Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Polarisation filters. Fit and forget?

Reply
Thread Tools

Polarisation filters. Fit and forget?

 
 
fishfry
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-19-2006
In article <CTFJf.20393$(E-Mail Removed)> ,
" Luke Vader" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Just bought a 67mm circular polarisation filter for my cannon 20D. When
> shooting outside in the daytime could the filter be left on in most cases.
> Fit and forget so to speak. I know you can loose a few f stops but I
> wondered, generally if there were any instances were it might not be a good
> idea leaving it on.


For lens protection I use a Skylight. That does not cost a stop.

As others have mentioned, once you get familiar with your camera you'll
find that a stop is a terrible thing to waste. One f-stop is the
difference in low light between being able to hand-hold at at 1/15,
versus getting camera shake at 1/8.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mark˛
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-19-2006
Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> In article <43f7892c$0$18969$(E-Mail Removed)>, imbsysop
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> I agree .. this Q is like the Loch Ness monster, it keeps on
>> surfacing .. apparently people hear about it but never bother to
>> lookup nor understand anything about its working .. we'll have to
>> learn how to live with that .. eventually

>
> But my favorite stupid question remains - Why can't I have a live
> preview with my DSLR?


I find that there are far more stupid answers than there are stupid
questions.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
mark.thomas.7@gmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-19-2006
>But my favorite stupid question remains - Why can't I have a
>live preview with my DSLR?


Hmm. It seems the answer to that one is different now to what it used
to be. So perhaps it wasn't all *that* stupid?

And back on topic, how about *this* stupid addendum to the OP's
question, Randall...?

Given a typical overhead sunlit outdoor scene, can you turn a polariser
to an angle where it actually makes the image look *worse* (ie more
contrasty/'glary') than it does to the naked eye?


Think carefully before answering - the answer might have some relevance
to the original question....

 
Reply With Quote
 
˝ Confused
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-19-2006
"Mark˛" wrote:

> Randall Ainsworth wrote:
>
> > But my favorite stupid question remains - Why can't I have a live
> > preview with my DSLR?


There is no direct light path to the sensor until the viewfinder
mechanism moves out of the way. I kinda like the viewfinder... it is
what allows me to be immersed in the creativity and excitement of
taking photographs... which is what I love most about my hobby. Now
that I'm printing (and I never shot film) I will only go back to my
F717 as a backup camera.

It is an amazing thrill to have a famous stunt pilot land and do
doenuts directly in front of me (the guy in the Sparco equipped
whelchair). He opened the smoke canisters, disappeared, and headed
directly at me, stopping about 20 yards from my chair. The photos are
simply amazing, and for some reason, I had 100% trust in the pilot
that his plane would not malfunction.

> I find that there are far more stupid answers than there are stupid
> questions.


If I have a KIA 20D and really want a 96 mpix IDs Mark VII should I go
to sleep for 10 years and just not take any pictures? ;=()

Jeff
 
Reply With Quote
 
imbsysop
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-19-2006

"Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:EnVJf.97$vd2.84@fed1read04...
> Randall Ainsworth wrote:
>> In article <43f7892c$0$18969$(E-Mail Removed)>, imbsysop
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree .. this Q is like the Loch Ness monster, it keeps on
>>> surfacing .. apparently people hear about it but never bother to
>>> lookup nor understand anything about its working .. we'll have to
>>> learn how to live with that .. eventually

>>
>> But my favorite stupid question remains - Why can't I have a live
>> preview with my DSLR?

>
> I find that there are far more stupid answers than there are stupid
> questions.


if people realised that "google" is alive and kicking (just to name one, and
skipping all the archives of photo discussion forums!) there would be tons &
tons less of stupid questions .. probably a lot of people can't even read ?
I guess so ..
lazyness as a virtue these days ..


 
Reply With Quote
 
Luke Vader
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-19-2006
>> It was a stupid question that gets asked here a lot.
>
> It wasn't an informed question, but it wasn't a stupid question.
> It was simply a question asked by someone who didn't understand, and
> needed an answer.
>


This is the problem with newsgroups generally. It's a bit of a free for all.
I didn't realise it was a common question plus I'd take onboard that yes, it
was perhaps a lazy. I should of 'googled' it before posting.
It's hard to gauge the level of ability of the hardcore users of a group who
tire of such questions. Theres no FAQ to read like forums you subscribe to
such as http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/ as an example.

Thanks for the many replies and support. At least I've learned two important
things today.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill Funk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-19-2006
On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 15:41:07 -0500, Larry Lynch
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article <aHKJf.19857$(E-Mail Removed)> ,
>(E-Mail Removed) says...
>>
>> "Randall Ainsworth" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:180220060925376213%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>>
>> > I guess it's OK if you like throwing away about a stop and a half all
>> > the time. You might want to learn about photography before making
>> > stupid statements though.

