Breakthrough Photography Promises The Best Circular Polarizer

[SloPhoto]

I use their X1 and X3 UV filters and enjoy them. The knurled rim is great, and the low profile doesn't noticeably vignette at wide angle. I don't know if it's worth replacing existing good filters, but definitely worth considering for new.

 

[HighLowISO]

...

Yea, Canon 5Ds R is great, but it's utterly useless for landscape photography with it's ISO 12k limitation, unfortunately. ...

Graham

Statements like this discredit you as a photographer. If you need more than ISO 12,000 for "landscape photography", you probably aim for fancy post processing and visual effects rather than a landscape shot. Maybe you should focus on graphic dsign. ISO 400 should do for most landscapes, except for astro photography.

I guess you forgot to read the thread, and thus understand the problem.

While his comment reflects his own view, they are backed up with a description of some of his applications. It's obviously a serious issue for him and I think most people can see that and can adjust the inclusivity or exclusivity of his remark based on their own usage. In any case an unnessesary restriction is just that, "unnecessary" and should be corrected so the creative can use the tools as they see fit.

He has brought a lot of good information to this thread so I give him a lot of credit for that even if we don't see eye to eye on everything; I find that's the way with most people and is a good thing.

 

[meywd]

...

Yea, Canon 5Ds R is great, but it's utterly useless for landscape photography with it's ISO 12k limitation, unfortunately. ...

Graham

Statements like this discredit you as a photographer. If you need more than ISO 12,000 for "landscape photography", you probably aim for fancy post processing and visual effects rather than a landscape shot. Maybe you should focus on graphic dsign. ISO 400 should do for most landscapes, except for astro photography.

I guess you forgot to read the thread, and thus understand the problem.

While his comment reflects his own view, they are backed up with a description of some of his applications. It's obviously a serious issue for him and I think most people can see that and can adjust the inclusivity or exclusivity of his remark based on their own usage. In any case an unnessesary restriction is just that, "unnecessary" and should be corrected so the creative can use the tools as they see fit.

He has brought a lot of good information to this thread so I give him a lot of credit for that even if we don't see eye to eye on everything; I find that's the way with most people and is a good thing.

+1

 

[grahamclarkphoto]

...

Yea, Canon 5Ds R is great, but it's utterly useless for landscape photography with it's ISO 12k limitation, unfortunately. ...

Graham

Statements like this discredit you as a photographer. If you need more than ISO 12,000 for "landscape photography", you probably aim for fancy post processing and visual effects rather than a landscape shot. Maybe you should focus on graphic dsign. ISO 400 should do for most landscapes, except for astro photography.

"No, again this has nothing to do with shooting ISO. I've never shot on anything above 50 / 100.

Separate shooting ISO from Live View ISO (with exposure simulation turned off).

That's the problem here. "

I'm just an amateur photographer so I have not much depth to discredit.

Graham

 

[ahsanford]

...

Yea, Canon 5Ds R is great, but it's utterly useless for landscape photography with it's ISO 12k limitation, unfortunately. ...

Graham

Statements like this discredit you as a photographer. If you need more than ISO 12,000 for "landscape photography", you probably aim for fancy post processing and visual effects rather than a landscape shot. Maybe you should focus on graphic dsign. ISO 400 should do for most landscapes, except for astro photography.

Gang, he's clearly doing something in low light with LiveView that we don't understand. (Perhaps nailing critical focus on something dark in the foreground before the sun comes up? I'm speculating here.)

Graham, we just can't figure out what the heck you're doing -- in specifics -- where you need such crazy high ISO to set up a landscape shot. Do explain or the skeptics will keep reloading their pop guns.

But in all my readings about Canon gear, I've never heard someone decry limited LiveView high ISO levels as a reason to not use a rig for landscapes.

- A

 

[LostBoyNZ]

Gang, he's clearly doing something in low light with LiveView that we don't understand. (Perhaps nailing critical focus on something dark in the foreground before the sun comes up? I'm speculating here.)

