Polarizing Filters and Olympus E500
Ron Wood
Have just bought/tried a Polarizing Filter from that well known auction
site:
http://shop.ebay.co.uk/?_from=R40&_trksid=p3907.m38.l1313&_nkw=52+52MM+CPL+Circular+Polarizing+filter+for+Hoya+Kenko&_sacat=See-All-CategoriesBut 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
Ofnuts
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
Ron Wood
"Ofnuts" <o.f.n...@la.poste.net> wrote in message
news:4a0f1b16$0$21842$426a...@news.free.fr...
Thanks Bertrand
Have committed to a �30 one - will keep you posted.
Ron
nospam
<o.f.n...@la.poste.net> 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.
Alfred Molon
> Modern SLRs and DSLRs require a "circular" polarizing filter
Is that still true?
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
nospam
Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Modern SLRs and DSLRs require a "circular" polarizing filter
>
> Is that still true?
anything with a beam splitter needs a circular polarizer.
jason colms
wrote:
Before mindlessly spouting the usual "you get what you pay for"
net-nonsense, I suggest that you test the polarizing strength and
homogeneity of the polarizing layer in those "high priced is better"
name-brands of filters that you ignorantly whine about and promote to
others.
I have done tests just like that and found that many of the $50-$90
polarizers are often worse or no better than $5 bargain ones. When tested
against, compared with, lab-quality polarizing material the $50-$90 filters
often showed large density striations in the polarizing layer and lower
overall polarizing strength than all the bargain <$20 filters that I also
tested. 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.
Here's a freebie for you: an HMC $60 Hoya polarizer tested THE worst of
all, worse than even a $5 generic polarizer. Now go out and buy and test
some others, you need to pay for your education--one way or the other.
nospam
<jco...@whatplace.net> wrote:
> I have done tests just like that and found that many of the $50-$90
> polarizers are often worse or no better than $5 bargain ones. When tested
> against, compared with, lab-quality polarizing material the $50-$90 filters
> often showed large density striations in the polarizing layer and lower
> overall polarizing strength than all the bargain <$20 filters that I also
> tested.
bullshit.
> 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.
ah yes, the foul mouthed troll.
> Here's a freebie for you: an HMC $60 Hoya polarizer tested THE worst of
> all, worse than even a $5 generic polarizer. Now go out and buy and test
> some others, you need to pay for your education--one way or the other.
bullshit.
Savageduck
>
...and the P&S phantom returns clad in a fresh sock.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
jason colms
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. As always.
nospam
<jco...@whatplace.net> wrote:
insults aside, how do you know how many i've tested?
> As always.
yep, as always. more content-free bullshit from you.
Savageduck
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.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Chris Malcolm
>> As always.
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
nospam
<c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> 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.
jason colms
<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.
You're just way way way too funny. Or you're just that hopelessly
psychotic. It's difficult to tell from this side of the monitor, but it's
becoming more clear now.
Hint: Go buy a real camera some day. Even if it's a barbie camera from the
impulse-shelves at your grocery store. Tell your mommy to pick one up for
you the next time she yells down to the basement to tell you that she's
headed out for your next case of twinkies and boxes of cocoa-puffs cereal.
Savageduck
> 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.
>
> You are right, I'm an internet-life troll that doesn't even own cameras
> nor has any real photography and equipment
> experience? Zip, nada, none.
>
> I'm just that hopelessly psychotic. It's difficult to tell from this
> side of the monitor, but it's
> becoming more clear now.
>
> I should go buy a real camera some day. Even if it's a barbie camera from the
> impulse-shelves at my grocery store. I need to tell my mommy to pick one up for
> me the next time she yells down to the basement to tell me that she's
> headed out for my next case of twinkies and boxes of cocoa-puffs cereal.
I guess we will just have to keep pulling off the socks
Now, to put it nicely, go away.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
jason colms
<savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>On 2009-05-18 03:15:42 -0700, jason colms <jco...@whatplace.net> said:
>
>> 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.
>>
>> You are right, I'm an internet-life troll that doesn't even own cameras
>> nor has any real photography and equipment
>> experience? Zip, nada, none.
>>
>> I'm just that hopelessly psychotic. It's difficult to tell from this
>> side of the monitor, but it's
>> becoming more clear now.
>>
>> I should go buy a real camera some day. Even if it's a barbie camera from the
>> impulse-shelves at my grocery store. I need to tell my mommy to pick one up for
>> me the next time she yells down to the basement to tell me that she's
>> headed out for my next case of twinkies and boxes of cocoa-puffs cereal.
>
>I guess we will just have to keep pulling off the socks
>
>Now, to put it nicely, go away.
Thanks again for implicating yourself as 100% troll. Only authentic
internet trolls edit quoted text to see if they can get attention for it.
How very desperate (and psychotic) you be.
Savageduck
>>
>
> Thanks again for implicating yourself as 100% troll. Only authentic
> internet trolls edit quoted text to see if they can get attention for it.
> How very desperate (and psychotic) you be.
Enough of this crap, you are going to continue doing what you do, to
provoke any response.
So those of us who recognize you, will continue to do what we do
whenever we detect your presence.
...and as far as camera ownership goes many of us have posted links to
some of what we have produced with cameras ranging from P&S to DSLR,
some of the stuff is questionable in quality, much of it is pretty
good, however we still have no evidence that you have ever even sat in
a photo-booth, let alone taken any photograph with a borrowed or owned
camera of any type.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO...@scs.uiuc.edu
>
(nothing of importance)
I tested four different circular polarizers, different
prices. All four worked fine as polarizers, though there
were minor differences.
However, only the very most expensive (and these were
77 mm dia ones!) one, a B + W, was adequate in optical quality for
a 300mm f/5.6 lens. The others were obviously of very very inferior
optical quality: it was impossible to get clear, non-blurred
photos wide open. All the non-super expensive ones were
noticeably bad. Not just less than perfect, I mean actually bad,
totally unacceptable. All worked just fine if the entrance pupil
of the lens was 1/4 or less in size.
Doug McDonald
Bob Larter
> 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
> Until you've tested about 25 differ[*SLAP!*]
Fuck off, troll.
Bob Larter
> 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.
Bob Larter
> 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.