Reading mode: Light Dark

Use a protective filter routinely? Why not get ....

Go to last post
D

Dayo

Veteran Member
Messages
2,837
Reaction score
1
Location
NT
.....something like this as well??

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home ;jsessionid=FLFnFq8xKX!1363174924?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=465475&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

Fact is that your camera body is just as likely to get hit by a falling meteorite out of the sky. Be consistent.

--
.
http://dakanji.com

'I make statements based on fact not predictions.'
KMSEA: 12:33:17 PM, Saturday, November 12, 2005 (GMT)
 
Dayo,

Hmm, methinks you are anti-filter, eh? Well, I'll counter that something as benign as a splashed water drop or finger print can ruin a photo or reduce resale value of a good lens by $100s of dollars. I wouldn't be so worried about fingerprints on my 5D. In fact, I'm so cavalier that I ROUTINELY put my whole HAND around it! Careless, I know... ;-)

Cool kit, though.

Greg
 
Could be handy when taking inside pictures of a mosh pit or when shooting in a squash court.

For 1200 pounds it might be sensible. No insurance company will insure your camera in situations like stated above.

Konicalta Minolta Dynax 5D, KM18-70, Sigma 70-300 APO
 
Hmm do they make one for the 5D/Alpha? This would be great for my backpacking/rockclimbing etc. I still don't use protective filters though.

--
'I reject your reality and substitute my own' -Adam Savage
 
Are you kidding?! I see the obvious humor, but do you not use a filter on your lenses for protective value?

Routine cleaning of the front element may lead to minor scatches, out in the field not having a lens tissue may lead to other than ideal cleaning methods. It's far easier to clean or replace a filter than to ruin or mar a lens.
Try selling a lens with a scratched, although minor, front element.
 
RonnieJ said:
Are you kidding?! I see the obvious humor, but do you not use a
filter on your lenses for protective value?
Routine cleaning of the front element may lead to minor scatches,
out in the field not having a lens tissue may lead to other than
ideal cleaning methods. It's far easier to clean or replace a
filter than to ruin or mar a lens.
Try selling a lens with a scratched, although minor, front element.
Click to expand...
I would only consider high quality multi-coated filters such as those from Hoya, otherwise I'd rather jump off a cliff.

--
'I reject your reality and substitute my own' -Adam Savage
 
I don't see the harm of using a good quality skylight/UV filter and please spare me the argument of keeping photos as natural as possible because that's b*ll*cks.

Konicalta Minolta Dynax 5D, KM18-70, Sigma 70-300 APO
 
That's very cool! That would be very useful for me when I'm off road. My 7D usually sits on the console or in the passenger's lap or on the passenger seat if I'm by myself. Generally, though, its on the console since navigating is kind of hard while crawling over rocks and trying to hold a 7D with a Sigma 135-400 in your lap.

That would afford my camera some protection since I still haven't found a decent way to 'seat belt' it in so that it doesn't bounce and slide around and I still have access to all the vehicle controls.

Edward
 
It's a moot point sionce they apparently don't make it for the KM 5D/7D/A-100
 
Gregory King said:
Dayo,
Click to expand...
{Snip}
Gregory King said:
something as benign as a splashed water drop or finger print can
ruin a photo or reduce resale value of a good lens by $100s of
dollars.
Click to expand...
{Snip}

The answer to all such worries is here

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=416538&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

Afterall, "protective" filters started off as being designed to do a specific photographic job on UV rays before some made guy figured out there was more money to be made in the protection racket.

Nothing stopping underwater housing being rebranded as protectve housing. :- )

--
http://dakanji.com

'I make statements based on fact not predictions.'
KMSEA: 12:33:17 PM, Saturday, November 12, 2005 (GMT)
 
Yeaaaah, right. And I'm sure that plastic front housing in front of the lens is MUCH more optically perfect than a $13 filter...and only costs 100 times as much.
 
Ha, I knew that was coming. ;-) Won't it be great when we achieve nuclear fusion and then all that money going to the sand countries will dry up and they'll have nothing to fund their corruption? Then it'll really be fun watching them beat eachother up with rocks and sticks.

Greg
 
Since B&H doesn't list this product for KM, it is a moot point. I have used filters since 1976 and have not seen a problem with a picture from using one yet. You seem to be dead set against using a filter for lens protection, so that's your choice. Consider this:

http://www.planetneil.com/faq/filters.html
 
Dayo said:
Fact is that your camera body is just as likely to get hit by a
falling meteorite out of the sky. Be consistent.
Click to expand...
It's not falling meteorites that you have to worry about with a lens. The filter protects the lens from that Dodo in front of the lens with his lens cleaning rag. A few scratches on the camera body won't be a problem, damage from lens cleaning will be a problem.

Walt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top