Polarizer...must have gear.

If AF100 and GH2 share same sensor, AF100 gotta have some filter(s) always on to mitigate the aliasing issue. Gawd... it would be great to have such built-in filters in GH series. Hopefully this decade!!!
 
stoneinapond said:
So does that mean when the variable ND is set at it's "lowest" setting, it functions as a "sort of" polarizer? And can you be a little more specific concerning "some" of the same benefits?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Yes, talking about the lowest setting only to compare with a stand-alone polarizer. The lessening glare effects will still be there at stronger ND settings.

The "some" is because the other use for a polarizer is to darken the sky; while the clouds and the landscape below are largely less affected. This is possible due to the polarized component of sky light. Decided to use that qualifier because I'm really not sure how the combination of the 2 polarizers affect that function.

All that said, my primary use of a variable ND is to deal with bright conditions. And the ability to finely adjust the degree of ND simply by turning the filter; especially in rapidly changing light conditions will spoil you very quickly. So I haven't paid a whole lot of attention to the polarizer aspects discussed above. I've just noticed that they occur.
 
Ben_B said:
Yes I am well aware that filters can decrease image quality, which is why I almost never use protective filters on the front of my lenses, only ND, polarizer, etc, that serves a purpose...I figure why put a $2 piece of glass in front of $2,000 lens...at least optically?
Click to expand...
I use $1.50 uv filter to protect my fader ND filter :). I sandwiched the nd filter between a front cap and the uv filter. Then stored it in a camera bag. It saves some space.
 
Do most of you chaps own a filter holder (Lee, Cokin etc.) with an adapter for each of your lens thread sizes, or do you buy seperate screw-in filters for each lens? Or get the biggest you can afford, and get step-up rings for each lens? I'm just at the start of building my rig, and trying to decide which route to take.
 
I'm a happy FaderND user. I've had zero of the so-called issues some have complained about, possibly because I don't use it with anything longer than a Canon FD 50mm f/1.4. It's excellent when used with this lens, the 20mm pancake, and the Caon FD 35mm f/2.

I originally bought the 52mm FaderND because it fit right on the FD 50mm without the need for an adapter, and I got a 46mm-52mm step-up ring to use it on the 20mm pancake. After I got the FD 35mm lens I figured I'd need to trade up to a larger FaderND as this lens takes a 55mm filter, but after testing it by holding the FaderND against the lens by hand, I discovered that a larger diameter filter isn't really needed here, the 52mm FaderND is perfectly fine without any vignetting thanks to the m43 crop factor. So I got a cheap 55mm-52mm step-down ring for the FD 35mm lens and everything looks great. With a full-frame system you do want to size up the filter to keep its edges away from the sensor boundaries, but with the 2x crop factor of m43 you can get away with a same-sized filter or even slightly smaller and still be free of vignetting if you're screwing it onto old manual glass.

So far I have just the one 52mm FaderND for the 3 lenses I shoot video with. If I only shot video, I might be tempted to buy one for each lens and leave it on, but I shoot stills as well and so the FaderND gets shuttled from lens to lens as needed. When I fell into the adapted glass rabbit hole I initially planned to buy an m43 adapter for each lens to speed up changing in the field, but in practice it's just as easy to leave the adapter on the camera and swap the lens to it. For protection I keep the FaderND capped when not in use. A 46mm female screw-on cap on the back, a standard lens cap on the front.

I know there are some here who deride the FaderND, feel the thrice more expensive Singh-Ray (which I haven't tested) is better, etc., but I still use the hell out of it and feel it's a neccessory rather than an accessory if you're shooting outdoor video with these cameras. The net improvement in image quality is not subtle. There's a reason why all professional video cameras have built-in ND filters, and I believe that as DSLR matures we'll start to see this feature become standard issue as well.
 
