I like Boogeyman Marketers like you, because it's easy to use science and logic to remove your masks and expose you as frauds.
From the Author: "Some of you are cringing and expecting that I toasted my expensive lens. No such thing. After a bit of immediate field cleaning, the front element of my 14-24mm looks like new."
No. I'm not saying that, you are saying it , what I'm stating is that filters offer no protection.
There's no secret, if you have a large gash in your front element and shoot directly into light you'll get tons of flare. How likely is it to get a large gash in your front lens element under normal shooting conditions? Less than 1%, how likely that a "protective filter" will prevent it = 0%
Hello, if filters were free, your statement above may hold water, but when you're parting with $50, $70 or $100 for something that does nothing, you betcha there is a right and a wrong decision.
Well that's foolish, because you can only tell once you get home and view them in your screen, at which point you can't jump in time machine and go back to your kid's birthday celebration to retake the photos.
Not fools at all, actually quite smart, cases have been tested and there is extensive proof of their protective value
I'd like to see the filter companies run similar tests ;-)this time maybe. Would you guarantee that'll be the result every time?
Which is an incorrect statement, as proven by an inspection of any filter that's been on a hard used lens for a period of time.
Sure, if that's normal for you. Others of us carry and use our gear 24/7 in whatever conditions nature or our environment throws at us. Two weeks ago I was shooting at a dusty rodeo, today in a rainstorm. I can't remember the last time I shot in a museum ( maybe the King Tut exhibit a decade ago) or a studio.
No son, in your "real life" that may be the case.
Wrong again. if you had a filter, it would in most cases take the hit and caqn be replaced for a couple of dollars.
That's just silly. If you can't look through the viewfinder and get a fair idea of any problems then this line of work doesn't fit your pistol, son.
You said in a previous post that you only use your gear in carefully controlled and protected environments.Not fools at all, actually quite smart, cases have been tested and there is extensive proof of their protective value
I can guarantee you that filters offer zero protection
You are too funny, shooting in a dusty rodeo or in a rainstorm is not normal conditions for 99% of D-SLRS owners and if you're going to be there "24/7" you need "GEAR AND LIFE INSURANCE" not a 77mm thin piece of glass, I can't stop laughing at how ridiculous your claims for "protective" filters are.......tell me how is the glass filter keeping the water out of your entire lens and camera during the rainstorms?
Too funnyReplaced for a couple of bucks?? Ha, Ha, please post a link for all filter owners to buuy these filters for two bucks, you are a hoot!
Through your viewfinder? what are you using for filters? aluminum foil? You are indeed using two dollar filters
Listen newsbadge, instead of telling us about your fishing stories, get some scientific data, I specifically mentioned it in my post from yesterday, but convinniently you overlooked it and instead you decided to talk about............rodeos....tipical smoke screen distractions to avoid confronting the truth.
I mean this with all due respect son, but you seem to have a very narrow and pampered idea of what photography is all about and how cameras are used.You are too funny, shooting in a dusty rodeo or in a rainstorm is not normal conditions for 99% of D-SLRS owners and if you're going to be there "24/7" you need "GEAR AND LIFE INSURANCE" not a 77mm thin piece of glass, I can't stop laughing at how ridiculous your claims for "protective" filters are.......tell me how is the glass filter keeping the water out of your entire lens and camera during the rainstorms?
Newsbadge, thanks for the cute lecture, the fishing stories, rainstorms and for sharing your personal experience as a rodeo clown. That's all nice and cute, but you have yet to provide a single shred of scientific evidence to back up any protection claims, don't get me wrong your rodeo stories are cute, but fairy tales don't count as science.I mean this with all due respect son, but you seem to have a very narrow and pampered idea of what photography is all about and how cameras are used.You are too funny, shooting in a dusty rodeo or in a rainstorm is not normal conditions for 99% of D-SLRS owners and if you're going to be there "24/7" you need "GEAR AND LIFE INSURANCE" not a 77mm thin piece of glass, I can't stop laughing at how ridiculous your claims for "protective" filters are.......tell me how is the glass filter keeping the water out of your entire lens and camera during the rainstorms?
Just because you never take your camera out of a controlled environment does not mean that 99% of D-SLRS owners share your limited photographic experiences.
I'm not saying this to be "mean" son, but if you really do believe that 99 percent of dslr owners are only using their cameras to shoot trips to the museum, dinner parties, and studio work, then you're not the right person to be giving advice on the use of filters in real world photography.
That's the problem with so many of these discussions. There are too many people who simply repeat what they read somewhere, without the experience to back it up, and they end up giving bad advice to people who don't have the background to recognize the harm in it.
Again, I'm not saying this to be nasty, but this 99% of yours is just plain crazy talk.
Guess what, I can see differences
Classic pitch, the other popular pitch: "If it doesn't hurt and you can't tell the difference, just play it safe and stick a filter in it"
, zero logic, zero data, zero science, $100 please I have tested them, usually high quality Nikon filters and the difference is very obvious to my eyes, even Nikon tech support advices against filters for best IQ
is a sarcastic joke I presume for such a technical wizard as yourself?
