« on: September 12, 2014, 04:40:14 PM »
Buffalo, New York, the original terminus of the Erie Canal; and the birthplace of the grain elevator!
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I use back-button AF. Great for birds (bump-focus), useful for focus recompose. Only downside is if you hand your camera to someone else, but green-square mode cancels back-button AF.
I´m no expert on the Sony, but for low light stage events ... I would be surprised if the AF on the Sony is anywhere near the 5DIII/1DX. And what happens to DR and all the rest of it in high ISO territory ...
I´m OK with people expressing their views in black and white, but to call the 5DIII/1DX sensors an embarrassment compared to Sony is to stretch the fact, especially in low light situations. If you add all the rest you need to make good images, I believe Sony is left in the dust.
First of all, I would not get a UV filter for protection, I would get a CLEAR filter. UV filters adversely affect the color on a DSLR plus UV filtering is unnecessary.
BUT that being said, there are PROs and CONs to protective filters. I think sometimes it is exaggerated on both sides.
Some say lens front elements are quite durable. They are, but they still can be damaged, and if that happens even if it doesn't affect the IQ the value of your lens gets decimated even with minor damage if you ever plan to resell or trade it in. While the rear element has a much larger impact on image quality, most buyers prioritize the condition of the front element.
Some say lens front elements are a relatively cheap part. Often, they are. However, unless you rebuild the lens yourself (unlikely in most cases) you will have to pay potentially expensive service fees on top of the parts fee, making the repair more expensive than projected.
Some say lens filters degrade image quality. Cheap ones can, but good ones like B+W XS-PRO 007m CLEAR have virtually no impact on quality with exception of slightly increased flare in select circumstances. However, if you shoot a lens for 5 years with no filter regularly, the front element glass even if you don't drop it will be weathered by environmental elements which could also impact quality. If you have a filter, you could just put in a new one with minimal cost and the front element remains pristine.
Some say you might scratch a front element if a filter breaks. Sure, but you might also scratch a front element without a filter because there is no protection - and I would say that is more likely because photographers don't have catastrophic drops every day, but they do expose their lens to other risks every day. Also, the filter absorbs the initial blow, so something that may have severely damaged the lens may only have minimal impact. Also, filters are often required to complete the lens' weather sealing, thus without the filter you could get damage in the lens or body from the elements.
Some have the perception that a CLEAR filter's only use is protection. On the contrary, high quality filters are often far easier to clean than a lens element making them hugely useful in the field. They also keep a front element looking pristine as it will never be exposed to the elements or cleanings which helps retain lens value. Yes, the filters are an additional expense but you can always reuse them on another lens.
So, I believe those stating CLEAR filters are not useful or detrimental are very much overstating their case. There are some pitfalls to CLEAR filters, but if you just want to shoot and have a few less things to worry about they are a big benefit in my opinion.