I've tried a standard B+W UV filter, it doesn't fit under the EX1's hood. Given that all the B+W filters use the same housing I'd be 99.9% certain the standard 486 wouldn't fit either.

Piotr and Bob
Good news, I just tried and the B&W 486 fits inside the supplied Sony lensshade, normally I use a mattebox so therefore I didn't know.
So it seems to be different from a standard B7W filter.
I did not see anything unusual by using 486 between camera and LEX.
The IR rays are cancelled out by the coating of this filter and not mirrored back to where they came from.

Peter , is this the standard filter or the slim?

I'd rather get the standard with threads on both sides but want it to fit under the EX-1 hood.

Lenny levy

Peter, this is certainly good news for you, but not for me - I have made a mistake! I used the link, provided here by somebody else, to the B&H's "Slim" version, and ordered that one without further checking... Is your this one?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...tal_UV_IR.html

If so, it beats me why it's some 50 bucks cheaper than the slim version - having two threads and a cap.... And fits under the hood, AND can take the Letus! Ouch...

Does anyone not planning to use Letus (or using matte box solely) want mine 486 SLIM filter (just arrived, like new)?

Thanks Peter,
interesting. There's a good reason though why the slim filters cost more apparently. The housing is brass not aluminium. They seem to have done this as the Al housings can weld into the lens thread a bit and with the slimmer filter it could be a real beast to get it unstuck. So I'm not too worried about the extra cost, it could be money well spent.

The other standard UV filter I did try almost fitted, it might have with a bit of a push and a shove but not something I wanted to really try.

Or perhaps B+W have redesigned their filter so the standard ones do fit, it only looks like they missed the mark by less than 1mm.

I'd like to update you that after several tests, I have found the new settings best suited for the 486 filter. I'm getting a very good colour reproduction now - even indoors with tungsten light, which was most difficult before the filter...

The blacks are properly black, also the reds are not lacking any more after I simply dialed all matrix pairs settings beck to zero, and carefully calibrated the WB.

Piotr,

Thats really good news - when you say dialled all the matrix pairs back to zero - do you mean on Bill's PP settings (i.e.R-G used to be -75). Also are you finding the green hue around the edges to be a problem? I am about to buy the filter - but think that I would prefer the colour mis-registration to a green hue problem if it is too obvious.

All your help is appreciated.

Yes Graeme - Bill's modification need revising with the filter, that's for sure! Therefore, rather than use ungrounded values, I reverted to the factory settings in all my PP's, which now only differ with the gamma curves, matrices, and black gamma settings.

Regarding the greenish cast at the corners: unfortunately it is there, you cannot avoid it at full wide - just the laws of physics, I guess. But it's only visible at full wide and with tungsten light (see the grabs in my previous post here - what starts like the infamous vignetting, is the green cast in the corners actually; when you go fully wide - as seen in the right grab - it becomes apparent everywhere along the edges; the remaining colours are 100% accurate).

Personally, I prefer the colours I'm getting now with some green hue at the corners in specific circumstaces (usually possible to be avoided), to what I was getting before the filter - but of course this is a matter of personal choice.

Thanks Piotr,

I think that I will give it a try - but go for the filter that is threaded on both sides - that way I can use my Grad Neutral density filters without a matte box - I am using the Cokins with an adaptor - which needs to screw onto the front of the filter.

It would be nice if there was a non-filter solution - but I think that this might just be a problem with the chips - can't see how they could solve it with software.

Sony had this problem with the first batch of F23's (maybe Adam Wilt used one in his comparison), and solved it by changing the filter. I'm going to call again on Monday and hopefully they'll have some kind of a response.

Thanks Sean!
Be sure to let us all know what SONY says.

There's a good reason though why the slim filters cost more apparently. The housing is brass not aluminium. They seem to have done this as the Al housings can weld into the lens thread a bit and with the slimmer filter it could be a real beast to get it unstuck. So I'm not too worried about the extra cost, it could be money well spent.

The other standard UV filter I did try almost fitted, it might have with a bit of a push and a shove but not something I wanted to really try.

Or perhaps B+W have redesigned their filter so the standard ones do fit, it only looks like they missed the mark by less than 1mm.

Hi Bob,
my 486 filter has threads on both sides, it is marked on the outside of the filterring in golden lettering " B+W - made in Germany - F-PRO".
Its ring is far too heavy for alumium, I suppose its brass.
It fits inside the lenshood but only just, you don't have to push it in though.
It is always a good precaution to apply a very little bit of grease on the filterthread to prevent it getting stuck.
The old trick is to use some 'nosegrease': wipe your fingertip along your nose and that little skingrease on your fingertip is enough to lubricate the filterthread.

Thanks for the tips about the 486. I discovered that the best way to get a tight filter off is to grab it with rubber glove used for dishwashing. It really grabs on the filter.

Piotr,
Looking now at the pic you posted of the 2 women on the couch, the green looks completely unacceptable to me. I could never get that by a client.
How far do you have to zoom in to get rid of it completely?

Do you also see this on a 35mm adapter when using a wide angle?

I'm bummed.

Any pictures of just a flat wall at various zoom lengths would be nice.

I wonder why you only see it under tungstun.
Perhaps its not a function of tungstun so much as a wide open f stop as would be more likely indoors? That's when the light would bend more.

Lenny Levy

Lenny,

I do agree with you that just looking at stills, this may appear unacceptable - but it's not that bad when actually watching video; in uneven lighting from many weak (tungsten or incandescent) sources, large areas of same colour (like walls) tend to be recorded with all hues of it (depending on the viewing angle and the distance from those light sources) - even without the filter, and it's only natural.

However, you are right it can look very ugly. This is why I stated before that the necessity to use any additional filter in order to just achieve unpolluted blacks is a major EX1 flaw in the first place...

I'd be very grateful for a couple of examples posted by users of the other 486 filter version (the one with external thread), as well as of the 489 filter which absorbs rather than reflects IR.

As to your question about Letus use with the filter - unfortunately mine doesn't have the external thread, so I cannot fix the LEX without removing the filter fist.