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

Sorry, I got a little busy over the last few days. Picture A is indeed the one that had the ND filter on. Unfortunately, it is a little bit over exposed which gives it a bit more of a washed out look and therefore might be interpreted as less sharp. I hope to do some more tests in the next few days.
An ND .6 or .9 is all I need to bring the levels down so I can get a correctly exposed picture at f11 or f8 on a sunny day, without having to change the shutter (1/50). So far, I'm happy with it...
 
It's been my experience that when a product like the FaderND gets raves from well-known pros using it in the field but "it's a piece of crap" dismissals from forums, it's usually a case of operator error on the part of the latter.

Too many guys are using the FaderND and getting good results for it to be a POC. The odds favor the OE explanation.
 
kostas said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hmm I don't have this problem. Maybe it's just the manufacturer? I recently used multiple cheap ND filters on a shoot in bright sunlight:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=220114

Most of the shots were ND8 and ND4 combined with a few 2x ND8.

Are you white balancing manually or automatically? Are you doing it through the ND or a polarizer?
 
The test images below are from the thread whose link I added after posting.

FaderNDII.jpg
 
shaveblog said:
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.
Click to expand...

You couldn't have said it better. I've had great results with mine. I never leave home without it. Uh, unless I leave home without my camera.
 
Svart said:
Hmm I don't have this problem. Maybe it's just the manufacturer? I recently used multiple cheap ND filters on a shoot in bright sunlight:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=220114

Most of the shots were ND8 and ND4 combined with a few 2x ND8.

Are you white balancing manually or automatically? Are you doing it through the ND or a polarizer?
Click to expand...

To be honest I left WB on automatic. Probably white balancing through the filter would soften a bit the effect. What's the best way to white balance in this case?
 
kostas said:
To be honest I left WB on automatic. Probably white balancing through the filter would soften a bit the effect. What's the best way to white balance in this case?
Click to expand...


I generally WB manually using the kelvin scale while using white/gray/black WB cards. I never use the auto WB. I seem to remember a thread about the auto WB shifting to the red sometimes. I wonder if it's related?
 
In my results I have found (after reading it first) that manual WB on the 5D can add red gain - thats the worst gain there is in digital formats as the red channel is the noisiest to begin with, so I assume the method would be the same on the GH1 etc. I always use the increments to white balance to where I want it. Though, if you havent been doing this long and dont know where you want WB, Id always suggest doing it manual so at least you are shooting as accurately as possible.

To kostas, with filters and WB. When using CC filters like a coral or tobacco grad. I always apply the whitebalance first then apply the filter (though I dont ever use CC filters anymore).

ND filters are neutral so you can WB with it on as are PL's.

I dont use a Fader ND. But I do shoot with ND and a PL mounted, so I assume any degradation would be dependant on the quality of filter you use. And as I dont use one cant comment on the fader nd's quality. I saw shaveblog mention a price of $75 for the fader? Is that about normal price?

I can say this. Ive used cheap ND's and PL's before and they werent as good as what I have now that cost me quite a lot. I treat them a bit like lenses. Get the best I can afford and look after them and they'll outlast many cameras whilst still delivering quality.
 
Those photos aren't in focus. If the tester knew what he was doing, he wouldve refocused after putting on the FaderND. Who slaps a filter onto a camera and doesn't refocus? It's like he wanted the FaderND to fail and drummed up a ridiculous comparison to "prove" the filter degrades IQ.

Rubbish test and rubbish logic.


Jordan_S said:
The test images below are from the thread whose link I added after posting.


FaderNDII.jpg
Click to expand...
 
shaveblog said:
Those photos aren't in focus. If the tester knew what he was doing, he wouldve refocused after putting on the FaderND. Who slaps a filter onto a camera and doesn't refocus? It's like he wanted the FaderND to fail and drummed up a ridiculous comparison to "prove" the filter degrades IQ.

Rubbish test and rubbish logic.
Click to expand...

What about the greenish colour cast? Can we have your amazing insight into this?
 
shaveblog said:
Those photos aren't in focus. If the tester knew what he was doing, he wouldve refocused after putting on the FaderND. Who slaps a filter onto a camera and doesn't refocus? It's like he wanted the FaderND to fail and drummed up a ridiculous comparison to "prove" the filter degrades IQ.

Rubbish test and rubbish logic.
Click to expand...

All 4 photos were taken with the focus setting from the first photo. Please explain why the third, unfiltered photo is in focus while the second and fourth filtered ones are not.
 
Noel Evans said:
thats the worst gain there is in digital formats as the red channel is the noisiest to begin with
Click to expand...


How come in the thread "Why white balancing in your camera, may be a bad idea":

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=217849

there is a link:

http://frankglencairn.wordpress.com/2010/07/23/why-white-balancing-in-your-camera-may-be-a-bad-idea/

Who says that the BLUE channel is the noisiest..

I think that it's actually a moot point but is continuously repeated by pixel peepers alike but still fails to really quantify the problem.

Gain of any kind will equal noise no matter what channel of color or whatever.

