Why no thread for UV filter in prosumer digital [not DSLR] cameras?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by zxcvar, Sep 1, 2003.

  1. zxcvar

    zxcvar Guest

    Greetings! Why there are no threads for UV filters for prosumer
    cameras costing more than five hundred dollars? I have an Olympus
    c-4040. [c-5050 was not announced at that time ]To prevent damage to
    the lens,I had to add CLA-1 tube to add the UV filter. [I know some
    people never use or used UV filter in film photography. I do not feel
    comfortable using any camera without an UV lens. My particular
    idiosyncrasy.] With thanks.
     
    zxcvar, Sep 1, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. zxcvar

    Mike Graham Guest

    I suspect it's because they don't want people screwing anything heavy to
    the lens because it would be hard on the extensor motors. Also, someone
    might screw on something wider than the end of the lens, and it might get
    caught when the lens is telescoping into 'storage mode' and maybe Bad Things
    Would Happen if that were to occurr. I use the tube, myself. It makes for
    a larger package to store, but that's life.

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Mike Graham | Metalworker, rustic, part-time zealot.
    |
    <http://www.metalmangler.com>| Caledon, Ontario, Canada

    Lousy photographer with a really nice camera - Olympus C3020Zoom.
    <http://www.metalmangler.com/photos/photos.htm>
     
    Mike Graham, Sep 1, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. zxcvar

    gr Guest

    Why stick a $10 piece of glass in front of a $100+ lens? You don't need a UV
    filter on digital cameras. The real question is why aren't there threads for
    useful filters, like a polarizer? The answer is probably because they get to
    sell you overpriced lens tubes instead.
     
    gr, Sep 1, 2003
    #3
  4. zxcvar

    John Guest

    Why stick a $10 piece of glass in front of a $100+ lens? You don't need a
    UV
    The next thing you'll be saying is that you don't wrap all your furniture up
    in "protective plastic"!
     
    John, Sep 2, 2003
    #4
  5. zxcvar

    reg-john Guest

    furniture doesnt need to take good pictures through the protective plastic
    does it.
     
    reg-john, Sep 2, 2003
    #5
  6. zxcvar

    Charlie D Guest

    [/QUOTE]
    Good one! ;)
     
    Charlie D, Sep 2, 2003
    #6
  7. zxcvar

    Mike Graham Guest

    So you don't scratch the $100+ lens, that's why.
    While I don't claim to speak for the digital camera makers, I strongly
    feel that if they had just put a 37mm (or whatever size) thread on the end
    of an *extendable* lens, then some bonehead would be screwing a telephoto
    adapter to it and blowing the motors on it. It's not like an SLR with a
    nice, secure bayonet-mount lens on it.

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Mike Graham | Metalworker, rustic, part-time zealot.
    |
    <http://www.metalmangler.com>| Caledon, Ontario, Canada

    Lousy photographer with a really nice camera - Olympus C3020Zoom.
    <http://www.metalmangler.com/photos/photos.htm>
     
    Mike Graham, Sep 2, 2003
    #7
  8. zxcvar

    Charlie D Guest

    gr said:
    John said:
    John was being facetious.
     
    Charlie D, Sep 2, 2003
    #8
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.