+1 for the FaderND.
a necessary tool in any bright daylight location!
i can see a regular polarizer being helpful, but if i'm shooting with any fast glass and want to keep the aperture open for shallow dof, i gotta throw on the Fader. i don't like changing the shutter speed to compensate.
i got the 62mm fader and there's no vignetting on any of my lenses: 20mm lumix, 28mm FD, 50mm FD, 14-140mm lumix.
 
For those unfamiliar with the LCW Fader ND, it's probably worth mentioning that there's a built-in step-up ring in terms of the actual filter diameter. For example, buying a 62mm Fader unit (back thread) results in a 67mm ND filter (referred to as front glass; which requires a 67mm lens cap). This helps prevent vignetting.

shaveblog, you can refer to the reported Fader issues as "so-called" if you like. And I see you qualified that by saying it's "possibly" because you have only used it with a 50mm or smaller lens. If you follow the link provided in one of my previous posts below, you'll see it's after about 50mm where most have reported the softness begins to appear, and to be very apparent at 100mm and greater. It's not a matter of deriding the Fader...well, okay, some have called it a piece of crap and I wouldn't go that far, but anything that degrades an image to the point the Fader does (at the focal lengths shown in the test images) is certainly less than desirable for anyone striving for the best images they can get. There's really no point in investing in great glass only to put something in front of it that will soften the image.

A Fader at its minimum setting will give you the approximate equivalent of ND 2. So, if you almost always shoot in bright conditions requiring an ND, I could see maybe leaving it on a lens. But, otherwise, you'd just end up needing to take it off or, worse, even forgetting it's on and needing to make adjustments that may be less than optimal for the actual conditions - i.e. using a higher ISO than needed.

In the end, I couldn't be happier with my Singh-Ray because it's virtually indistinguishable in terms of sharpness (compared to using nothing at all) at any focal length I've used it with up to 100mm (my longest). At least for me, it's been worth every penny. I'm about to get the new 100-300mm so we'll see how well the Singh-Ray does at 300.
 
The reason I used the term "so-called issues" is because i have yet to see a rigorous test that shows the Fader-ND really softens the image. I've seen guys take some shots without it, then screw it on and take some some comparison shots without checking focus and readjusting to allow for the obvious movement of the lens when you screw a filter onto the end of it. I've seen guys post images that represent a totally wacky scenario far outside what anyone would actually use the thing for -- FND cranked all the way to full light kill on a 300mm zoom? Really? Who's kidding who here? The FND is for shooting video with a normal length, preferably a prime, and killing enough sunlight to allow for a wide aperture and shallow depth of field. That's what it's for, and it works brilliantly. Whining that it doesn't maintain sharpness cranked full up on the long end of a zoom means nothing to me or anyone else using the filter properly. It's just not relevant data.

3 things tell me the FaderND works as advertised. Pros use and love it. The only guys I see whining about it are forum cranky pants. And my own experience with it, which is the most important indicator to me. But I don't feel the need to engage in a holy war about a light filter. Use it if you like it, don't if you don't. But trying to debunk the FaderND as a "piece of crap" is a losing game.

tflak said:
For those unfamiliar with the LCW Fader ND, it's probably worth mentioning that there's a built-in step-up ring in terms of the actual filter diameter. For example, buying a 62mm Fader unit (back thread) results in a 67mm ND filter (referred to as front glass; which requires a 67mm lens cap). This helps prevent vignetting.

shaveblog, you can refer to the reported Fader issues as "so-called" if you like. And I see you qualified that by saying it's "possibly" because you have only used it with a 50mm or smaller lens. If you follow the link provided in one of my previous posts below, you'll see it's after about 50mm where most have reported the softness begins to appear, and to be very apparent at 100mm and greater. It's not a matter of deriding the Fader...well, okay, some have called it a piece of crap and I wouldn't go that far, but anything that degrades an image to the point the Fader does (at the focal lengths shown in the test images) is certainly less than desirable for anyone striving for the best images they can get. There's really no point in investing in great glass only to put something in front of it that will soften the image.

