UZI vignettes in total wide mode, with no filters?

[Atlanta-Mike]

Thanks Mike S, I will take a photo of the wall without the flash tonight and see if I get different results. I was wondering if it could have something to do with the flash since I have not seen this in any of my other photos.

Mike H

Tery

It looks like the flash fall off patterns I see on various tests on
the net I cant remember if it was here or at Steve's. And MOST
digicams with built in flash exhibit this at wider angles.

As far as the filter stacjking thae point i have been trying to
make is that you want to use as few extra glass surfaces as
possible because of all the various problems that can occur. And
that id not just on UZIs or even on digicams but on all cameras

 

[John R.]

I thought it was slightly weird to see
vignetting on the corners at full wide angle,
with just step up ring(49-52) and UV filter,
so I started testing.
(vignettes very slightly though. no hard black areas
just slightly dark.)

So, i did an experiment. I shot at
white walls. Full wide angle.

-with Stepupring + uv filter -> slight vignetting.

• -:- +skylight filter -> slight vignetting.
• -:- +CPL -> slight vignetting
• -:- + UV + CPL -> noticeable vignetting.

-without anything. -> no vignetting.

so, do any of you guys have the same problem?

-for those using step up+UV -> do you have the same problem?
-for those using 49mm filters -> do you have any slight vignetting?

--
Jay,
Norway.

Hello Jay, ALWAYS use filter particularly that are of the same size as your lens threads. Sometimes, with tele and WA converters this is not possible due to availability. However, if you want to use WA on your c2100, get the Olympus A28 which has 49mm threads and exhibits NO vignetting with use at full wide. John R.

 

[Jay49332]

Hello Mike

Many mikes on this thread!
Anyway, I am curious how your results turned out to be...
can u inform us?

I just did a test on a white wall, using flash and not flash
and I seem to get that slight vignetting even without the filters
or the stepup right - shows very slight vignetting at neutral
condition. Weird.

looking forward to your reply

jAy

Mike H

Tery

It looks like the flash fall off patterns I see on various tests on
the net I cant remember if it was here or at Steve's. And MOST
digicams with built in flash exhibit this at wider angles.

As far as the filter stacjking thae point i have been trying to
make is that you want to use as few extra glass surfaces as
possible because of all the various problems that can occur. And
that id not just on UZIs or even on digicams but on all cameras

--Jay,Norway.

 

[Jay49332]

anyway, i also think that its weird
since I've read many posts telling us that
using 52mm filters and stacking upto 3 filters
produce no vignetting.(kind of exaggerating here, but oh well

However I just tested again, and i think I even get a vignetting
without anything(SU-ring, filters).(no flash)
But not a major one. VERY blurry slight vignetting..

the second time, I used flash and I only got a SLIGHT vignetting
on NW corner....

I am kind of lost what to do here actually.
Keep the 52mm? go to 55mm? or go back to 49mm?

(I was planning to get a wide angle lens soon BTW - raynox 6600)

anyway, please help this poor lost dog!

regards,
jAy

Funny that you mention that, because i brought that up in another
thread and one angry C2100 user said he never have vigneting with
the UV filter on, and he says he can even stack UV and PL and never
get vigneting..i think he was lying

Anyway, he was really frustrated that i even mention this, so be
careful..he might get on your back for saying the truth LOL

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1008&message=1862488

I am surprised that you have vigneting even with the step up ring
though.--Jay,Norway.

 

[Brian_H]

Jay,

I just did the same test and my UZI does the same thing, with and
without my Tiffen UV/haze 49mm filter. I could not see ANY
difference with and without the filter.

Jim

Jim,

Same here. I have a thin Heliopan 49mm UV filter. I can't tell the difference between the shots (comparing with and without filter) - there is noticable vignetting in both. Happens with and without flash, so it is not simply flash falloff.

I also zoomed in about 2.7x and still see some vignetting, but not as bad as wide angle.

I thought I'd noticed this in some shots with a lot of blue sky but I ignored it. Frankly, for me, it is minor enough to overlook.
---Brian http://www.hillegass.net

 

[Daniella68313]

That,s not flash falloff flash does not have such sharp edge..that look like vigneting to me...

The light from the flash is spreading out evenly and does not produce an edge, at least not on the C700, it fade out very softly so you don't realy notice it.

And look what happen after I applied Autolevels in Photoshop;



I was about 5 or 6 feet from the wall and had the flash on. Also,
I have a UV filter that I leave on the lens. Although the EXIF
data says I was at 39mm, I was wide open, which I thought was 38mm??

Mike H

I thought it was slightly weird to see
vignetting on the corners at full wide angle,
with just step up ring(49-52) and UV filter,
so I started testing.
(vignettes very slightly though. no hard black areas
just slightly dark.)

