Rainbow Imaging ND Fader

I too am interested in getting one. There's a variety of them for sale on Amazon too, not just this brand but also Polaroid, etc. I think it'll be a very important filter for the .95 when it arrives and I'll probably get one for the 14-140.....
 
There's an interesting warning on the Amazon page:
Offers the best image performance with lens with focal length 200mm below; image quality may drop when focal length above 200mm.
Click to expand...

Why would that be? What kind of "drop" in image quality?

I'm interested in this, but the low price and that warning make me wonder...
 
mojo43 said:
There is not much difference between this price and the Fader NDs...
Click to expand...

Oh, I was looking at much higher prices (around US$390) for the Singh-Ray Vari-ND filters on B&H. I didn't know the Fader NDs were so much cheaper!
 
zm15 said:
The rainbow imaging fader nd filter??
Click to expand...

Yes the Fader ND, it's build quality is decent (provided how much it costs). Optically I've never really had a problem (although you might lose a little sharpness). Really for the price you might as well try it out and see if you like it.
 
I've said this before but a high-quality, low-cost alternative is to buy two ND filters, preferably high-quality, like B+W. One should be a CPL and one an LPL (linear). Put the LPL on the outside. Voila, you have a "fader" ND. Get them in the largest filter size you need (or anticipate needing). Then purchase step-up filters to use with all of your lenses that have a smaller filter size. This is what I've done. The only drawback is that it can get tricky twisting only one of the filters. This could be remedied by gluing the CPL in place.
 
Jordan_S said:
I've said this before but a high-quality, low-cost alternative is to buy two ND filters, preferably high-quality, like B+W. One should be a CPL and one an LPL (linear). Put the LPL on the outside. Voila, you have a "fader" ND. Get them in the largest filter size you need (or anticipate needing). Then purchase step-up filters to use with all of your lenses that have a smaller filter size. This is what I've done. The only drawback is that it can get tricky twisting only one of the filters. This could be remedied by gluing the CPL in place.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't these end up costing just as much as the Rainbow Imaging ND filter?
 
More expensive than the Rainbow or Fader ND, less expensive than the Singh Ray. I'm guessing that the Rainbow's quality will be on par with Fader's, in which case it will be unacceptable past 50mm, not 200mm.

In any case, it should run about $150 for 77mm filters. Obviously, you can also use the CPL by itself for stills or video.
 
Jordan_S said:
More expensive than the Rainbow or Fader ND, less expensive than the Singh Ray. I'm guessing that the Rainbow's quality will be on par with Fader's, in which case it will be unacceptable past 50mm, not 200mm.

In any case, it should run about $150 for 77mm filters. Obviously, you can also use the CPL by itself for stills or video.
Click to expand...

When shooting with the GH1/2, when you say unacceptable past 50mm, are you talking a 50mm -ish panasonic lens? Or say a canon 28mm FD lens that turns into a 56mm, in which as you say will be unacceptable. Still trying to learn about this crop factor and how it affects the filter in a case like this. Thanks!
 
I'm talking about lenses with focal lengths higher than 50mm. The cropped field of view on certain cameras has no effect on this one way or another. I have found it unhelpful to think of, "say a canon 28mm FD lens that turns into a 56mm." Although the perceived effect is an increase in focal length, in reality the lens's field of view was limited, or cropped, due to a smaller sensor.

This picture helps clarify this confusing issue.

full-cropped.jpg
 
Jordan_S said:
I'm talking about lenses with focal lengths higher than 50mm. The cropped field of view on certain cameras has no effect on this one way or another. I have found it unhelpful to think of, "say a canon 28mm FD lens that turns into a 56mm." Although the perceived effect is an increase in focal length, in reality the lens's field of view was limited, or cropped, due to a smaller sensor.

This picture helps clarify this confusing issue.
Click to expand...

ahh i think i'm starting to understand it now. Thanks for the picture! So a 50mm canon lens on the GH2, is really still 50mm, just cropped down.
 
zm15 said:
ahh i think i'm starting to understand it now. Thanks for the picture! So a 50mm canon lens on the GH2, is really still 50mm, just cropped down.
Click to expand...


You can put a sheep in the back of a school bus, but it is still a sheep. A 50mm is a 50mm whether you mount it on a GH1, a 5D, or the handlebars of your bicycle. :D

I don't see any problems at any focal length with my FaderND, but getting the absolute best picture quality at any cost is important, I'd take Jordan's suggestion and use B+W filters. I only use B+W filters on all my lenses (other than the FaderND), and they are top notch IMHO. They ain't cheap, however.

But that's the great thing about using lenses designed for the M4/3 system...they're designed with the crop in mind...like DX lenses are designed with the APS-C crop, and FX lenses are the traditional 35mm SLR focal lengths. (IMHO)

So, in the image above for example, you still have the crop, but when using a M4/3 lens, it could be twice as wide to compensate. So instead of losing half the image using a legacy "wide angle" 28mm, you can use a "full frame M4/3" 14mm lens and get the full wide angle image.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top