Polarizing Filters and Olympus E500

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Ron Wood, May 16, 2009.

  1. Ron Wood

    Ron Wood Guest

    Ron Wood, May 16, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Ron Wood

    Ofnuts Guest

    Ron Wood wrote:
    > Hi Group
    >
    > Have just bought/tried a Polarizing Filter from that well known auction
    > site:
    >
    > http://shop.ebay.co.uk/?_from=R40&_...lter for Hoya Kenko&_sacat=See-All-Categories



    > But not much effect, should I have bought a special filter suitable forDSLR?
    > I have a Cokin Filter Holder (A) but was reluctant to spend £30+ until alittle
    > more knowledgable.Any suggestions?TIA, Ron


    Modern SLRs and DSLRs require a "circular" polarizing filter since the
    old "plain" variety make the autofocus malfunction. Other that that
    there are no other "special" requirements for DSLRs. Good filters are
    multi-coated to avoid reflections which produce haze (Hoya calls it
    "HMC"). 30 pounds is a decent price for a multi-coated polarizer. For 6
    pounds you'll likely get a piece of junk. Unlike other filters, the
    polarizing ones are manually controlled, so have human factors
    requirements (no too tight to turn but not to loose either) which also
    have a price.

    --
    Bertrand
    Ofnuts, May 16, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ron Wood

    Ron Wood Guest

    "Ofnuts" <> wrote in message
    news:4a0f1b16$0$21842$...
    > Ron Wood wrote:
    >> Hi Group
    >>
    >> Have just bought/tried a Polarizing Filter from that well known auction
    >> site:
    >>
    >>
    >> http://shop.ebay.co.uk/?_from=R40&_...lter for Hoya Kenko&_sacat=See-All-Categories

    >
    >
    >> But not much effect, should I have bought a special filter suitable
    >> forDSLR?
    >> I have a Cokin Filter Holder (A) but was reluctant to spend £30+ until
    >> alittle more knowledgable.Any suggestions?TIA, Ron

    >
    > Modern SLRs and DSLRs require a "circular" polarizing filter since the old
    > "plain" variety make the autofocus malfunction. Other that that there are
    > no other "special" requirements for DSLRs. Good filters are multi-coated
    > to avoid reflections which produce haze (Hoya calls it "HMC"). 30 pounds
    > is a decent price for a multi-coated polarizer. For 6 pounds you'll likely
    > get a piece of junk. Unlike other filters, the polarizing ones are
    > manually controlled, so have human factors requirements (no too tight to
    > turn but not to loose either) which also have a price.
    >
    > --
    > Bertrand


    Thanks Bertrand

    Have committed to a £30 one - will keep you posted.

    Ron
    Ron Wood, May 16, 2009
    #3
  4. Ron Wood

    nospam Guest

    In article <4a0f1b16$0$21842$>, Ofnuts
    <> wrote:

    > Modern SLRs and DSLRs require a "circular" polarizing filter since the
    > old "plain" variety make the autofocus malfunction.


    it's actually the metering, not autofocus.
    nospam, May 16, 2009
    #4
  5. Ron Wood

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alfred
    Molon <> wrote:

    > > Modern SLRs and DSLRs require a "circular" polarizing filter

    >
    > Is that still true?


    anything with a beam splitter needs a circular polarizer.
    nospam, May 17, 2009
    #5
  6. Ron Wood

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, jason colms
    <> wrote:

    > Until you've tested about 25 different polarizing filters from all manner
    > of sources and companies and prices against lab-quality polarizing
    > material, your troll's "bullshit" opinion is just as empty as your head and
    > your typical lack of any real photography experience.


    insults aside, how do you know how many i've tested?

    > As always.


    yep, as always. more content-free bullshit from you.
    nospam, May 18, 2009
    #6
  7. nospam <> wrote:
    > In article <>, jason colms
    > <> wrote:


    >> Until you've tested about 25 different polarizing filters from all manner
    >> of sources and companies and prices against lab-quality polarizing
    >> material, your troll's "bullshit" opinion is just as empty as your head and
    >> your typical lack of any real photography experience.


    > insults aside, how do you know how many i've tested?