So, i did an experiment. I shot at
white walls. Full wide angle.

-with Stepupring + uv filter -> slight vignetting.

• -:- +skylight filter -> slight vignetting.
• -:- +CPL -> slight vignetting
• -:- + UV + CPL -> noticeable vignetting.

-without anything. -> no vignetting.

so, do any of you guys have the same problem?

-for those using step up+UV -> do you have the same problem?
-for those using 49mm filters -> do you have any slight vignetting?

--
Jay,
Norway.

--Daniella http://www.pbase.com/zylenC7OO discussion group: http://www.homepet.com/cgi-bin/c700/UltraBoard.cgi

 

[Daniella68313]

Whatever

I don't think it has anything to do with cheap Ritz filters...has i
am using only cheap filters and i don,t have any vigneting..i think
its combinaison of the C2100 lens and filters. May be its just too
long to handle filters right. I know Olympus designed the C700
very differently and it was probably to avoid vigneting.

At first i thought it was strange that they would design the camera
with the outer tube wider than the lens...now i understand the
idea... NO vigneting even when stacking UV and 2 closeup filters.
NO vigneting when stacking UV and PL, all this at full wide angle.

If you have this with of without the filters, i would think its the
camera lens that is designed that way.

See how you pounce on anything negative about the 2100 in order to
promote the C700? You're even stretching things a bit by suggesting
Olympus redesigned the C700 specifically because of this largely
unknown "problem". More likely, the C700's design resulted in cost
cutting measures and product realignment.

--Daniella http://www.pbase.com/zylenC7OO discussion group: http://www.homepet.com/cgi-bin/c700/UltraBoard.cgi

 

[Daniella68313]

Yes that's why i always leave my UV on, when even i use my close up lenses or the Polarizer. And well....i did another test! beleive it or not...

and the quality of the picture is the exact same with the UV or without, same thing while using the UV plus PL or just the PL alone..no way to see a difference and of course, no vigneting..i tried it on a blue sky.

So i guess i'll keep my UV on and save my lens from scratch and my filter thread from being damaged by screwing, unscrewing.

I got my uzi about a week ago and on a couple shots at full wide i
had some very minor vignetting in the upper right hand corner with
a skylight......im using quantaray filters and when i tried to
stack a polarizer on top of the skylight the vignetting became so
bad i just deleted the pics instead of getting knee deep in some
cropping, but of course that had to do with these cheap ritz
filters.......

--Daniella http://www.pbase.com/zylenC7OO discussion group: http://www.homepet.com/cgi-bin/c700/UltraBoard.cgi

 

[Daniella68313]

yea but you see..i was'nt talking about you.... I was talking about you being not happy about me mentioning the vigneting problem of the C2100, because i was supposably degrading the camera..such power i have

As for the lying part..that was also a joke and was not refering to you anyway, look at the sign.

Funny that you mention that, because i brought that up in another
thread and one angry C2100 user said he never have vigneting with
the UV filter on, and he says he can even stack UV and PL and never
get vigneting..i think he was lying

Apparently it is YOU who has trouble with the TRUTH, Daniella. I
never said that I never had vignetting with stacked filters on
the 2100 because I don't do that and never have done so with the
2100. Even in the message link YOU provided, I never made the
statement YOU said I did. I'm offended that you misrepresent me in
such a way.

Anyway, he was really frustrated that i even mention this, so be
careful..he might get on your back for saying the truth LOL

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1008&message=1862488

--Daniella http://www.pbase.com/zylenC7OO discussion group: http://www.homepet.com/cgi-bin/c700/UltraBoard.cgi

 

[Daniella68313]

I don't know, but look at my sample macro with UV, +2 and +4 lenses attached...if you see vigneting..tell me.

http://www.pbase.com/image/649844/original

this was shooted at 2" distance, with 3 normal thick filters.

Maybe that's because the lens of the C2100 is longer, not sure why.

I had this problem with my Minolta film SLR..i am happy not to have this anymore.

anyway, i also think that its weird
since I've read many posts telling us that
using 52mm filters and stacking upto 3 filters
produce no vignetting.(kind of exaggerating here, but oh well

However I just tested again, and i think I even get a vignetting
without anything(SU-ring, filters).(no flash)
But not a major one. VERY blurry slight vignetting..

the second time, I used flash and I only got a SLIGHT vignetting
on NW corner....

I am kind of lost what to do here actually.
Keep the 52mm? go to 55mm? or go back to 49mm?

