$5 ND filter test... can you guess which is which?

cordvision

cordvision

Well-known member
I always used high quality filters (like B&W) on my cameras. Last week, I decided to buy a $5 ND (.6) plastic filter from ebay, just to see how "bad" they really are. I expected it to have a considerable color shift and to decrease the image sharpness.... which surprisingly doesn't seem to be the case, at least I can't see a difference between the bare camera and the camera with the ND on. I just can't believe that a $5 filter can be that good, something has to be wrong...


Can you tell which one is which? One of the pictures was shot with an ND .6, the other without. I compensated for exposure by adjusting the shutter speed.

(100% crop)
 

Attachments

  • NDFilterTest.jpg
    NDFilterTest.jpg
    351.4 KB · Views: 0
Not sure how much you can tell with this shot. Its small, fairly even contrast across the shot. Theres other variables as well like lens it was shot on.
 
seems "B" will be with ND(2stop) + longer shutter speed, but that is very depend on shutter speed changes between shots .
 
By the way, these shots are extracted from full resolution RAW still images and not from a video file. I will reveal which shot is which tomorrow, and I will also do some more tests that feature more colorful subjects and different lighting conditions.


By the way, the pictures were taken with a 28mm zeiss contax lens at f5.6 that was mounted to the camera with a cameraquest adapter ($189)...
 
Last edited:
The problem with plastic NDs is not at a two stop reduction of light, but at six stops. Which is needed when shooting in sunlight at 100 ISO, 1/50 s shutter and f/2.8 - that's when the tinting has become a bit of a issue. My Cokins have a magenta tint that starts to be noticeable at four stop and increases for each step above that.
 
Martti Ekstrand said:
The problem with plastic NDs is not at a two stop reduction of light, but at six stops. Which is needed when shooting in sunlight at 100 ISO, 1/50 s shutter and f/2.8 - that's when the tinting has become a bit of a issue. My Cokins have a magenta tint that starts to be noticeable at four stop and increases for each step above that.
Click to expand...
amen to that...

need lens info here.

in my experience, wide open on a 2.8, or better yet a 1.4 Canon FD yeilds such deminishing results with my "FaderND" LCW filter...i havent used in in months. i stop down instead. i'd rather deal with deep DOF.:happy:
 
The big problem with cheap filters is the uncoated surface, then flares and milky blacks when the light strikes the lens.
 
Chris Light said:
in my experience, wide open on a 2.8, or better yet a 1.4 Canon FD yeilds such deminishing results with my "FaderND" LCW filter...i havent used in in months. i stop down instead. i'd rather deal with deep DOF.:happy:
Click to expand...

What type of issues did you end up having with the FaderND? I have the same 50mm 1.4 lens and was looking at that ND setup myself.
 
Chris Light said:
in my experience, wide open on a 2.8, or better yet a 1.4 Canon FD yeilds such deminishing results with my "FaderND" LCW filter...i havent used in in months.
Click to expand...

maxminoia said:
The big problem with cheap filters is the uncoated surface, then flares and milky blacks when the light strikes the lens.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly why I've invested in a matte box with a french flag and good quality 4x4 glass ND filters.
 
Heh, I use cheap ND and expensive ND. Honestly I can't tell much difference most of the time. The same *bad* camera usage that would give you lens wash from sunlight, etc., would be the same bad camera usage that would give you wash using any ND(or other) filter.

Maybe because I grew up using old uncoated lenses and learned how to avoid sticky situations? Kids these days.. sheesh. :D
 
Svart said:
Maybe because I grew up using old uncoated lenses and learned how to avoid sticky situations? Kids these days.. sheesh. :D
Click to expand...

I don't mind flares from uncoated lenses, in fact I crave them. Flat contrast washes on filter on the other hand are just plain fugly. And I grew up making images with a shoebox and some old glass sheets covered with cancerogenic silver nitrate solutions :P
 
well, it's all in what you expect I suppose. Whenever I get wash, I just tighten up the flags on the mattebox until they go away, or (gasp!) reframe my shot.

Honestly I kinda prefer the cheap plastic filters. Having dropped and/or scratched a few expensive ones over the years, the cheapo ones become really attractive. If they can do 95% of what I expect with minimal problems but be 95% cheaper, then I'm not going to worry too much. :D
 
Kubrick71 said:
What type of issues did you end up having with the FaderND? I have the same 50mm 1.4 lens and was looking at that ND setup myself.
Click to expand...

Not speaking for the quoted person, but the FaderND has several terrible drawbacks.

Strong, green colour cast. Streaky, weird bokeh. Sharpness loss past 85mm. Unusable after 135mm. Poor construction - markings on ring peel off. The convenience and time you save in shooting, you pay back in post. In brief, it ain't worth crap. You're better off buying some quality NDs in various strengths and using those.
 
... said:
Not speaking for the quoted person, but the FaderND has several terrible drawbacks.

Strong, green colour cast. Streaky, weird bokeh. Sharpness loss past 85mm. Unusable after 135mm. Poor construction - markings on ring peel off. The convenience and time you save in shooting, you pay back in post. In brief, it ain't worth crap. You're better off buying some quality NDs in various strengths and using those.
Click to expand...

Hmm...I have 3 of these and most of this runs contrary to my experience -- I don't have anything longer than 100mm so can't really comment on that. Maybe you just got one from a bad production run. Sounds terrible. I'm completely satisfied with mine.
 
I don't have any of these problems with my FaderND. Markings on ring peeling off? Is yours the genuine LightCraftWorkshop FaderND, the Singh-Ray, or one of the knockoffs?

I use the 52mm LCW FaderND on my GF13 with either the 20mm pancake or a Canon FDn 50/1.4, and I've never had any issues at all like you describe. The filter works great, doesn't degrade sharpness or hokey or anything else for that matter, and is super easy to dial in for whatever DOF you want regardless of how bright shooting conditions are. It's the best $75 I've spent on my camera that I didn't spend on old glass.

... said:
Not speaking for the quoted person, but the FaderND has several terrible drawbacks.

Strong, green colour cast. Streaky, weird bokeh. Sharpness loss past 85mm. Unusable after 135mm. Poor construction - markings on ring peel off. The convenience and time you save in shooting, you pay back in post. In brief, it ain't worth crap. You're better off buying some quality NDs in various strengths and using those.
Click to expand...
 
+1 on the L.C.W Fader ND being a genuine piece of crap. It has a plastic front element. Their Mark II version is even worse. There are threads here with tests results. Link.
 
Last edited:
Svart said:
Heh, I use cheap ND and expensive ND. Honestly I can't tell much difference most of the time.
Click to expand...
Well I haven't yet tried expensive ones but the eBay "neewer" ones that I have tried from a UK seller appear to give an almost terrible magenta color cast from ND8 (if you stack 2 nd8s it seems like looking through a magenta-red piece of glass- skin tones are almost red). I really hoped that more expensive ones would be more color neutral. If there is no big difference in this aspect I'd rather refrain from spending a large amount of money.
If not, I would really be interested in getting some reasonably priced good Nds without color cast.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top