and land... and not much else these days. Those two you cannot 'replicate' in photo-shop post-process, though, while the cult of the one-touch 'insta-grimace' effects filter has pretty much made most 'primary' effects filters pretty redundant in the over-load of 'cheese'
Only other one you cat rally replicate in post, is 'Neutral-Density' or 'big-stoppa' filters that darken the whole frame so are often used to allow extremely long exposures and turn nicely babling water into a milky cliche'd mess.. but since that ones almost as cliche'd as the soft focus soft spot, vignette sepia toned insta-grimaces, I tend to avid them too!
Hi yes I am a bit clumsy so right I will get the hood and check out the revo as long as it's not to expensive but what I also missed out I saw this thing called moire and heard that a filter
Helped with this thanks and hopefully I am going to be the family photographer so portrait and landscape ta
Helped with this thanks and hopefully I am going to be the family photographer so portrait and landscape ta
Useful advise, modern cameras have it all on board, almost . . . I like the coment about 'turning nicley babling water into a milky mush', and I though it was just me . . . I'm looking forward to using my new '4k picture grab' to get some interesting stop motion shots. One has found it difficult to drop the old ways of thinking, had a couple of goes. I think finaly, I have got my head around what is avaliable and what is most suited my needs . . . ?
CJS
CJS
- Messages
- 23,648
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
Ahh right, you're talking about the filter on the sensor itself. This is an anti aliasing filter and you can't 'put one on', the sensor is either designed with it or it isn't. There's pros and cons to both. Obviously the AA filter is designed to reduce moire, but it does mean that you lose a fraction (and I mean a fraction) of sharpness and detail. Many people prefer not to AA filters as moire isn't such an issue with modern sensors and everyone is obsessed with pixel peeping and want ultimate sharpness at pixel level. Each to their own, but I wouldn't worry if the camera has an AA filter or not, most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference without pixel peeping, and technique, lens, light etc etc has so much more of an effect on sharpness anyway.
AFAIK the D5200 does have an AA filter, it's the newer D5300 that doesn't.