Hi John,
I shoot only B&W with my OM, using primarily Ilford Delta 100, and the
film's spectral sensitivity falls off very rapidly at 400nm. It's only
barely, just barely, receptive to UV, so filtering it out is kind of
pointless. I'm sure the filters have great use in certain conditions for
color, but I think most contemporary B&W doesn't see UV anyway. Plus, being
an East Coast US guy, I'm rarely very much above sea level, where UV rays
are less of a problem anyway. I do have one I stick on my Nikon lenses when
I'm in the Poconos or Vermont and shooting color. As for the protection
issue, I've never really bought into it too much. I've been carrying a
camera since about 1970 or so when my dad gave me a Miranda. And I've never
dropped one. (John, I'll blame you when it happens in three days!!) My OM
and my Mamiya are used virtually exclusively on a tripod -- they wear lens
caps until they're mounted and locked on, and they go back into the bag when
I'm done. My N*kon gets bashed about as my family trip, family event, color
print-shooting TTL auto fill flash snapshot machine, and that's far more
likely to get stomped someday. My wife DID drop that once, right onto a
paved driveway. But the lens had a cap on, and it landed on the side of the
body anyway. (FWIW, it survived just fine, despite being one of N*kon's
lower end, plastic bodied N70s.) I also often carry a Rollei 35 or a Rollei
prego zoom thingy P&S in my pocket...they take a beating and a filter to
protect the lens would make some sense. But the p&s doesn't take filters,
and the 35 has a bizarre filter size, so I never bothered.
It's funny, the UV/sky filter argument ranks right up there with Ford/Chevy
and socio-political debates like abortion and liberal/conservative. Or with
topics that really matter, like Red Sox/Evil Empire. Their are smart,
educated, focused people on both sides of the fence (except for the Yankee
fans, that is...). Walt, Winsor, rant on. We're looking at 14 inches of
snow, and I'm ready to hunker down and read.
Cheers,
Matthew Born
On 2/27/05 9:35 PM, "Listar" <listar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Matthew ....
>
> Why a change of policy? Do they no longer reduce UV, do they no longer
> protect the front lens element, do you have more filters than lenses?
>
> For the very very slight retardation in image quality on the down side and
> the protection of the front lens element on the upside, why would anyone
> want to discard a high quality UV/sky filter costing relatively little and
> jeopardize one's lens?
>
> John Hudson
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|