just received a nd500 from lightcraft. no previous experience with filters. i've been reading quite a number of reviews about the usefulness of these things. i'm confused, though, the product i received looks like a single lens element. i.e., no rotation possible. did i order a partial setup or the wrong item? i've emailed lightcraft-- no response yet.
Fader ND500
- Thread starter sn66p
- Start date
Cavemandude
Well-known member
Wrong item, you need this one:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Fader-ND-Filter-ND2-ND400-77mm-Neutral-Density-/140361506629
You got this one which is about $50 cheaper:
http://cgi.ebay.com/LCW-ND500-MC-filter-77mm-exceed-ND400-real-9-stops-/140375837909
Randy
http://cgi.ebay.com/Fader-ND-Filter-ND2-ND400-77mm-Neutral-Density-/140361506629
You got this one which is about $50 cheaper:
http://cgi.ebay.com/LCW-ND500-MC-filter-77mm-exceed-ND400-real-9-stops-/140375837909
Randy
Homunculus
Carbonite Member
well don't necessarily sigh. ND's are very good and there's been a lot of talks on this forum that FADER ND's in particular (to some people) destroy the image with unacceptable softness/lost of sharpness as opposed to regular ND so perhaps you got the right thing after all. After reading all the stuff I read about fader ND's (which are much more expensive) I won't ever buy one I'll stick to normal ND's
BrianBrook
Active member
I have an outdoor shoot next week in the L.A. sun and it wouldn't be possible w/o my Fader ND, I absolutely love manipulating it and not my aperture/shutter speed-I haven't noticed this softness/sharpness loss yet though the more expensive Vari ND's maybe the way to go if this is a major concern for the long haul!
If the OP wants a screw-in ND, he'd be better off with B+W or Heliopan. The fact that L.C.W. makes crappy Fader NDs is enough reason to stay away from their other filters. If the OP bought it on eBay, he can return it within seven days. I returned mine by going through the dispute process and stated that the product was not as described. It is blurry and I believe their product page's test shot is not credible.
Ron Rodenmeyer
Well-known member
+1 to BrianBrook. There has been a lot of bashing of Fader ND by non users over hearsay. I'm sorry, your experience, Jordan, was negative, but it has not mirrored mine at all and apparently lots of other users.
On the other hand, to the OP, a 9 stop ND filter is not a bad thing to have in your kit. If the cost of returning it means you lose most the value, you might keep it and use it. But if you want to quickly change your "iris" based on changing light conditions, than yes some kind of variable ND (Fader, Singh Ray, etc.) is what you want.
On the other hand, to the OP, a 9 stop ND filter is not a bad thing to have in your kit. If the cost of returning it means you lose most the value, you might keep it and use it. But if you want to quickly change your "iris" based on changing light conditions, than yes some kind of variable ND (Fader, Singh Ray, etc.) is what you want.
It's not a subjective matter of experience. When you put a piece of plastic in front of your lens, the image is degraded. Have you seen this?
Cavemandude
Well-known member
The general rule with the Fader ND is the wider the lens the higher the quality of the image will be. People have reported soft images when using long lenses. I'm not sure at what lens mm that the image starts to get soft to where it is problematic. I've been using mainly with my Panasonic 20mm f1.7, which is a sharp lens, and it works fine with that.
Randy
Randy
Last edited:
Peter Reynolds
Well-known member
Mine will be arriving early next week. I've only heard great things about it (including from Philip Bloom) so I'm surprised at some of the posts.
When it arrives I'll do some quick tests and report back.
P.
When it arrives I'll do some quick tests and report back.
P.
BrianBrook
Active member
As my shooting style very rarely calls for Telephoto shots is the reason I haven't encountered any problems thus far, any glass you put in front of a lens will have detrimental effects but it's called a trade-off and perfecting exposure while not changing shutter/speed and/or aperature is a compromise I'm willing to live with!
Ron Rodenmeyer
Well-known member
Admittedly, I never shoot at focal lengths anywhere near 400mm. I've used it repeatedly on my 28mm prime and 17-50 zoom.
All filters will degrade the image to some degree, but I'm telling you I've never seen anything like this using the Fader ND.
Homunculus
Carbonite Member
it's not hearsay buddy they have a whole thread here somewhere with a lot of photos/pictures that prove beyond a single doubt how fader ND's were destroying the image clarity/sharpness
That's because it's already been established that wide angle lenses don't seem to suffer from this problem. The thing is, how often do you need to shoot at f/2.8 or wider with your 28mm prime and the Fader ND? Try anything above 50mm and you'll see the softness. It's very disappointing.
If you're using Hoya or Tiffen screw-in filters then yes, you will degrade your image. Cheap filters will do that.
Cavemandude
Well-known member
All those tests were at telephoto ranges 85-400mm, I've yet to see a test in the 14-50mm range which is a far more common range for the GH1 and its crop factor. But let's face it, there better be a difference in image quality since there is a $300 price difference.
Randy
Randy
Last edited:
Martti Ekstrand
Veteran
My main reason for disliking using polarizers as NDs is not any potential softness in telephoto shots (which happens with any filter made of plastic) but that they easily kill the lustre of human skin.
wow. i don't recall hearing such criticism about the fader's here. i really use the collective wisdom gathered on this site here to help me especially with purchases. well i don't know what to do now. for video shooting, b/c the shutter speed is "locked" at 1/50th for 24p, a variable filter is critical-- i mean you can only play with aperture so much, right? still haven't heard back from the seller.