What I'm saying is that I don't see ANY color shift in my cheap-o ND filters. Even if it did, I'd just manually take it out with the color curves in camera. Not a big deal. It's the same as using another lens that might tint the color slightly, like some of the older russian lenses do. Nobody seems to care about that, yet it does the same thing, changes the tinting.
 
Clearly minds are made up on both sides of this issue. If you tried a FaderND and it didn't work out for you, so be it. The rest of us getting great results with it won't lose any sleep, I assure you.

I'm at the beach today shooting in the peak of sun, and my FaderND is getting me the stills and especially the video even f16 on my FD35/2 couldn't get me. You gentlemen have a nice day.
 
Changed my mind about the Fader ND.

Found the negative comments here interesting enough to lead me to do a search on "Fader ND tests". And the threads I found really started me doubting my previously favorable opinions about it. After reading those threads, I was still a bit skeptical, but curious enough to take the time do my own testing. In short, after my testing, I'll think twice before using any of my three Fader NDs again. Ouch! Here's why:

All the negative comments about sharpness, etc. unfortunately turned out to be pretty accurate according to my own tests. I'm only covering sharpness issues here.

My own testing revealed things I hadn't noticed previously probably because I hadn't hacked my camera yet and used to shoot strictly 720p. And I rarely shot stills. Whatever the reasons for my thinking the Fader NDs were okay are now gone because my testing revealed that with the GH13 shooting FHD the softness issues are somewhat noticeable at 35mm, more noticeable at 50mm, but very noticeable at 100mm. So I can see how these issues would really ramp up at 200mm and above. It only makes sense.

I'm not bothering to post frame grabs because all they show are similar things to what is already readily available in this and other threads. But some may find how I tested of interest. Here's how:

First I shot some very detailed macro RAW stills using a Zeiss 100mm 2.0. Shot RAW mainly because I wanted the most detail possible, plus a wide latitude to be able to make any needed adjustments in post (other than sharpening) to get the Fader and non-Fader shots as similar to each other as possible. Focus was adjusted every time anything was changed. (Note that in all my testing I used a Z-Finder (3x) in addition to the GH-1 focus assist to get accurate focus.) In the end, no matter what settings I tried the results were always the same. The Fader ND definitely softened the focus compared to shooting without it. A lot.

Next I tried the Zeiss shooting FHD with the same basic set up as the RAW shoot - adjusting any settings as needed to maximize the end result as I made the Fader ND changes. After the RAW disappointment, I was holding out hope that the reduced resolution of the video versus the RAW stills would help. It didn't. Same basic results no matter what the settings - the Fader ND caused the image to noticeably soften.

Then I used a Zuiko 35-100mm 2.0 shooting FHD. First I tried it at 35mm and the softening was barely noticeable. In fact, I saw the difference more in the viewfinder than once recorded. At 50mm it was more noticeable - wasn't as bad as the results with the Zeiss 100mm, but was still noticeably softer than without the Fader. Then I went to 100mm and the results were just about as poor as with the Zeiss. And probably the only reason the Zeiss appeared worse is because there was a lot more apparent detail in those macro shots to go soft. Neither of these lenses are slouches when it comes to sharpness across the range.

Now, I sure wouldn't categorize any of my results as unusable crap. But I didn't invest in this type of glass and take the time to hack my camera to get something less than optimal results. And now that we have the beauty of the hack it seems almost criminal to use anything that diminishes its possibilities. :)

NOTE: All my Faders were purchased from LCW and Boniface Leung prior to the Mk.II model.
 
Last edited:
I'll say it again, the Fader NDs from LCW are crap. LCW is good at marketing; they say be wary of the fakes, I'll tell you something, I think the LCW versions are the fakes.

The Fader NDs suffer from a strong green colour cast, they exhibit weird bokeh, soft after 85mm, unusable over 135mm, and the construction is china/ebay quality. I don't trust LCW and I don't recommend their Fader NDs, mk 1 or 2. Avoid them.
 
Interesting thread. I'm going to make some tests with my own FaderND and post them here.
 
Okay, I did some tests and I'm getting the same green cast and softness. I don't think I need to post them since everyone else already has. 50mm and under the softness is tolerable, but 100mm and above is just too much.
 
It's possible (shudder) that everyone in this thread is right. The longest lens I use my FaderND on is a Canon FD50/1.4 on a GF13. Most of the time it's on the 20mm pancake. I don't need or own the long glass cited by the piece-o-crappers, so it's possible FaderND has issues with their lenses which don't come into play on shorter glass like mine.

I'm going uncharacteristically out of my way to be charitable and open minded here. Generally speaking when gear I know works well for me is slagged off as POC I tend to write the person off as a know-nothing. But as I said, I'm willing to accept that perhaps this product works better on short glass than long.

Somebody take away my nice pills. Sheesh, at this rate I'll be admitting that Glen Beck might make a good point here and there too.
 
I'm actually going to keep using the Fader ND. I noticed the green cast is pretty easy to remove using Vegas's color balance plugin. Softness isn't a big deal for me since I'm mainly use 100mm and under.
 
I can only speak to the lenses I use and the conditions I use them in. I've avoided making blanket statements about the Fader NDs.

Anticipate having my Singh-Ray in a couple of weeks and will gladly post the results of a comparison between the two when I get the chance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top