(I was planning to get a wide angle lens soon BTW - raynox 6600)

anyway, please help this poor lost dog!

regards,
jAy

Funny that you mention that, because i brought that up in another
thread and one angry C2100 user said he never have vigneting with
the UV filter on, and he says he can even stack UV and PL and never
get vigneting..i think he was lying

Anyway, he was really frustrated that i even mention this, so be
careful..he might get on your back for saying the truth LOL

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1008&message=1862488

I am surprised that you have vigneting even with the step up ring
though.

--
Jay,
Norway.

--Daniella http://www.pbase.com/zylenC7OO discussion group: http://www.homepet.com/cgi-bin/c700/UltraBoard.cgi

 

[Russ Yost]

Flash illumination is not necessarily "even" out to the corners. One must make sure the subject and illumination are not a source of "vignetting".

And look what happen after I applied Autolevels in Photoshop;



I was about 5 or 6 feet from the wall and had the flash on. Also,
I have a UV filter that I leave on the lens. Although the EXIF
data says I was at 39mm, I was wide open, which I thought was 38mm??

Mike H

I thought it was slightly weird to see
vignetting on the corners at full wide angle,
with just step up ring(49-52) and UV filter,
so I started testing.
(vignettes very slightly though. no hard black areas
just slightly dark.)

So, i did an experiment. I shot at
white walls. Full wide angle.

-with Stepupring + uv filter -> slight vignetting.

• -:- +skylight filter -> slight vignetting.
• -:- +CPL -> slight vignetting
• -:- + UV + CPL -> noticeable vignetting.

-without anything. -> no vignetting.

so, do any of you guys have the same problem?

-for those using step up+UV -> do you have the same problem?
-for those using 49mm filters -> do you have any slight vignetting?

--
Jay,
Norway.

--Russell

 

[Terry Thorn]

So i guess i'll keep my UV on and save my lens from scratch and my
filter thread from being damaged by screwing, unscrewing.

Do you leave the extension tube on your C700 on all the time? If you do, your C700 isn't much smaller than the 2100 and if you don't, you're placing wear and tear on those flimsy lens barrel threads.

 

[Terry Thorn]

Flash illumination is not necessarily "even" out to the corners.
One must make sure the subject and illumination are not a source of
"vignetting".

I did a test shot of my white wall yesterday at full wide angle with no filters and it didn't look NEARLY this bad on the camera's LCD. I didn't have the time to even turn on my computer yesterday after I got home but maybe I can do so today and examine it more closely.

 

[Terry Thorn]

yea but you see..i was'nt talking about you.... I was talking
about you being not happy about me mentioning the vigneting problem
of the C2100, because i was supposably degrading the camera..such
power i have

As for the lying part..that was also a joke and was not refering to
you anyway, look at the sign.

I don't buy it... I think you're lying AGAIN

 

[Daniella68313]

yes i leave it on all the time and yes it is smaller still app. 2" shorter lens and it is also smaller in all other dimensions. Also lighter. I had both so i know. Had the C2100 from time to time from my compay..anyway, you don,t know because you did not compare them side by side.

Also your idea of size seam to be different from mine. Ok to make a long story short..it is smaller. it is 4.1" with adapter tube and UV filter on. c2100 is 5.6" plus UV.

i don't remove the UV at all, it is to protect my precious lens.

so far, no problem, no vigneting nor distortion.

I will not screw and unscrew the filter...too much trouble

So i guess i'll keep my UV on and save my lens from scratch and my
filter thread from being damaged by screwing, unscrewing.

Do you leave the extension tube on your C700 on all the time? If
you do, your C700 isn't much smaller than the 2100 and if you
don't, you're placing wear and tear on those flimsy lens barrel
threads.

--Daniella http://www.pbase.com/zylenC7OO discussion group: http://www.homepet.com/cgi-bin/c700/UltraBoard.cgi

 

[Daniella68313]

sure

I don't buy it... I think you're lying AGAIN

--Daniella http://www.pbase.com/zylenC7OO discussion group: http://www.homepet.com/cgi-bin/c700/UltraBoard.cgi

 

[Terry Thorn]

yes i leave it on all the time and yes it is smaller still app. 2"
shorter lens
Also your idea of size seam to be different from mine. Ok to make
a long story short..it is smaller. it is 4.1" with adapter tube and
UV filter on. c2100 is 5.6" plus UV.

Let's see...hmmm 5.6 - 4.1 = 1.5" not 2". Like I said before, you DO like to exaggerate. I'd be concerned that the extension tube would snap off. It doesn't seem to be attached all that well to me to leave it on all the time.

i don't remove the UV at all, it is to protect my precious lens.
so far, no problem, no vigneting nor distortion.
I will not screw and unscrew the filter...too much trouble

 

[Daniella68313]

5.6" plus UV filter, how does that make? not sure but its near 2"

I did not mesure the lenght of the c2100 with the filter on because i did not had one for it.

