ND Filters

J

johnhizzle

Active member
I made this same post in the work flow section and I should've made it here, maybe a mod can get rid of the other one but anyway.

I'm thinking of buying some ND Filters for my GH13 does anyone have any suggestions to which I should buy?

Thanx
 
Get anything that you can afford. ND is a must have for video.

ND filters are one of the most important tools that you can get to improve the look of your footage. IE: Keeping your shutter speed at 50 and not having to stop down to F11 ect.... If I am shooting in daylight I will have a ND filter on my lens.

I am using Hoya MMC filters which is working great for me right now. Get something that is multi-coated. You will need ND4 and ND8, you can also get a ND2 but I don't use it. There are better brands out there, B&W comes to mind.

Also if you have different size lenses buy filters for the largest size. Get thread adapters for the rest. That way you only need to get one set of ND filters. Something I wish I did.
 
Another option to buying over sized is to get something like the Cokin P or even Z system and then buying a few drop in filters and adapter rings. You have a choice of brand in these sizes, so your not stuck with Cokin if they're not your cup of tea.
 
bitcrusher said:
Get anything that you can afford. ND is a must have for video.

ND filters are one of the most important tools that you can get to improve the look of your footage. IE: Keeping your shutter speed at 50 and not having to stop down to F11 ect.... If I am shooting in daylight I will have a ND filter on my lens.

I am using Hoya MMC filters which is working great for me right now. Get something that is multi-coated. You will need ND4 and ND8, you can also get a ND2 but I don't use it. There are better brands out there, B&W comes to mind.

Also if you have different size lenses buy filters for the largest size. Get thread adapters for the rest. That way you only need to get one set of ND filters. Something I wish I did.
Click to expand...
how about those vari-nd's ? a good investment (need to plan ahead when using different lens sizes though)
 
roei z said:
how about those vari-nd's ? a good investment (need to plan ahead when using different lens sizes though)
Click to expand...

Planning ahead for different lens sizes is a great idea -- something I neglected to do in spite of seeing that advice on this forum. Mainly because I never anticipated owning lenses requiring the larger filter threads. Well, that was definite lack of foresight on my part and I ended up with multiple Fader NDs as my lens collection grew.

Now, about those variable NDs. Once you've used them, the convenience and speed of being able to adjust exposure at just a slight turn of the filter will spoil you real fast compared to swapping out individual filters.

There are lots of threads debating the merits or shortcomings of the various ones available. I suggest you research them fully before investing in any variable ND. However, in short and in my experience, the LCW Fader NDs tend to go noticeably soft after about 50mm (focal length). Whereas the Singh-Ray Vari-ND remains virtually indistinguishable (in terms of sharpness) when compared to no filter at all.

I have owned and tested both brands and the Singh-Ray is by far the better of the two in terms of image sharpness, and build quality, IMO. And here's something that you don't often see mentioned -- the Singh-Ray Vari-ND is only available in 77mm and 82mm. Why is that? Is it because they want to limit sales? After all, you can get the Fader NDs in almost any filter size. And, at first thought, that seems like the logical and most practical approach. However, I tend to think not offering anything smaller than 77mm speaks to Singh-Ray's understanding of the whole lens size issue and what makes sense in terms of benefits to their customers. Versus merely producing whatever they think will sell. Of course, that's all purely speculation on my part.

I still own my Faders and will use them if I'm on a multi cam shoot where an ND is a must. And, like I said, the softness on the Faders only becomes noticeably apparent over 50mm. That said, it really bothers me to even think about using something that I know is compromising the image quality of a very expensive, sharp lens.

The bottom line is the Singh-Ray will ALWAYS go on the camera used for the money shots. And, if I could afford it I'd have multiple Singh-Rays and never pick up a Fader again.
 
thanks for the thorough answer. so the best investment is to buy the Singh-ray 77mm and get downscale rings for my needs.. which are usually around 50-55mm
 
tflak said:
There are lots of threads debating the merits or shortcomings of the various ones available. I suggest you research them fully before investing in any variable ND. However, in short and in my experience, the LCW Fader NDs tend to go noticeably soft after about 50mm (focal length). Whereas the Singh-Ray Vari-ND remains virtually indistinguishable (in terms of sharpness) when compared to no filter at all.
Click to expand...

Agreed. However, since I mainly use my 20mm 1.7 and FD 50mm 1.4, I see virtually no difference, and seeing as the LCW fader is MUCH cheaper, it might be more suited to a lot of people.

When I use the kit lens and zoom in past 50mm to about 85mm, it does get soft, but not neccessarily in a bad way - it makes the image more filmic, in a similar way to how my FD 50mm looks softer and more filmic than the sharper 20mm.

Past 85mm or so the LCWs become almost unusable.
 
However, in short and in my experience, the LCW Fader NDs tend to go noticeably soft after about 50mm (focal length).
Click to expand...

I just got a Fader LCW MKII and noticed the same thing, also there is a slight purpule color cast.

I am ok with the fader's as I am only going to use it when I want to shoot wide open for those shallow DOF shot's were sharpness in not the most important thing. But IMO its not the best thing to use unless you need the convince factor. I have not had a chance to try the Singh-Ray yet.

One cool trick I did with the Fader on my last project was to shoot over exposed and take down the exposure smoothly with the fader, it can be a nice effect and something you can't do without de-clicking your lens. You can see it here at 3:30 vimeo.com/17231594
 
bitcrusher said:
One cool trick I did with the Fader on my last project was to shoot over exposed and take down the exposure smoothly with the fader, it can be a nice effect and something you can't do without de-clicking your lens. You can see it here at 3:30 vimeo.com/17231594
Click to expand...

You mean at 3:40 just before the cutaway? I really didn't notice that when I first looked at that video. Maybe because it was so close to the cut. Now that you pointed it out, it was kind of a cool effect. I had assumed you were overexposed in those shots for artistic reasons, but it was still distracting for me; only because I shoot. Don't think the average viewer would be consciously aware of it.

One thing I was thinking as I watched was some subtle location sound mixed with the music might have added a lot to this piece. However, as is, I think you didi a great job of capturing the essence of the event.
 
That's a great link, Peter. Lots of good info in the article and the comments.

Judging from Vincent's tests at 150mm, I'd have to say the Genus brand of variable fader that he tested far outstrips the sharpness of the LCW Faders. I've stated I noticed going past 50mm on the LCW Faders is where the softness becomes noticeable. But I actually start to see the softness (albeit very slight) at around 35mm using sharp glass. And by 100mm it's very apparent.

For me, the takeaway from Vincent's article and the comments that followed is that you will probably lose something somewhere along the way by using a variable ND; whether it be sharpness, color purity, skin tones or highlights. I can only say that I have yet to notice any of that using the Singh-Ray. I'm not saying it can't happen, and I'll take others at their word that it does under the circumstances they've observed it happening. I just haven't personally seen it, so far. And until using a variable ND compromises some footage for me, I'll continue using them versus individual ND filters due to their convenience and speed. Plus, there are definitely situations where the combination of the ND effect and the glare reducing capabilities of the polarizers comes in handy. For example, seeing fish underwater in very bright conditions with lots of glare.

One thing I noticed in the comments in Vincent's piece was the tendency of some to use the term Vari-ND when actually referring to the Faders -- kind of like using Kleenex to refer to all tissues -- lumping all variable ND filters under the collective term of "Vari-ND". But that's actually the brand name of the Singh-Ray, so it could be confusing. And now I think one needs also be careful when referring to "Faders" since the Genus brand and LCW both use that term and especially since there appears to be a big difference between those.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top