UV filters, unscientific test

Started 7 months ago | Discussions thread
robgendreau Veteran Member • Posts: 9,344
Re: It does flare.

Michael Fryd wrote:

robgendreau wrote:

There is some antipathy towards the use of UV lens filters for sure. I tend to agree.

There are strong feelings both for and agains the use of "protective" filters.

Digital cameras, have built-in UV filtering, so the only use is for "protection".

But UV filters are necessary; most every OEM camera has them, just on the sensor instead.

Unlike film, digital sensors have a mirror like surface. A flat glass element (such as a filter) that is parallel to the sensor can set up an infinity mirror effect. This isn't an issue when the filter is attached to the sensor.

I wonder if one mounted on the lens is more likely to degrade an image than one mounted on the sensor or behind the lens (in a filter holder, or a clip filter). I have cameras with no UV filters at all, but don't have the patience to try it.

With a modern digital camera, there is no need for a UV filter behind the lens.

I ask because as noted my cameras have no hot mirror filter, being converted. So I do need to use UV filters (either behind the lens or in front of it) when I use to take visible light photos. Nice tip about the infinity mirror though; hadn't thought of that. I haven't experienced any distortion with the behind the lens filters I've already used (like on UWAs that allow for that).

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow