AC90: Uv filter
- Thread starter Joff
- Start date
jamedia.uk
Well-known member
I got a UV filer but as I later got an ND filer I was recommended to put an IR/UV filter on with the ND. However given the cost of an IR/UV filter you probably want a less expensive simple UV filter for protection most of the time.
As will all protection filters they are a waste of money (like Insurance costs) until you need them! As there is no quick and easy way to replace the lens on an AC90, it is not as though you can swap lenses like on a DSLR , a UV protection filter would be a good idea.
Only thing I would say is pick a decent make. It will reflect (or not
on everything you film.
I use Hoya on recommendation. Part of the problem is finding a 49mm filter. Or you could use a step up ring.
As will all protection filters they are a waste of money (like Insurance costs) until you need them! As there is no quick and easy way to replace the lens on an AC90, it is not as though you can swap lenses like on a DSLR , a UV protection filter would be a good idea.
Only thing I would say is pick a decent make. It will reflect (or not
on everything you film. I use Hoya on recommendation. Part of the problem is finding a 49mm filter. Or you could use a step up ring.
Hi,
Re the value of filters: I recently shot an industrial video covering several welding processes. During this , some weld spatter hit my uv filter and burnt a small depression in the filter. A replacement filter, at $70 nz or so was a damn sight cheaper than having the camera out of action for 2-3 weeks and the costs of a replacement lens assembly!!! as they say, ano brainer.
Cheers!
Rod
Re the value of filters: I recently shot an industrial video covering several welding processes. During this , some weld spatter hit my uv filter and burnt a small depression in the filter. A replacement filter, at $70 nz or so was a damn sight cheaper than having the camera out of action for 2-3 weeks and the costs of a replacement lens assembly!!! as they say, ano brainer.
Cheers!
Rod
I think Rod's post says it all. Small price to pay to protect your camera. I have one to keep all the dust and dirt from touching it. I am not sure how soft the lens is compared to what hits my lens but I am sure over time I would get hairline marks on the lens which would either hurt my image or my resale.
Hi Joff,Yes the routine for me is first clean your camera lens with a proper lens cleaning kit- I do this in strong sunlight which shows every hidden smear. Then do the same for your filter and mount it . Now you have cleaned your windows and added sealed double glazing which will protect your prime lens.A word of caution: buy the most expensive filter you can afford- no cheap $20 internet rubbish! You get what you pay for with filters, and a high quality one will not degrade your image, ( a cheap one may- there is no knowing!) in fact it will improve aerial clarity by suppressing some haze..And yes, leave it on .Cheers! Rod PS: when I say cleaning the lens in sunlight, I mean oblique bright light, across the lens face and the camera must be OFF !!!
Last edited:
I personally really wonder if getting the more expensive filter makes a difference. In still photography, yes but with video I doubt it. Price is based on uniform UV protection not clarity & sharpness of the glass... 100% UV protection vs 75% UV protection vs ??% UV protection.
This article tested over a dozen filters. http://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html It doesn't even mention a thing about sharper or softer image. Just flaring. In post we can do all that sharpening.
I have to say if you're using an AC90 -- you're not worried about a perfect image because you would of bought a camera with a larger sensor and interchangeable lenses..
Final thoughts -- most average viewers are not looking at the sharpness and clarity of the video just the entertainment of the video.... so don't spend too much time over the price... it's an arbitrary number. Looks like $20-25 can you get you a high rated filter. (based on the link above)
This article tested over a dozen filters. http://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html It doesn't even mention a thing about sharper or softer image. Just flaring. In post we can do all that sharpening.
I have to say if you're using an AC90 -- you're not worried about a perfect image because you would of bought a camera with a larger sensor and interchangeable lenses..
Final thoughts -- most average viewers are not looking at the sharpness and clarity of the video just the entertainment of the video.... so don't spend too much time over the price... it's an arbitrary number. Looks like $20-25 can you get you a high rated filter. (based on the link above)
Well yes, I guess there are always exceptions and in the end it has to be a personal choice. However, I have been let down by cheap batteries, cheap memory cards, cheap tripods etc in the past, and my choice is to take every step to ensure that I minimise technical risks to my business. ( heaven knows what I am left with is difficult enough to control but at least it is in my control.)
Given the many thousands of dollars paid for our cameras, the investment in a $20 filter or the piece of mind with a $70 filter is to me anyway, a no brainer. I have had bad times with budget stuff and my judgement is based on that. I do emphasize though, this is a personal opinion based on personal experience.
Cheers!
Rod
Given the many thousands of dollars paid for our cameras, the investment in a $20 filter or the piece of mind with a $70 filter is to me anyway, a no brainer. I have had bad times with budget stuff and my judgement is based on that. I do emphasize though, this is a personal opinion based on personal experience.
Cheers!
Rod
Thanks very much. The other thing I need to work out is: If I want to use an ND filter on my AC90, and also a wide angle lens. Do I attach the ND filter in between the lens and the wide angle lens, or on the outside of the wide angle? I was not sure if there are large wide angle ND filter that go on the outside of the wide angle or small ones in between the two.. with an additional thread?
Mike Beckett
Well-known member
Funny, I was never that impressed with Tiffen filters, and my personal preference has always been for B+W.
I don't buy the argument that the price difference is just the difference in %age of UV blocked. Manufacturing processes, quality of materials, coatings to reduce flaring and improve scratch resistance, QC of final product etc. all surely have a bearing on price. I'm sure the extra $90 on a B+W filter is not a simple $90 of extra profit to B+W for churning out the same item as a Chinese knock-off
I've also never been impressed personally with Hoya. Maybe I just I got unlucky. A few years back I did comparisons with similar-priced Hoya and B+W, and the B+W won me over. I view B+W as the best affordable filters (both ND and UV), and £60/$80 of filter to protect a £3000/$4000 AC130 without affecting picture quality does not seem too steep. In the subjects I film, the need to avoid unwanted flare makes me very fussy.
The AC130/AC160 are actually very good lenses to begin with. Sony have always, always given me a starburst effect when anything like a headlight was in the shot (Sony VX2000, Sony V1, Sony NX70). The AC130 is brilliant in that respect, they have a really, really sharp, high quality lens with next to no chromatic aberrations or other defects. It seems a shame to put a $10 filter on such a high quality lens.
Mind you, my opinions aren't backed up with science and fancy wee graphs, it's just personal experience which could just be an old-fashioned view of "more expensive surely = better quality".
I don't buy the argument that the price difference is just the difference in %age of UV blocked. Manufacturing processes, quality of materials, coatings to reduce flaring and improve scratch resistance, QC of final product etc. all surely have a bearing on price. I'm sure the extra $90 on a B+W filter is not a simple $90 of extra profit to B+W for churning out the same item as a Chinese knock-off
I've also never been impressed personally with Hoya. Maybe I just I got unlucky. A few years back I did comparisons with similar-priced Hoya and B+W, and the B+W won me over. I view B+W as the best affordable filters (both ND and UV), and £60/$80 of filter to protect a £3000/$4000 AC130 without affecting picture quality does not seem too steep. In the subjects I film, the need to avoid unwanted flare makes me very fussy.
The AC130/AC160 are actually very good lenses to begin with. Sony have always, always given me a starburst effect when anything like a headlight was in the shot (Sony VX2000, Sony V1, Sony NX70). The AC130 is brilliant in that respect, they have a really, really sharp, high quality lens with next to no chromatic aberrations or other defects. It seems a shame to put a $10 filter on such a high quality lens.
Mind you, my opinions aren't backed up with science and fancy wee graphs, it's just personal experience which could just be an old-fashioned view of "more expensive surely = better quality".
Yes my sentiment exactly. A cheap camera bag will not generally be as good as a high quality one. (OK there are always exceptions.) However it will not affect image quality.
But when I add an optical element to my lens that Panasonic went to such trouble to design to give stunning quality, I want the comfort factor of knowing that it will be as optically neutral as possible. For me, this means buying reputable and hopefully high quality products. Why take the risk of a cheapo, especially in front of your lens!
But when I add an optical element to my lens that Panasonic went to such trouble to design to give stunning quality, I want the comfort factor of knowing that it will be as optically neutral as possible. For me, this means buying reputable and hopefully high quality products. Why take the risk of a cheapo, especially in front of your lens!
Laguna Hiker
Member
The quality of the filter makes a definite difference in video quality. A cheap filter does the same thing to video that it does to stills--a 'flat' look, a loss of fine detail, and so on. I use a high-quality protective filter in most situations, but I'll take it off where video quality is important and there are no specific hazards about. Even with a quality filter, I get my best picture with nothing between the subject and the lens.