|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 3rd, 2010, 07:28 AM | #16 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: White Bear Lake, Minnesota
Posts: 85
|
I don't understand why you would be saying this. I have a DIY variable ND that is bigger than all my lenses. I have a step up ring for all my lenses to step up into the ND. I have a sunshade that fits the ND, thus the sunshade fits all my lenses, and even if it doesn't it's $4 dude! The cheapest mattebox is see is like $200!
__________________
www.insectula.com |
May 3rd, 2010, 08:33 AM | #17 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: White Bear Lake, Minnesota
Posts: 85
|
Let me qualify a bit...I do not do this for a living. If I was I would certainly spare no expense and purchase the "correct" equipment, also I would want to impress the client with my big camera. As it is I have to sneak a few bucks here and there to purchase the basic nessesities without making the wife unhappy with the money I spend. So you and I look at purchases for this camera in a very differant way...I'm also trying to keep a low profile because I can't afford to rent a location.
__________________
www.insectula.com |
May 3rd, 2010, 09:13 AM | #18 |
Major Player
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 969
|
Mike, there's no right way or wrong way, but there are different ways. You go with whatever solution works for you, but don't come on here suggesting people aren't using their brains when they choose a different route to you.
|
May 3rd, 2010, 09:38 AM | #19 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Plantation, FL
Posts: 55
|
I love starting a thread and then watching it wander all over the place...good stuff guys. Thanks
|
May 3rd, 2010, 11:03 AM | #20 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: White Bear Lake, Minnesota
Posts: 85
|
Quote:
I did NOT state that they weren’t using their head because they chose a different path. That is an incorrect interpretation of a simple statement... and I stand by my statement.
__________________
www.insectula.com |
|
May 3rd, 2010, 11:44 AM | #21 |
Major Player
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 969
|
Mike, your solution using step up rings will work for some lenses, but not all. For example, I have an 11-16mm Tokina which has a 77mm thread. With a Fader ND (82mm front element) attached it vignettes at 11 and 12mm. I also have a Canon 14mm f/2.8 L. This lens doesn't have a filter thread, so again step-up rings would be useless.
|
May 3rd, 2010, 12:48 PM | #22 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: White Bear Lake, Minnesota
Posts: 85
|
Yes, these fader ND start having other issues with wide angles such as these. I do have a set of regular NDs as I get color shifts on my widest lenses also.
I know it's a video thing but I really wish companies would include in-camera ND's on their SLR's
__________________
www.insectula.com |
May 3rd, 2010, 01:38 PM | #23 |
Sponsor: Schneider Optics
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Van Nuys, CA
Posts: 387
|
For the record, it is very very (did I emphasize very enough?) hard to make a "variable ND" filter that does not have blue leak. This is because the process of crossing two polarizers causes the blue channel of light to leak through more than others and can wreak havoc on your white balance if you are paying attention.
I have owned a Sing-Ray for years for my own personal photography and I have to be very careful with it. It can be a good tool but you have to pay attention to the white balance details if you shift the ND level. This happens mostly at the stronger end of the ND. Schneider does not currently manufacture a variable ND filter (as of May 2010 anyway). We have abandoned this for sometime becuase of the significant amount of blue leak that can occur in the these filters. Be careful when you buy or use a variable ND. It can be a useful tool as long as you are aware of the limitations. Single glass ND filters remain the purest optical solution (built-in camera NDs are made from lower quality resin or gel) and should be used whenever possible to ensure maximum image quality but I understand this may not be practical and there is a reason variable ND filters exist. Ryan Avery Schneider Optics |
May 3rd, 2010, 07:21 PM | #24 |
Trustee
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,684
|
Thanks Ryan , As usual your providing extremely valuable information . Thanks again for trolling these boards.
I've just been playing with a cheap fader ND and comparing it to doubling up my own polarizers. I noticed enormous blue leak when doubling up 2 circular pols ( one was "flipped") , but didn't notice it with a linear pol in front. I will check for that though. I did see very significant softening through the cheaper filter on telephoto lenses but not bad on wide and normal. Looked OK with 2 decent quality pols though. Haven't tested very carefully yet though. Its such an attractive tool for a DSLR especially if you are covering an event where light and camera placement in daylight can change so radically and quickly. Lenny Levy |
May 4th, 2010, 10:26 AM | #25 |
Sponsor: Schneider Optics
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Van Nuys, CA
Posts: 387
|
Lenny,
Any time you use filters in front of a telephoto, the requirements for true optical flatness are exponential. This is why the big Canon tele's on DSLRs have rear drop-in filters to reduce the amount of glass that has to be flat. IF, big IF in my opinion, you were to make your own homemade variable ND, using a circular pol in the rear and a linear pol on the front would be the correct usage. Hence why your tests with circular pols stacked front ways an back created the results they did. Bottom line: variable NDs can be a useful and fun tool but certainly not the "pro" solution. That being said, I use 'em on occasion. :) Ryan Avery Schneider Optics |
May 5th, 2010, 07:52 AM | #26 |
Major Player
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Incline Village, Nevada
Posts: 604
|
Using the Singh-Ray variable ND I rarely see the blue color effect discussed and when seen it is near the max setting.
And in the rare occasions where it is seen, it is a very simple thing to correct in FCP, Color, Edius, Premiere, or Photoshop for stills. Simple white balance. Weighing the rare occurence of a slight blue shift against the big savings in time changing out filters to get to my desired DOF is well worth the occasional white balance in post. When shooting video, we have lost the option of shutter speed adjustment to control aperture for quickly getting desired DOF. The variable ND is a pro option to quickly dial in DOF. Matt-box filtration is superior if you have a shooting situation and budget that allows it. 4X4 filters with ND grads can knock down a sky while keeping the subject at the exposure you want. Sunset grad filters, pro-mists... and not to mention the best flare protection with flags. But then you have to deal with the extra bulk and attention a large rig can draw at the wrong time. The right tool for the right job. |
| ||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|