John Hudson wrote:
> With a 2 per cent improvement in photo taking / making abilities and a half
> percent or less degredation in image quality no-one would care a jot about
> any perceived downside of using UV filters.
>
> Just an application of Dickins' or whoever observed that income a pound and
> outgoing of nineteen and six' results in happiness :-)
>
> Sadly, there is little if any discussion on this list of the 2 per cent
> solution and LOTS of griping about the half per cent degredation issue !
>
As Chuck said, it's a religious issue. Personally, I don't find any %
"improvement in photo taking / making abilities" at all through using
clear/UV filters, or in fact any but true UV (81 series) for altitude
and Pols for "seeing through" reflections.
So for me, they aren't worth it. For you, they are. Chacun à son goût
It is also a much bigger factor for digital than it was for film. See
below, if you didn't read it already.
-----------------
Marc Lawrence wrote:
> I just found a link at Canon that states that:
>
> "Most super-telephoto lenses have a protective glass at the front. When
> this glass has a flat surface, the light that reflects off the image
> sensor reflects back from the protective glass, occasionally resulting
> in spot-shaped ghost. To eliminate this phenomenon, all of Canon's
> large-aperture IS super-telephoto lenses adopt a meniscus lens shaped
> protective glass."
If Canon felt it worthwhile to redesign their only lenses that include
the equivalent of a protective filter because of the reflection issue, I
think it is significant.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|