AF-101 built in NDs vs. Variable ND filter

G

Gene Sung

Veteran
I don't have a camera with built in ND filters. Right now I'm just using a Canon with a variable ND filter.


But just wondering since the AF-100 does have built in ND filters, do you guys only use the built in ND filters? This would be more for run and gun type stuff where you have to do things fast, and NOT for more production / sound stage type stuff.


Or do you guys still find a use for Variable ND filters such as the Heliopan?


The reason I'm asking is because the built in NDs work in 2 stop increments. Seems like the precise nature of the Variable ND filter would still be useful since you can dial it in exactly to the needed ND.


But like I said, since I don't have a camera with built in NDs, I can only theorize about it. Want to hear opinions from people who actually have a camera with built in NDs.

Thanks for any guidance
 
I use the built-in ND's.

In my experience, pretty much all variable ND's give a sharpness hit, reduce reflective highlights (which you sometimes want), and sometimes add a color cast. Plus it's a pain to move them from lens to lens. I avoid them whenever possible.

I can see the usefulness of a high quality built-in variable ND, though... if it's doable for a successor.
 
I will use an extra ND on the lens if I want to open up the lens when shooting outside. Not a variable. Other than that the built in is all I need. I would be hard pressed to buy a camera that didn’t have built in ND. It’s a real timesaver.
 
Last edited:
gene_can_sing said:
But just wondering since the AF-100 does have built in ND filters, do you guys only use the built in ND filters? This would be more for run and gun type stuff where you have to do things fast, and NOT for more production / sound stage type stuff.


Or do you guys still find a use for Variable ND filters such as the Heliopan?
Click to expand...
Only ever the built-ins, never bother with the irritating and error-prone variables. And yes I have the premium Heliopan. I would only ever use it on a camera that doesn't have built-in ND's. And I would still curse that camera for not having built-in ND's! :)

The reason I'm asking is because the built in NDs work in 2 stop increments. Seems like the precise nature of the Variable ND filter would still be useful since you can dial it in exactly to the needed ND.
Click to expand...
True, but that's what the iris is for. The variable ND is able to dial in smaller increments, but comes with a whole raft of drawbacks -- not the least of which is, you're guaranteeing yourself to lose a minimum of about 1.5 stops of sensitivity just by putting the variable ND on in the first place!

Read Adam Wilt's article on variable ND's to see some of the other drawbacks -- including color shifts, the crosshatch factor, etc. Plus the hassle of having to migrate the variable ND every time you change a lens. Plus having to have step-up rings and step-down rings for every lens you're using that has a different filter size. Plus now you've got several more glass areas in your optical path, which is an opportunity for reflections to creep in, and for the image to go softer -- especially on telephoto with the cheaper variable NDs, your sharpness will just go straight to hell with those. Plus now you've got another two surfaces you have to keep clean and keep dust off of, and on and on.

Built-in ND's are just vastly superior.
 
I agree with Barry... however I did run into a situation recently where I was glad I had my Fader ND-II in my kit bag. A crazy-bright afternoon, and I needed shallow DOF to obscure public behind my presenter. With a base ISO of 400 even ND4 wasn't enough for me to open the aperture wide enough. A longer lens would have helped, but I'd have been standing somewhere over a cliff edge to get the shot: a touch of variable ND did the trick.

While I'm sure I lost some quality, better that than dropping the shot. As with all bits of gear, having one to hand gives you options when you're up against it, but it's a sign of a well-planned shoot when most of the kit stays in the bag. :-)
 
I carry Tiffen ND 3, 6 and 9s with me everywhere I go, have for 30 years, but I seldom use them with the AF100. I've set my ISOs at 200, 400 and 1600 and find that I can pretty much dial in everything I need. And if I needed an ND, I would never use a variable. I don't trust them - although admittedly I've never used them - just based on feedback I've heard from other cinematographers - so maybe my opinion isn't very "informed".

As for the NDs, I have duplicates in 3x3, 4x4 and Panavision size. But often when I'm in bright outdoor light I use a polarizer instead. I have Tiffen and B+W, and even though the B+Ws get a lot of press, I've always preferred the Tiffen (although I don't care much for the company itself - terrible customer service, and that's coming from someone who has accumulated over $5,000 - yes that's $5,000 - - worth of their filters).
 
I use internal and external NDs (and in combination).

Typically we find the internals do not provide exactly what we want in studio situations where we often need to work in 1-stop increments.

My feeling is the internals mimic ENG camera ND functions particularly for exteriors shooting and not the the more standard for me (.3, .6, .9)

I have never used a variable ND ( which I assume is a double polariser) so cant comment on their practicalness for the task.
 
I use the internal ND's and when the situation calls for it , the most important ND of all, a .3. Adding the .3 in front of the lens gets me all the odd number ND 's like 1,3,5,7 stops of ND.
 
I often use a circ polarizer in conjunction with the internal ND's.

I have and do use a vari ND on my Canon DSLRs, but I have never had an occasion to use it on my AF100. I do use a matte box with graduated ND's a lot also in conjunction with the internal ND's.

internal ND's is one of the best things about the AF100.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top