A Fader at its minimum setting will give you the approximate equivalent of ND 2. So, if you almost always shoot in bright conditions requiring an ND, I could see maybe leaving it on a lens. But, otherwise, you'd just end up needing to take it off or, worse, even forgetting it's on and needing to make adjustments that may be less than optimal for the actual conditions - i.e. using a higher ISO than needed.

In the end, I couldn't be happier with my Singh-Ray because it's virtually indistinguishable in terms of sharpness (compared to using nothing at all) at any focal length I've used it with up to 100mm (my longest). At least for me, it's been worth every penny. I'm about to get the new 100-300mm so we'll see how well the Singh-Ray does at 300.
Click to expand...
 
shaveblog said:
The reason I used the term "so-called issues" is because i have yet to see a rigorous test that shows the Fader-ND really softens the image. I've seen guys take some shots without it, then screw it on and take some some comparison shots without checking focus and readjusting to allow for the obvious movement of the lens when you screw a filter onto the end of it. I've seen guys post images that represent a totally wacky scenario far outside what anyone would actually use the thing for -- FND cranked all the way to full light kill on a 300mm zoom? Really? Who's kidding who here? The FND is for shooting video with a normal length, preferably a prime, and killing enough sunlight to allow for a wide aperture and shallow depth of field. That's what it's for, and it works brilliantly. Whining that it doesn't maintain sharpness cranked full up on the long end of a zoom means nothing to me or anyone else using the filter properly. It's just not relevant data.

3 things tell me the FaderND works as advertised. Pros use and love it. The only guys I see whining about it are forum cranky pants. And my own experience with it, which is the most important indicator to me. But I don't feel the need to engage in a holy war about a light filter. Use it if you like it, don't if you don't. But trying to debunk the FaderND as a "piece of crap" is a losing game.
Click to expand...

I bow to your thorough reading skills and open-mindedness.
 
I'll let one of my secrets go..

Use a polarizer anytime you might encounter a bright light spot. Indoors or outdoors, doesn't matter. One of the things that makes digital scream "video!!!!" is that tiny area of blown-out light that is on an illuminated object that might otherwise look fine. Use the polarizer to kill that bright spot and your captures will look a lot more filmic..
 
Single best purchase I made was a grad ND filter. I use it with a polariser and it really evens out the exposure between the sky and ground. The holder is a bit wobbly as I found when I used it to shoot backplates out of a car. As I drove along the filter turned. But nothing a few tabs of Blu Tack wouldn't fix. I also have the Fader ND but I have noticed reflections in it when used with my Canon 50mm 1.4. It only happens occasionally but enough to be annoying. Mine is the plain old Fader ND not the Ultra. I wonder if the Ultra fixed this problem?
 
reggietelly said:
Also use a polariser to dial down bright computer screens. This works surprisingly well to even out exposure.
Click to expand...

Yeah. This is only really needed in low light though, as if you light properly the computer screen shouldn't be too much brighter than your subject...I mean it will be bright but not blown out. Problem in low light is you cut a lot of the light from the screen on your subject too.
 
JimNastics said:
Do most of you chaps own a filter holder (Lee, Cokin etc.) with an adapter for each of your lens thread sizes, or do you buy seperate screw-in filters for each lens? Or get the biggest you can afford, and get step-up rings for each lens? I'm just at the start of building my rig, and trying to decide which route to take.
Click to expand...

Jim, set up that I stole from Ianh here is very nice for organizing lenses, step ups and filters to adapters and mattebox.

All my 52mm Nikkors I bought step us to 77mm as well as any other lens I have.
Bought 77mm polarizer and ND fader.
The Lee I have has 77mm filter adapter.
I like the size as I have a 72mm lens. Bought 77mm lens caps for all as well some 77mm UV's.

When ordering the ND fader look out for the thin and fat versions as the thin has no front filter ring so your fun ends there for stacking.
The thicker 77mm singh ray for eg. has front filter rings.
The 77mm lens caps will not fit on the end of 77mm thicker sing ray , you need a 82mm lens cap.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top