«

I see posts on occasion here in rpd about someone buying a UV lens for
their digital cameras. I have a CoolPix 990, and I'm not really up on
digital issue -- is there a reason to have a UV filter on a digital camera?
I'm used to the discussion over usefulness having to do with film, so does
the same apply to CCDs. Or are people buying for lens protection?
--
Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip@
http://www.PhilipStripling.com/ | my domain is read daily.

Hello, Phil!
You wrote on 19 Jan 2004 15:35:21 -0800:

The UV is frequently used as a protection (Cheap to replace) lens, to
protect the (very expensive to replace), front camera optical lens.

PS> I see posts on occasion here in rpd about someone buying a UV lens for
PS> their digital cameras. I have a CoolPix 990, and I'm not really up on
PS> digital issue -- is there a reason to have a UV filter on a digital
PS> camera? I'm used to the discussion over usefulness having to do with
PS> film, so does the same apply to CCDs. Or are people buying for lens
PS> protection? --
PS> Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is
PS> presumed Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email
PS> to philip@ http://www.PhilipStripling.com/ | my domain is read daily.

With best regards, Hogleg44/40.

On 19 Jan 2004 15:35:21 -0800, Phil Stripling
<> wrote:

>I see posts on occasion here in rpd about someone buying a UV lens for
>their digital cameras. I have a CoolPix 990, and I'm not really up on
>digital issue -- is there a reason to have a UV filter on a digital camera?
>I'm used to the discussion over usefulness having to do with film, so does
>the same apply to CCDs. Or are people buying for lens protection?

On the 990, it's a good idea to have some kind of easy-to-clean
protective "filter" screwed on, just so long as it doesn't vignette at
the WA setting or interferes with the viewfinder etc. One problem
with these is that with the short FL involved, the least bit of debris
or tiny droplet on its surface will raise hell with the image,
requiring frequent attention with a cleaning cloth.

There is no advantage to using a "UV" filter with digital cameras,
apart from their protection of the front element. They do little to
block UV in any case, and for silicon CCDs there is only a very weak
response to near UV that has never been shown to benefit from such
filters. I use strong haze filters when photographing fluorescent
specimens under intense ambient UV lighting, but this is an extreme
situation.

The Foveon Chip need it as the sky looks too blue.
Its very sensitive to UV.



"KBob" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On 19 Jan 2004 15:35:21 -0800, Phil Stripling
> <> wrote:
>
> >I see posts on occasion here in rpd about someone buying a UV lens for
> >their digital cameras. I have a CoolPix 990, and I'm not really up on
> >digital issue -- is there a reason to have a UV filter on a digital
camera?
> >I'm used to the discussion over usefulness having to do with film, so
does
> >the same apply to CCDs. Or are people buying for lens protection?
>
> On the 990, it's a good idea to have some kind of easy-to-clean
> protective "filter" screwed on, just so long as it doesn't vignette at
> the WA setting or interferes with the viewfinder etc. One problem
> with these is that with the short FL involved, the least bit of debris
> or tiny droplet on its surface will raise hell with the image,
> requiring frequent attention with a cleaning cloth.
>
> There is no advantage to using a "UV" filter with digital cameras,
> apart from their protection of the front element. They do little to
> block UV in any case, and for silicon CCDs there is only a very weak
> response to near UV that has never been shown to benefit from such
> filters. I use strong haze filters when photographing fluorescent
> specimens under intense ambient UV lighting, but this is an extreme
> situation.

On 2004-01-20, KBob <> wrote:
> There is no advantage to using a "UV" filter with digital cameras,
> apart from their protection of the front element. They do little to
> block UV in any case, and for silicon CCDs there is only a very weak
> response to near UV that has never been shown to benefit from such
> filters. I use strong haze filters when photographing fluorescent
> specimens under intense ambient UV lighting, but this is an extreme
> situation.

How much UV light will go through the glass in the lenses anyway ?
Plain glass stops 99,5% UVA + UVB light.

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:19:12 GMT, "CBM" <> wrote:

>The Foveon Chip need it as the sky looks too blue.
> Its very sensitive to UV.
>
>
This is interesting, since the Kodak 14n also shows surprising
sensitivity to UV (no microlens filter), and I'm wondering if this may
have something to do with the reddish cast that some claim it has.
It's the first camera I've tested that didn't require 30 second
exposure times to get anything useful. I tested this with a Rolyn
360nm UV pass filter stacked with an IR hot mirror, so I'm sure it's
UV.

On the other (and generally more useful) end, it evidently fails in
the IR department--while there is plenty of sensitivity (even with a
900nm filter), the image is unusable do to strange flaring effects
and a center "hot spot" that I'm unable to identify the cause of, and
the same problem exists both with 720nm and 900nm filters.

Found the discussion in a SD9 review from having the blue sky problem, and
he was told from the Foveon guys to try a UV filter to help out. As the
reviewer said it would seem like the chip maker would have incorporated it
into the chip itself.

Found here
www.dpreview.com/



"Povl H. Pedersen" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On 2004-01-20, KBob <> wrote:
> > There is no advantage to using a "UV" filter with digital cameras,
> > apart from their protection of the front element. They do little to
> > block UV in any case, and for silicon CCDs there is only a very weak
> > response to near UV that has never been shown to benefit from such
> > filters. I use strong haze filters when photographing fluorescent
> > specimens under intense ambient UV lighting, but this is an extreme
> > situation.
>
> How much UV light will go through the glass in the lenses anyway ?
> Plain glass stops 99,5% UVA + UVB light.