Linear vs. Circular Polarizer ?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Dave, Dec 9, 2003.

  1. Dave

    Dave Guest

    Doesn't a linear polarizer have greater usefulness than a circular one
    if the camera itself (internal beamsplitter) is not an issue? Has
    anyone compiled a list of cameras that really need to use only
    circular polarizers?
     
    Dave, Dec 9, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Dave

    Bob Salomon Guest

    In article <>,
    (Dave) wrote:

    > Doesn't a linear polarizer have greater usefulness than a circular one
    > if the camera itself (internal beamsplitter) is not an issue? Has
    > anyone compiled a list of cameras that really need to use only
    > circular polarizers?


    Any camera can use a circular polarizer. Any camera using a beam
    splitter in the light path for metering, focus or the viewfinder display
    should not use a linear polarizer.

    So if you want one polarizer to work under all lighting conditions with
    any type of camera or lens it is the circular polarizer.

    Since both types use the same polarizing foil your premise is incorrect.
    The difference between them is the addition of the quarter wave plate
    behind the foil in the circular. Otherwise they are identical.

    --
    To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
     
    Bob Salomon, Dec 9, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Dave

    Jim Townsend Guest

    Dave wrote:

    > Doesn't a linear polarizer have greater usefulness than a circular one
    > if the camera itself (internal beamsplitter) is not an issue? Has
    > anyone compiled a list of cameras that really need to use only
    > circular polarizers?


    There is no difference in the effect produced by linear and circular
    polarizers.. For all intents and purposes, they both do the same thing.

    I know of no list of recommended polarizers by camera.
     
    Jim Townsend, Dec 9, 2003
    #3
  4. Dave

    Dave Guest

    Bob Salomon <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > In article <>,
    > (Dave) wrote:
    >
    > > Doesn't a linear polarizer have greater usefulness than a circular one
    > > if the camera itself (internal beamsplitter) is not an issue? Has
    > > anyone compiled a list of cameras that really need to use only
    > > circular polarizers?

    >
    > Any camera can use a circular polarizer. Any camera using a beam
    > splitter in the light path for metering, focus or the viewfinder display
    > should not use a linear polarizer.
    >
    > So if you want one polarizer to work under all lighting conditions with
    > any type of camera or lens it is the circular polarizer.
    >
    > Since both types use the same polarizing foil your premise is incorrect.
    > The difference between them is the addition of the quarter wave plate
    > behind the foil in the circular. Otherwise they are identical.


    Oh, so you're saying they are both functionally identical as far as a
    user can see? They both accept incident light according to its linear
    polarization and are manually rotated by the user for maximum
    effectiveness?
     
    Dave, Dec 9, 2003
    #4
  5. Jim Townsend <> writes:

    > Dave wrote:
    >
    > > Doesn't a linear polarizer have greater usefulness than a circular one
    > > if the camera itself (internal beamsplitter) is not an issue? Has
    > > anyone compiled a list of cameras that really need to use only
    > > circular polarizers?

    >
    > There is no difference in the effect produced by linear and circular
    > polarizers.. For all intents and purposes, they both do the same thing.


    One place that I've read that it makes a difference is if you make a variable
    polarizer by stacking two polarizers, the one closest to the camera should be a
    linear polarizer. Of course you would need to have a really bright day to use
    two polarizers.

    Another difference is filter manufacturers only make circular polarizers
    multi-coated (if you are willing to pay the price for a MC polarizer).

    --
    Michael Meissner
    email:
    http://www.the-meissners.org
     
    Michael Meissner, Dec 9, 2003
    #5
  6. Dave

    IK Guest

    In article <-meissners.org>, mrmnews@the-
    meissners.org says...

    > Another difference is filter manufacturers only make circular polarizers
    > multi-coated (if you are willing to pay the price for a MC polarizer).


    B+W makes multicoated (MRC) LP. Not sure if other brands do.
     
    IK, Dec 9, 2003
    #6
  7. Dave

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    The liniear has one major advantage -- price.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
    "Dave" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Doesn't a linear polarizer have greater usefulness than a circular one
    > if the camera itself (internal beamsplitter) is not an issue? Has
    > anyone compiled a list of cameras that really need to use only
    > circular polarizers?
     
    Tony Spadaro, Dec 9, 2003
    #7
  8. Dave

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    If you stack a linear pol next to the camera would you not destroy your
    ability to use the meter? Not that I've found the meter overly usefull with
    2 circular pols --- When I've down this with two circular pols (which is
    what I own) and a reversing ring so the back sides (with the de polirizing
    modifier on both the front and back of the combination -- I have to open up
    4 stops from the metered reading and bracket UP from there -- usually to
    about 8 stops over. Putting them so they were both facing forward I go no
    light at all into the camera.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
    "Michael Meissner" <> wrote in message
    news:-meissners.org...
    > Jim Townsend <> writes:
    >
    > > Dave wrote:
    > >
    > > > Doesn't a linear polarizer have greater usefulness than a circular one
    > > > if the camera itself (internal beamsplitter) is not an issue? Has
    > > > anyone compiled a list of cameras that really need to use only
    > > > circular polarizers?

    > >
    > > There is no difference in the effect produced by linear and circular
    > > polarizers.. For all intents and purposes, they both do the same thing.

