Are ND's really needed??? - Page 3 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Sony XAVC / XDCAM / NXCAM / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Sony Alpha and NEX Camera Systems > Sony NEX-EA50 (all variants)

Sony NEX-EA50 (all variants)
Including NEX-EA50UH / EA50EH / EA50H / EA50UK / EA50EK / EA50K


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 7th, 2015, 10:22 PM   #31
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 8,222
Re: Are ND's really needed???

Thanks Gary

Sadly we cannot dictate where brides stand and often they want to have their backs to ocean/setting sun or lots of sky which kills the exposure and peaking too. (We do suggest but if normally falls on deaf ears)
One cannot except peaking to be truly effective when in sun in blasting into the lens. Maybe it would be a good idea to crank down the EV on the camera so the bride in underexposed then nail focus and then expose correctly. These are sent to try our patience!!

The assistance is much appreciated

Chris
Chris Harding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th, 2015, 10:25 PM   #32
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 1,704
Re: Are ND's really needed???

I definitely feel your pain if circumstances beyond your control make you point the camera towards the path of a setting sun.
Gary Huff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th, 2015, 09:30 AM   #33
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: DFW area, TX
Posts: 6,108
Images: 1
Re: Are ND's really needed???

Just thought I'd share how peaking works, then you might be better able to tell how reliable it will be for you in different situations.

In the electronic image, higher detail equates to a higher frequency signal as there are more changes in light level within a smaller area, thus generating a faster change in the signal level. So peaking is the circuit that picks up on the high frequency transitions beyond a certain threshold and displays them as a bright white in B/W viewfinders or as a selectable color in color VFs. When you de-focus an image, it becomes blurry and has no rapid light to dark transitions and therefore, the electronic signal won't have any high frequencies in it.

So going back to what Gary said about overexposure, if the image is blown out, there won't be any rapid transitions to dark around the edges of objects such as a person's body. Therefore, you won't get any peaking indication. Similarly, if your image is too dark, the same thing happens, hence the need for proper exposure levels and a sharply focused image to generate peaking indicators. If you have correct exposure, then you merely need to focus the image and presto, there's your high frequency detail of objects in focus and the peaking indicator will tell you that.

Regards,

-gb-
Greg Boston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th, 2015, 07:11 PM   #34
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 8,222
Re: Are ND's really needed???

Thanks for that Greg .. Most informative!!
Chris Harding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2015, 01:04 PM   #35
Trustee
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,677
Re: Are ND's really needed???

This tread is discussing filters and image sharpness. I know this is a basic old school rule but I thought I would throw it out there as a reminder. Fortunately today's cameras and adapters are affording us the opportunity to use a large selection of good lenses designed for 35mm still cameras. In my case I invested heavily in Canon "L" series glass over the years and now am quite happy I can utilize those lenses on my video cameras. There is a big difference in sharpness between my Sony kit lenses and the Canons. But...any lens is only going to be as sharp as the weakest element in the chain. Screwing anything in front of or behind the lens compromises sharpness if it does not match or exceed the capability of the lens it is attached to.

I could be wrong but I can not even imagine a $100 do it all ND like the Fofodiox ND Throttle would work on a good lens without having some negative impact on image quality, possibly in many ways. Like Chris said, "good NDs often cost a few hundred dollars".

Quality lenses are expensive because quality glass is expensive to make. We all want to save money but IMHO this is not the place to do it. If you put a Fofodiox or any other off brand cheepo adapter on a Nikon or Canon lens your not shooting Canon or Nikon anymore. Your shooting China cheap.

Again, not knocking anyone's choice of gear. Just saying we are talking about systems here. Your image will only be as good as the worst piece of glass in front of it.

Kind Regards,

Steve
__________________
www.CorporateShow.com
Been at this so long I'm rounding my years of experience down...not up!
Steven Digges is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2015, 01:58 PM   #36
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 1,704
Re: Are ND's really needed???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Digges View Post
I could be wrong but I can not even imagine a $100 do it all ND like the Fofodiox ND Throttle would work on a good lens without having some negative impact on image quality, possibly in many ways. Like Chris said, "good NDs often cost a few hundred dollars".
I don't think you're wrong. I agree with this sentiment 100%.
Gary Huff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2015, 09:08 PM   #37
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 8,222
Re: Are ND's really needed???

Quite a few hundred dollars actually! I bought a set of well known ND's with rave write-ups a while back and got awful IR contamination at an outdoor wedding. It's so important not to add anything into the chain that will drag down the image .. I bought a used Sigma lens last year and the seller included a prefitted UV filter ... I hesitated a bit but decided to leave it on as it didn't seem to unscrew easily... Footage from the lens was OK but always seemed to be a bit under all my other lenses. The other day I was cleaning lenses and yes, the glass on the UV was most definitely almost semi-opaque .. It of course had to come off and took a while but it shows that even an UV filter can destroy a lens's performance.

Sadly I very much doubt that the ND inside the Fotodiox is decent optical quality ... I'll currently struggle on without ND's (and without that UV too ..it seems "stained" and won't clean up .. probably a real cheap one)
Chris Harding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2015, 09:39 PM   #38
Trustee
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,677
Re: Are ND's really needed???

My post about the chain of glass actually came from my early days of studying photography. I was taught that EVERY piece of glass mattered. Including UV filters and other protective glass that was supposed to have little effect on the image. They ALL effect it. So it never made sense to me that someone would spend big bucks for a lens and then put a super cheap filter on the front of it.

On cheap or very old lenses the first thing that fails optically is the lens coating. If you want to check it look at the lens surface horizontally, moving it around slowly with light on it. If you see the “oil slick” effect similar to bad finger prints but it does not wipe off your coating is shot. The only repair for that is the trash can.

Steve
__________________
www.CorporateShow.com
Been at this so long I'm rounding my years of experience down...not up!
Steven Digges is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2015, 10:02 PM   #39
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 8,222
Re: Are ND's really needed???

Thanks Steve

Yep, this UV definitely has an oil slick on the glass and it won't even wet clean! Destined for the bin!! The front of the lens looked decidedly "dull" with the filter on and it's now bright! Dunno how I missed the fact that it actually had a UV on it but it's gone now ... as your foot note says .. we are all still learning !!

Chris
Chris Harding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 2nd, 2016, 02:45 PM   #40
Major Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: BELGIUM
Posts: 277
Re: Are ND's really needed???

I just bought a rubber lens hood for my variable nd filter from genustech. looks great. Will test this weekend because it's winter here and still to fast dark outside.

it's a 77mm genustech variable nd filter. The rubber lens hood is a 82mm and it fits. So the inside of the nd filter is 77mm and the outside is a 82mm?
Without the nd filter the rubber lens doesn't fit a 77mm step up ring.
Attached Thumbnails
Are ND's really needed???-sam_5665-1-.jpg  
Tom Van den Berghe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 2nd, 2016, 09:03 PM   #41
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Bentonville, AR
Posts: 103
Re: Are ND's really needed???

Looks good. Im interested to hear how it performs. I wish the EA50 had built-in ND. It's easier to shoot with out in the field than the FS700
David Banner is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Sony XAVC / XDCAM / NXCAM / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Sony Alpha and NEX Camera Systems > Sony NEX-EA50 (all variants)

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:15 PM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network