Need advice. Digital SLR Camera

[raythompson]

Oh yeah... whatever you get, make sure you get a protective filter!

I would disagree with that advice. The primary use for such filters was to protect the coating on the lens from scratches. The coatings used today are much more resiliant and do not really need such protection as the coatings of years ago.

Protection from dropping is not an issue as a drop hard enough to damage the protection filter will cause other damage that will probably affect the lens.
I would rather have a lens shade to provide the protection against bumps than another piece of glass. Any glass is going to degrade the image, even optical glass, as glass is never 100% transparent. Adding another optical layer, that is probably uncoated, will only detract from the image.

All the pros that I have associated with over the last few years have all shunned UV and protection filters. I have not used a protection filter in the last 10 years and suffered no problems.

Also do not get conned into buying a circular polarizer. These are high profit items. A simple linear polarizer that is much cheaper will work with all current digital cameras. Years ago a circular polarizer was necessary to allow focusing and exposure systems to work. Current systems do not suffer from such problems. So if you must have a polarizer skip the circular and go with the linear, the linear being more effective anyway. Don't listen to the counter jockeys.

[raythompson]

Regarding the delay... you will not notice a difference as you are most likely all ready used to it with your compact.

Have you ever used live view and seen the delay effects?

It is much longer than a P&S camera. Unless you are dealing with a dual sensor camera (which adds to the cost) several things have to happen to take the image after the button is pressed.

1. The mirror has to drop down.
2. The shutter has to close.
3. The screen will blank.
4. The image is taken using the normal shutter method.
5. The mirror goes back up.
6. The shutter opens to expose the image sensor.

This results in a significant delay in taking the picture.

[TeamAllen]

You can always turn Live View off. At least it is there if you want it.

[jwanck11]

You can always turn Live View off. At least it is there if you want it.

X2! and most family P&S people want it. The delay is nearly imperceptable and in reality is a non-issue. Almost every single DSLR has it and if they don't, it is being added to the line up model at a time. Look at this as a preference thing as I pointed out in the things to consider thread above.

Regarding the filter... yes, definitely get a UV filter and put it on. Not only is it good protection - an absolute must(!) but it also will enhance outdoor photographs quite drastically. I cannot imagine anyone wants to spend loads of processing time in some image editing software so filters are a great way to get excellent results that you can offload/print and simply enjoy. If you want to spend the extra time, go read a bunch of pro sites all ready listed in the thread ... they will all say the same thing. They all recommend filters for amatuers and most pro's have a bag full of them for intended real-time effects. Back on-topic: You are buying a family camera and it will get abused. Protect the biggest part of your investment the lenses - why chance it?? Once a lens is scratched, there is no turning back. scratched filter = $20, scratched lens = hundreds - you choose.

[raythompson]

You can always turn Live View off. At least it is there if you want it.

True. But don't pay extra for it. It is just not worth it for the vast majority of images. It is a gimmick that others have to have. Sort of like megapixel wars. Why buy a 10 megapixel camera when you can get a 12 megapixel for only $100.00 more? The difference in images is trivial unless you do severe cropping.

If you truly must have live view stick with the P&S camera where there is not as severe mirror delay and shutter delay. To be marginally useful the live view must also come with an articulated screen.

I will also state my opinion again about UV filters. Almost all lenses produced today have UV inhibiting coatings and the sensor itself has UV inhibiting properties. Film tended to be sometimes sensitive to UV light, the same is not true with digital sensors. The rules have changed. A UV filter will gain you almost nothing in picture quality and will provide some degradation as it is another optical element that has not been closely matched to the lens.

Of all the people I know with a camera, pros and amatuers, none has ever scratched a lens and none has ever used a UV filter. The selling of UV filters is a high profit item that camera stores love to sell.

See this links:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/co...m-feb-05.shtml
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...ns-filters.htm

for more information on the fallacy of UV filter protection for scratch protection and UV blocking.

[Original Wing Nut]

[QUOTE=raythompson;244278]I would disagree with that advice. The primary use for such filters was to protect the coating on the lens from scratches. The coatings used today are much more resiliant and do not really need such protection as the coatings of years ago.

Protection from dropping is not an issue as a drop hard enough to damage the protection filter will cause other damage that will probably affect the lens.
I would rather have a lens shade to provide the protection against bumps than another piece of glass. Any glass is going to degrade the image, even optical glass, as glass is never 100% transparent. Adding another optical layer, that is probably uncoated, will only detract from the image.

All the pros that I have associated with over the last few years have all shunned UV and protection filters. I have not used a protection filter in the last 10 years and suffered no problems.



I have to dissagree. I have a Nikon and didn't have a protective filter. The cap did not get placed on the lense correctly and the lense was scratched from the cap while in my camera case. It was on a rack on my 4wheeler, but if I had a protective filter then, I would have only been out a filter. A filter is cheap protection. I know, "Stupid Hurts"

[jwanck11]

Live view and megapixel wars are apples and oranges.

Megapixel wars were about image quality. It is noteworthy that the wars (for DSLRs) are all but over and now it is shifting to sensor wars for the most part.

Live view is about user preference. If you prefer it (which most p&s folks do) get it. As a family shooter, determine if it is something that you want. There is a reason that all p&s cameras, all video cameras that I am aware of and increasingly DSLR's models offer it standard. The trend is not taking the view away as far as I am aware...