    >
    > One place that I've read that it makes a difference is if you make a

    variable
    > polarizer by stacking two polarizers, the one closest to the camera should

    be a
    > linear polarizer. Of course you would need to have a really bright day to

    use
    > two polarizers.
    >
    > Another difference is filter manufacturers only make circular polarizers
    > multi-coated (if you are willing to pay the price for a MC polarizer).
    >
    > --
    > Michael Meissner
    > email:
    > http://www.the-meissners.org
     
    Tony Spadaro, Dec 9, 2003
    #8
  9. Dave

    Dave Guest

    "Tony Spadaro" <> wrote in message news:<PFsBb.109425$>...
    >
    > The linear has one major advantage -- price.
    >


    So I can perhaps get a linear multi-coated for the price of a coated
    circular? Now which online reviews will tell me whether a C-750 needs
    a circular?
     
    Dave, Dec 10, 2003
    #9
  10. (Dave) writes:

    >Oh, so you're saying they are both functionally identical as far as a
    >user can see? They both accept incident light according to its linear
    >polarization and are manually rotated by the user for maximum
    >effectiveness?


    That's right. Both have a linear polarizing element in front.

    The difference is that the linear polarizing filter has nothing else,
    and so the light exits into the camera still linearly polarized. The
    circular polarizer has a quarter-wave plate mounted behind the
    polarizing element, oriented 45 degrees from the polarizer, which
    converts linearly polarized light into circularly polarized light.
    And circularly polarized light, for most purposes, behaves like randomly
    polarized light - which is what any beamsplitters are expecting.

    Now, I recently speculated that the anti-aliasing filters in most
    digital cameras are designed to work with circular or randomly polarized
    light, so it might be best to use a circular polarizer even if there
    isn't a beamsplitter. But I don't have any test results to confirm
    this.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Dec 10, 2003
    #10
  11. Michael Meissner <> writes:

    >One place that I've read that it makes a difference is if you make a variable
    >polarizer by stacking two polarizers, the one closest to the camera should be a
    >linear polarizer. Of course you would need to have a really bright day to use
    >two polarizers.


    That's got to be backwards. It's the *front* polarizer that needs to be
    a linear one, to leave the light linearly polarized for the rear
    polarizing filter to interact with. If you put a circular polarizer on
    the front, the orientation of the rear polarizing filter won't matter.

    The *rear* filter could be a circular polarizer, and should be if the
    camera uses beamsplitters.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Dec 10, 2003
    #11
  12. IK <> writes:

    > In article <-meissners.org>, mrmnews@the-
    > meissners.org says...
    >
    > > Another difference is filter manufacturers only make circular polarizers
    > > multi-coated (if you are willing to pay the price for a MC polarizer).

    >
    > B+W makes multicoated (MRC) LP. Not sure if other brands do.


    That's the first company I've heard that does. Hoya, Tiffen, etc. don't (but
    then B+W filters are generally well thought of, and you pay for that quality).

    --
    Michael Meissner
    email:
    http://www.the-meissners.org
     
    Michael Meissner, Dec 10, 2003
    #12
  13. (Dave) writes:

    > "Tony Spadaro" <> wrote in message news:<PFsBb.109425$>...
    > >
    > > The linear has one major advantage -- price.
    > >

    >
    > So I can perhaps get a linear multi-coated for the price of a coated
    > circular? Now which online reviews will tell me whether a C-750 needs
    > a circular?


    See my previous post about most filter companies not making linear multi-coated
    polarizers (except for B+W). A C-750UZ can use a linear since it doesn't have
    a beam splitter.

    --
    Michael Meissner
    email:
    http://www.the-meissners.org
     
    Michael Meissner, Dec 10, 2003
    #13
  14. Dave

    Bob Salomon Guest

    In article <-meissners.org>,
    Michael Meissner <> wrote:

    > (Dave) writes:
    >
    > > "Tony Spadaro" <> wrote in message
    > > news:<PFsBb.109425$>...
    > > >
    > > > The linear has one major advantage -- price.
    > > >

    > >
    > > So I can perhaps get a linear multi-coated for the price of a coated
    > > circular? Now which online reviews will tell me whether a C-750 needs
    > > a circular?

    >
    > See my previous post about most filter companies not making linear
    > multi-coated
    > polarizers (except for B+W). A C-750UZ can use a linear since it doesn't
    > have
    > a beam splitter.



    Heliopan makes 16 layer (8 per side) SH-PMC multicoated polarizers in
    both linear and circular. However the circular ones are available in
    more sizes.

    --
    To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
     
    Bob Salomon, Dec 10, 2003
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jeff Durham

    Polarizing filter -- circular or linear?

    Jeff Durham, Jun 14, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    3,457
    Dave Martindale
    Jun 15, 2004
  2. Destin_FL

    Linear or circular polarizer for digital

    Destin_FL, Jul 11, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    4,188
    Bob Salomon
    Jul 12, 2004
  3. Nick Lamendola

    Circular vs Linear Polarizer - How do you tell them apart?

    Nick Lamendola, Jul 24, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,586
    Alan D
    Jul 25, 2004
  4. J_Bird

    linear or circular?

    J_Bird, Apr 11, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    340
    Dave Martindale
    Apr 15, 2005
  5. John Navas

    Circular vs linear polarizer

    John Navas, Oct 22, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    603
    John Navas
    Oct 22, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page