For me its a big difference, also in weight. I spent 1000$ on my mountain bike just to remove 1/2 pound...will not put it back by carrying more weight that i need. But thats me.

and i don't exagerate, as you could read in this post, more than 2 c2100 users have vigneting problem.

You must have a special c2100 if you don' t have vigneting.

yes i leave it on all the time and yes it is smaller still app. 2"
shorter lens
Also your idea of size seam to be different from mine. Ok to make
a long story short..it is smaller. it is 4.1" with adapter tube and
UV filter on. c2100 is 5.6" plus UV.

Let's see...hmmm 5.6 - 4.1 = 1.5" not 2". Like I said before, you
DO like to exaggerate. I'd be concerned that the extension tube
would snap off. It doesn't seem to be attached all that well to me
to leave it on all the time.

i don't remove the UV at all, it is to protect my precious lens.
so far, no problem, no vigneting nor distortion.
I will not screw and unscrew the filter...too much trouble

--Daniella http://www.pbase.com/zylenC7OO discussion group: http://www.homepet.com/cgi-bin/c700/UltraBoard.cgi

 

[Tal]

Hey there,

I noticed vinetting in my shots before. I thought it was because I was stacking a UV filter and a polarizer because that was when I noticed it. But I just did a quick test of a textured wall at about 3 ft distasnce with no flash and no filters. I did detect a very small amount of vinetting. In a typical shot, this amount of vinetting would be very hard to detect.

It bugs me but it isn't so bad that I wouldn't trust this camera to take pictures, evidenced by my taking hundreds of pictures and not noticing it.

Tal

http://www.pbase.com/image/649844/original

this was shooted at 2" distance, with 3 normal thick filters.

Maybe that's because the lens of the C2100 is longer, not sure why.

I had this problem with my Minolta film SLR..i am happy not to have
this anymore.

anyway, i also think that its weird
since I've read many posts telling us that
using 52mm filters and stacking upto 3 filters
produce no vignetting.(kind of exaggerating here, but oh well

However I just tested again, and i think I even get a vignetting
without anything(SU-ring, filters).(no flash)
But not a major one. VERY blurry slight vignetting..

the second time, I used flash and I only got a SLIGHT vignetting
on NW corner....

I am kind of lost what to do here actually.
Keep the 52mm? go to 55mm? or go back to 49mm?

(I was planning to get a wide angle lens soon BTW - raynox 6600)

anyway, please help this poor lost dog!

regards,
jAy

Funny that you mention that, because i brought that up in another
thread and one angry C2100 user said he never have vigneting with
the UV filter on, and he says he can even stack UV and PL and never
get vigneting..i think he was lying

Anyway, he was really frustrated that i even mention this, so be
careful..he might get on your back for saying the truth LOL

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1008&message=1862488

I am surprised that you have vigneting even with the step up ring
though.

--
Jay,
Norway.

--
Daniella
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
C7OO discussion group:
http://www.homepet.com/cgi-bin/c700/UltraBoard.cgi

 

[Terry Thorn]

5.6" plus UV filter, how does that make? not sure but its near 2"

It's also near 1". Your claim was 1.5" difference but you EXAGGERATED it to 2". It could have been called about 1" difference just as easily.

I did not mesure the lenght of the c2100 with the filter on because
i did not had one for it.

Shucks.

For me its a big difference, also in weight. I spent 1000$ on my
mountain bike just to remove 1/2 pound...will not put it back by
carrying more weight that i need. But thats me.

I'm apparently not as wealthy as you. I've got to put groceries in layaway.

and i don't exagerate, as you could read in this post, more than 2
c2100 users have vigneting problem.

If you could read AND comprehend, the "exaggeration" I was referring to was the size difference. See the actual text below. Besides, at the time of your initial post about the vignetting (NOT this thread), there were only TWO people in the thread YOU provided a link for but you called it "LOTS of people". I agree that more people are citing this "problem" now that attention has been drawn to it. For some, it's a problem, for others, a minor nuisance, and for you, ammo.

You must have a special c2100 if you don' t have vigneting.

And you must have a special C700 if you can take handheld shots at full zoom at 1/10'. I don't know if my C2100 would have vignetting or not as I don't stack filters and never have so it's a moot point in my case.

Let's see...hmmm 5.6 - 4.1 = 1.5" not 2". Like I said before, you
DO like to exaggerate. I'd be concerned that the extension tube
would snap off. It doesn't seem to be attached all that well to me
to leave it on all the time.