Decent Filters such as HOYA will not degrade image quality at all. That is an absolute myth. Yes, they will absolutely have a positive effect on image quality, that has been proven in lab results and easily demonstrated by just taking a pict with it on and with it off. Across the internets I've read "Armchair photographers" or "Adobe junkies" use similar arguments - the threads are long and righteous. However, family shooters are not armchair photographers...

Think about this for those of you that wear glasses. Have you ever scratched them? Yes, it is highly likely that a camera primarily used by a family will suffer the same fate. Spend the few bucks on a UV filter or risk your glass... This is a no-brainer.

[raythompson]

Image Degradation

Decent Filters such as HOYA will not degrade image quality at all. That is an absolute myth.

Each layer of glass will absorb some of the light energy that is passed through the glass. Glass does not, and cannot, transmit 100% of the light. That is a known fact. To state that an additional glass element will not degrade image quality is in fact an incorrect statement. HOYA and other manufacturers cannot change the laws of physics. In fact HOYA only claims a 99.7% transparency on their UV filters. That is a 0.3% light loss because of the glass.

When using any filter on a lens, especially a wide angle lens or telephoto at minimum zoom you will have to contend with vignetting at the corners of the images. Adding that additional filter element may cause problems.

You also have to consider that the white balance processing of the camera will have more of an affect on the final color of an image than any UV filter is capable of accomplishing. Is that scene too blue, too red, too green? You don't know unless you compare against a standard. Even then you have to turn off the white balance processing in the camera (use RAW) to even come close.

In fact, all JPG images coming from any of the cameras with auto white balance set will be an incorrect color. Any subtle differences due to a UV filter will not be noticeable and will be overriden by the camera processing to correct the white balance.

Photograph an image of the sky, nothing else. Use RAW so that there is no camera color compensation. Use manual exposure so the exposure is the same. Photograph one image with a UV filter, one without, as quickly as possible. Do not use a 1A or 1B filter as they provide a slight bit of color shift. Instead use a true UV filter. Then look at the RGB values in the exact same location of the sky. See any difference in the numbers relative to each other? No. You may see a difference in numbers because of the light loss through the UV filter but the respective numbers will still be the same relative to each other.

Now photograph a white object, preferably a known value such as a digital target. Do the same as before, quick succession of photographs, manual exposure, RAW, one with a true UV, one without. Bring the images into Photoshop and check the RGB values. You will see no difference in the numbers relative to each other.

People can use a UV filter if they desire as that is their choice and if it makes them feel good so be it. Just don't use a warming UV filter. Also be aware of the vignetting issue, the additional loss of light, and the additional expense.

This is one of those issues that half will say you should use a filter, half will say you shouldn't, one half don't care, one half don't know what you are talking about.

I will not change your opinion, you will not change mine. That is OK. I understand your position. It is just that both sides (or is that all four) need to be presented.

Most importantly, if they feel the need to use a UV filter get the highest quality filter they can find. You mention of Hoya is a good choice.

[raythompson]

Megapixel wars were about image quality.

Nah, I think it was marketing hype. Most of those cameras were at the resolving limits of the lenses anyway. I am referring to the non-DSLR cameras where this seemed to be the most common. Adding more pixels did little.

Even with DSLR's I think that 10-12 megapixel seems to be the sweet spot. Image quality at that point is more affected by other factors such as the optics.

What I want to see rather than more megapixels are sensors with more dynamic range. They are getting better but have yet to match Kodachrome 25 which was probably my favorite film of all time. Slides from 35 years ago are still vivid with rich colors and outstanding resolution. Of course there was that nagging slow ISO 25 film speed. But outdoors who cared.

I look at the strides that have taken place the last 10 years in digital imaging and wonder what the next 10 years will bring. Are we at the limits of physics? Glass? Cost? Will advances in HD video cameras serve to kill still cameras? Will multiple sensors appear, one for each color? Do we really need 20 megapixel images?

What do you think? What are your predictions, or wishes, for the next 10 years?

[jwanck11]

"Mega pixel wars" were relevant with respect to quality up to and including about 10MP... Look at a shot with a 1.1, 3, 5, 6 and 10MP. Look at them in 3X5, 8X10, 16X20. Nope not hype at all, buta war with respect to quality. That war is largely over. Yes, we agree I think that the sensor war is here and will be waged.

.3% of light loss - 99.7% pass thru. Can you see that? Can anyone see that? Can you see the degradation of image quality? Can anyone else? A computer can see that - that's about it. Therefore it is statistically irrelevant for everyone. peoples: protect your glass and also end up with better pictures. the end.

[evil0ne]

Will advances in HD video cameras serve to kill still cameras?

That 5dMark II seems to be reversing that statement.

[G-MONEY]

Did you decide on one?

Well I went to costco last night and they had the Nikon with 2 VR's
and now they have the Canon with 2 IS's a 18-55 and 55-250 and both come with a camera case and a 2 GB card. The Nikon is still $100 less at $750 and the Canon is $850.


I'm am leaning toward the Nikon, I don't think the Canon is worth the $100 extra just to use the live view LCD and .5 pix per sec faster.

[rogersbm82]

I love this fight. Keep it going. Although I feel obligated to post this

[raythompson]

I love this fight. Keep it going.

There is no fight, just disagreement. Without disagreement there would be no progress. And I most certainly don't think that anyone that disagrees with my opinion is wrong. They are just not correct.

[rogersbm82]

G,

As you can see this is the same girl. One picture is without live view and the other is with live view. It makes all the difference worth the money as you can see.






I will stop highjacking now.