    >> As always.


    > yep, as always. more content-free bullshit from you.


    Not necessarily. As it happens I've got a few polarising filters for
    various lens sizes, and as far as the quality of the polarising
    element was concerned, the middle priced one was easily the best. I
    doubt, however, if the differences would be noticeable in ordinary
    photographs, unless you tried using a pair of them to create a
    variable ND filter.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
    Chris Malcolm, May 18, 2009
    #7
  8. Ron Wood

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Chris Malcolm
    <> wrote:

    > Not necessarily. As it happens I've got a few polarising filters for
    > various lens sizes, and as far as the quality of the polarising
    > element was concerned, the middle priced one was easily the best. I
    > doubt, however, if the differences would be noticeable in ordinary
    > photographs, unless you tried using a pair of them to create a
    > variable ND filter.


    except that he said a $5 filter was better than a premium hoya
    polarizer. it's bullshit.
    nospam, May 18, 2009
    #8
  9. Ron Wood

    Bob Larter Guest

    jason colms wrote:
    > Put your REAL experience where your mouth is, not your stupid
    > net-parroted nonsense. Or continue being the ignorant
    > marketing-department's sheep and fool that you are. Why do you think they
    > get away with this? Because of fools like you that live by that
    > oft-disproved adage "you get what you pay for." What nonsense, especially
    > in the world of polarizing filters.


    Stop shifting identities, fuckhead.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
    Bob Larter, May 20, 2009
    #9
  10. Ron Wood

    Bob Larter Guest

    jason colms wrote:
    > Until you've tested about 25 differ[*SLAP!*]


    **** off, troll.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
    Bob Larter, May 20, 2009
    #10
  11. Ron Wood

    Bob Larter Guest

    Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2009-05-18 00:33:04 -0700, jason colms <> said:

    [...]
    > You don't give up easily I'll give you that.
    > What remains is the incredible stench of troll, even with fresh socks.
    >
    > What you haven't learned is, these NG's will tolerate kooks and trolls
    > for entertainment value. Sometimes we sit back in wonder at the the
    > audacity and single examples of stupidity, just to provoke a reaction.
    > Many have settled on one persona, or even use their own name, and we
    > know them for who they are. We can respond appropriately when they
    > provide downright asinine and stupid proposals or responses.
    > When they are reasonable we can respond with appropriate civility.
    >
    > You on the other hand continue to be provocative and stupidly believe
    > changing socks is going to make a difference.
    > If you would at least not take a contrary belligerent stance on all
    > issues, particularly those where your opinion is based on ignorance, you
    > might actually have a reasonable and valuable interaction with some of
    > the members of these groups.


    I'm becoming increasingly tempted to nominate him for an AUK net-kook award.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
    Bob Larter, May 20, 2009
    #11
  12. Ron Wood

    Bob Larter Guest

    jason colms wrote:
    > On Mon, 18 May 2009 01:15:19 -0700, Savageduck
    > <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
    >
    >> If you would at least not take a contrary belligerent stance on all
    >> issues, particularly those where your opinion is based on ignorance,
    >> you might actually have a reasonable and valuable interaction with some
    >> of the members of these groups.

    >
    > Now that's funny. A "valuable interaction" with internet-life trolls that
    > don't even own cameras nor have any real photography and equipment
    > experience? Zip, nada, none.


    LOL. What makes you think that you're interacting with people don't own
    cameras or have experience? In my case, for example, I own three 35mm
    cameras - an EOS 1Dmk2, an EOS 10D, & a Nikon F-401s, with plenty of
    glass, & tens of thousands of shots taken.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
    Bob Larter, May 20, 2009
    #12
    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. mike

    polarizing filters

    mike, Aug 17, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    805
  2. Kancil Killer

    polarizing filters

    Kancil Killer, Sep 8, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    472
  3. Jason Warren

    do polarizing filters confuse autofocus?

    Jason Warren, Sep 9, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    26
    Views:
    793
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Sep 19, 2005
  4. Matalog

    Polarizing Filters.

    Matalog, Nov 13, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    629
  5. Replies:
    9
    Views:
    1,542
    Kennedy McEwen
    Mar 30, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page