Tag Archives: filter

Commentary, Equipment

The Economics of DSLR “Protective” Filters

1 Comment

The subject of whether or not to get so-called “protective” UV filters for DSLR lenses comes up a lot. I used to respond to the question frequently – so frequently that I eventually gave up and just wrote a post on the subject that I could refer people to when they ask.

However, during a recent weak moment I wrote a new response to the notion that ‘protective’ filters provide good value for all photographers. As I do from time to time, I’m sharing it here:

Someone wrote: … would you rather pay $150 on a filter that *might* compromise your shot or spend $150 on replacing the front element and have *no* possible risk of image degradation from the extra piece of glass?

I replied: This is essentially an insurance question. Obviously, if we knew that our lens would certainly be destroyed in a way that was 100% preventable by using a filter we would almost certainly get a filter. But that is an imaginary scenario that is far from reality.

Most lenses will never be damaged in any serious way. My hunch is that this is actually the fate of a very small percentage of lenses – probably far less than 10%, and I would bet closer to 1%.

Of those that are damaged, only some will suffer a blow to the front element. There are many other modes of failure – a dropped lens that breaks the mechanism, something crashing into the side of the lens, water damage, etc.

Of those that suffer a blow to the front of the lens structure, only some will result in contact with the front element. Of those in which contact with the front element occurs, some would not cause any damage or any significant damage. Some would damage the front element, but would be violent enough that the filter would not have prevented the damage. A few that might not have damaged the front element will send glass shards from the broken filter into the front element and damage it. In some subset of cases, all of the variables might line up just right and prevent damage.

At this point the user would have to replace the broken high quality filter at a cost that varies depending on a number of factors. Let’s use a figure if $100 for an expensive L zoom. The owner has now invested something on the order of $200… which is not much different from the cost of replacing a front element, as I understand it.

In terms of the probability of damage, the cost of the filter, the likelihood that the filter would save the day… the filter is probably one of the worst insurance investments you could make.

Am I unalterably and completely opposed to the use of ‘protective’ filters? Almost, but not quite. While I do not think that it makes sense to automatically stick such a filter on every lens for general use – see the link above for more on this topic – I can think of one sort of situation in which I might use one. I would consider a filter if I were shooting a sealed-body camera (such as a Canon 1-series) and was working in conditions that were truly dangerous to my equipment (and not just a bit of mist or ocean spray) and I was using of the small number of L lenses that become sealed (and not all do) with the addition of a filter.

Other than that? No.

G Dan Mitchell Photography | Flickr | Twitter | Facebook | Email
Text, photographs, and other media are © Copyright G Dan Mitchell (or others when indicated) and are not in the public domain and may not be used on websites, blogs, or in other media without advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.

Photographs: Coastal Redwoods, Photographs: Nature, Photographs: Northern California

Red Alder Leaves, Autumn

2 Comments
Red Alder Leaves, Autumn

Red Alder Leaves, Autumn. Muir Woods National Monument, California. October 25, 2009. © Copyright G Dan Mitchell – all rights reserved.

Sunlight filtering through the canopy of the redwood forest back-lights overhead red alder leaves at Muir Woods National Monument.

I posted a black and white version of this photograph yesterday – and I still go back and forth on which I prefer. The luminescent green color of the backlit alder leaves against the pattern of the branches on which they grow is what first attracted me to this subject, but I like the more abstracted nature of the black and white version. I probably won’t be able to decide until I print the photographs… if I can even decide then!

This photograph is not in the public domain. It may not be used on websites, blogs, or in any other media without explicit advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.

G Dan Mitchell Photography | Twitter | Friendfeed | Facebook | Facebook Fan Page | Email

keywords: muir, woods, national, monument, recreation, area, golden, gate, marin, san francisco, california, usa, forest, tree, leaf, leaves, branch, twig, spider, web, thread, glow, bokeh, nature, flora, foliage, landscape, red, alder, redwood, coast, sun, light, sunlight, filter, canopy, back, overhead, stock

Photographs: Coastal Redwoods, Photographs: Nature, Photographs: Northern California, Photographs: Textures

Red Alder Leaves, Autumn

Leave a comment
Red Alder Leaves, Autumn

Red Alder Leaves, Autumn. Muir Woods National Monument, California. October 25, 2009. © Copyright G Dan Mitchell – all rights reserved.

Sunlight filtering through the canopy of the redwood forest back-lights overhead red alder leaves at Muir Woods National Monument.

This photograph is not in the public domain. It may not be used on websites, blogs, or in any other media without explicit advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.

I made a black and white and a color version of this image – since I think I prefer the black and white version I’m posting it first.

This year I have been returning to Muir Woods in all seasons and, among other things, I’ve watched the red alder trees as they have gone through the cycle from the first spring leaves to the deterioration of the leaves as they begin to change color before dropping from the trees as winter approaches. In many places along the main trails at Muir Woods the path travels directly beneath a canopy of these trees and when the light comes through the trees, filtered by passing through the upper levels of the forest, it highlights the curving and twisting shapes of the branches.

G Dan Mitchell Photography | Twitter | Friendfeed | Facebook | Facebook Fan Page | Email

keywords: muir, woods, national, monument, recreation, area, golden, gate, marin, san francisco, california, usa, forest, tree, leaf, leaves, branch, twig, spider, web, thread, glow, bokeh, nature, flora, foliage, landscape, black and white, red, alder, redwood, coast, sun, light, sunlight, filter, canopy, back, overhead, stock

Commentary, Ideas

Things that sometimes baffle me about photographers and photography

11 Comments

This is by no means a complete list, but inspired by seeing one of these oddities in a post earlier today I thought I’d write it up.

  • “Unboxing videos” of new cameras. Why would someone make a 5 or 10 minute video of the act of opening the box that their new camera came in and then lovingly taking out… the manual, the USB cables, the styrofoam inserts, the warranty card, and on and on and on – often with narration and sometimes even background music. Do people actually watch these?
  • Spending thousands and thousands of dollars on “the best” camera, lens, etc. when one isn’t really a photographer and doesn’t really make photographs all that much and perhaps only shares the odd jpg or letter size print with friends and family.
  • Getting caught up in the “brand wars” between manufacturers like Nikon and Canon. They both make really, really fine equipment. Both are used by a lot of excellent photographers. Really wonderful photographs are produced using both systems every day.
  • Assuming that there is only one best “whatever” in photography. There is no such thing as “The Best… camera, lens, tripod, photographer, memory card, place to shoot, time of day to shoot, filter, brand, store, paper…” First, there are many good versions of each. Second, what is best for one person may not be best for another.
  • Obsessing over very tiny and insignificant equipment “flaws” or differences. The classic is, of course, choosing a less functional lens over a more functional lens because the less functional lens might measure .001% better resolution at 100% magnification on the test bench. Related are obsessions over very tiny differences in noise in digital cameras, concern about small difference in camera burst rate, worry that your lens might vignette some…
  • Thinking that you have to “take a position” on zooms versus primes. (Zooms and primes are both great, and you have my permission to use both… ;-)
  • Secret shooting locations – unless the area is fragile and too much use would damage it, if ten good photographers shoot it you’ll get ten different interpretations.

Anyone else?