>>
>> I'm sorry. Didn't realise you were the administrator of this forum. Do I
>> have to have a certain level of competence in photography to dare ask a
>> question. Yes, I hope to learn more about photography, but not from people
>> like you.
>> Maybe you need to learn some manners.
>>
>>
>>

>
>CP filters cut out a LOT of light, and should only be on the camera when
>you have a need for it.
>
>On the other hand a LOT of people put a UV or "skylight" filter on and
>leave it all the time "to protect the lens" they say...
>
>I simply make sure my Homeowners policy covers accidental damage of
>"personal belongings" (cost about $13 a year for that). Instead of
>putting a 50 or 100 dollar filter on the front of a lens that was
>designed to work quite well without it! The lens MIGHT cost $2000 or
>more, the filter isnt helping unless its NEEDED.
>
>Larry Lynch
>Mystic, CT


Insurance is wonderful - AFTER damage has occured.
I'd rather prevent the damage, especially after I think about it, and
realize that I can continue shooting if I avoid the damage.
As for the NEEDED part, well, I guess NEED is in the eye of the user.
In a studio, a filter isn't needed. Shooting where there are a lot of
people around, they can be a necessity. I'd much rather clean a UV
filter of food smears than my new $500+ lens. (And, yes, it happened
yesterday at the Rennaisance Festival; kids are very unpredictable,
and far to seldom under the control of their parents. I *did* manage
to not ghet hit by a wooden sword, though. )
At any rate, if you feel you shouldn't use a filter, fine; don't. But
telling others they shouldn't ignores the fact that not everyone is in
your situation.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
Reply With Quote
 
˝ Confused
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-19-2006
"imbsysop" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> if people realised that "google" is alive and kicking (just to name one, and
> skipping all the archives of photo discussion forums!) there would be tons &
> tons less of stupid questions .. probably a lot of people can't even read ?
> I guess so ..
> lazyness as a virtue these days ..


I especially dislike people too lazy to assist people seeking answers
in a time when "google" is now a verb. Finding answers to straight
forward questions is often impossible (unless one has days to read
drivel to find the actual answer). And, it is often necessary to get
an up-to-date accurate answer; one from people one knows to have good
information in their heads and an ability to communicate.

Jeff
 
Reply With Quote
 
imbsysop
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-19-2006

"˝ Confused" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "imbsysop" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> if people realised that "google" is alive and kicking (just to name one,
>> and
>> skipping all the archives of photo discussion forums!) there would be
>> tons &
>> tons less of stupid questions .. probably a lot of people can't even read
>> ?
>> I guess so ..
>> lazyness as a virtue these days ..

>
> I especially dislike people too lazy to assist people seeking answers
> in a time when "google" is now a verb. Finding answers to straight
> forward questions is often impossible (unless one has days to read
> drivel to find the actual answer). ..


Dude, I've been on usenet maybe longer than you have lived .. If I had
gotten 1 cent for all the Q's where the answer was listed just 3 postings
before the Q, I would be stinking rich by now .. just to demonstrate the
egocentricity .. 70% of the Q's here are redundant ..


 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark˛
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-19-2006
imbsysop wrote:
> "˝ Confused" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> "imbsysop" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> if people realised that "google" is alive and kicking (just to name
>>> one, and
>>> skipping all the archives of photo discussion forums!) there would
>>> be tons &
>>> tons less of stupid questions .. probably a lot of people can't
>>> even read ?
>>> I guess so ..
>>> lazyness as a virtue these days ..

>>
>> I especially dislike people too lazy to assist people seeking answers
>> in a time when "google" is now a verb. Finding answers to straight
>> forward questions is often impossible (unless one has days to read
>> drivel to find the actual answer). ..

>
> Dude, I've been on usenet maybe longer than you have lived .. If I had
> gotten 1 cent for all the Q's where the answer was listed just 3
> postings before the Q, I would be stinking rich by now .. just to
> demonstrate the egocentricity .. 70% of the Q's here are redundant ..


Right. But that isn't true in this case.
Also...
-Many people who ask these questions are just as unfamiliar with usenet as
they are unfamiliar with their gear. This means that it's a very large
assumption that they even know how to search for previous posts.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
jython how to use Fit and Fitnesse Mark Fink Python 0 01-26-2006 06:07 PM
What Lenses Will Fit On Canon Digital Rebel and 20D? Martin Digital Photography 8 08-30-2005 04:28 AM
Re: CF cards: Fit, finish, and ERRORS Frank ess Digital Photography 2 01-20-2005 05:00 PM
Internet Explorer, Google and printing doesn't fit? Bill Smith Computer Support 2 09-14-2004 01:12 AM
Make wxListCtrl fit around contents and parent frame fit around listctrl Piet Python 0 07-18-2004 08:27 AM



Advertisments