Graham, we just can't figure out what the heck you're doing -- in specifics -- where you need such crazy high ISO to set up a landscape shot. Do explain or the skeptics will keep reloading their pop guns.

But in all my readings about Canon gear, I've never heard someone decry limited LiveView high ISO levels as a reason to not use a rig for landscapes.

- A

If I had to guess, I'd say he's using live view after putting strong ND filters on. That way the ND filter can stay there between photos of different scenes, instead of having to take it off between each new scene.

 

[ahsanford]

If I had to guess, I'd say he's using live view after putting strong ND filters on. That way the ND filter can stay there between photos of different scenes, instead of having to take it off between each new scene.

Nope. I already asked that on page 6. Graham said that wasn't it.

- A

 

[privatebydesign]

Couple of points according to various testers the Canon 5DS optimal f stop is between f5.6 & f8, on my 6D its been f11 to f16 that means the 5DS is defraction limited.

Optimal for what?

Optimal for resolution, sharpness, depth of field..........

The point I tried to make is that any impact diffraction has is the same on a a 6D or a 5DS. If you are happy with your prints from a 6D at 20" x 30" at f11, you will be more than pleased with 5DS prints at the same size and aperture, if you are able to open a suitable lens up a bit more on the 5DS it will give you even more detail if that detail falls in the smaller depth of field. Enlarge your 5DS print to twice the size of the 6D and view it from the same distance and it has less dof anyway even when shot at the same aperture.

There is no free lunch, remember, aperture and magnification alone (and viewer acuity) determine dof.

Yes of course, at the same print size, say 20x30, you'd be hardpressed to find a difference between the two where diffraction is concerned, but I think the assumption here is that the files are viewed at 100% their native resolution, not both at the same print size.

If viewed at their respective 100% native resolutions on a retina display, inherent diffraction is simply magnified on a large MP file, whereas before it was minimized.

Graham

To you and I that might seem obvious. To the myriad of people who keep banging on about how "diffraction limited" the 5DS/R cameras are, I think, not so much.

Most people can't get there heads around the concept that as you print bigger your dof gets smaller for the same image, or as you move further from an actual print the dof gets deeper. I'd venture most people, after looking at their images from their new camera at 100% just for the hell of it, look at the images at full screen, or as a favourite print size, and at this point the diffraction 'issue' becomes a complete red herring.

...

Yea, Canon 5Ds R is great, but it's utterly useless for landscape photography with it's ISO 12k limitation, unfortunately. ...

Graham

Statements like this discredit you as a photographer. If you need more than ISO 12,000 for "landscape photography", you probably aim for fancy post processing and visual effects rather than a landscape shot. Maybe you should focus on graphic dsign. ISO 400 should do for most landscapes, except for astro photography.

Gang, he's clearly doing something in low light with LiveView that we don't understand. (Perhaps nailing critical focus on something dark in the foreground before the sun comes up? I'm speculating here.)

Graham, we just can't figure out what the heck you're doing -- in specifics -- where you need such crazy high ISO to set up a landscape shot. Do explain or the skeptics will keep reloading their pop guns.

But in all my readings about Canon gear, I've never heard someone decry limited LiveView high ISO levels as a reason to not use a rig for landscapes.

- A

Graham has explained in simple steps what he is doing. Indeed you lay out one scenario. I understand excty what he is doing and why the 'limitation' doesn't work for him.

However I often shoot in the dark with a camera that maxes out at 1600iso and rely on the workarounds that have been used since photography started and not higher tech. I can understand the frustration if you are used to something more capable, but I have used a flashlight/torch effectively for dawn and dusk shots (and even in daylight if the subject is dark) since 1978 and don't feel particularly disadvantaged. I would certainly never say a camera that's display 'only' worked to 12,000 iso "utterly useless for landscape photography" but maybe I am not up to date enough.

 

[risc32]

well i guess i need it layed out in even simpler terms, as i have no clue what he's doing. You seem to be saying you've used a flashlight/torch to handle this issue? Or was that just an example of the sort of workaround that sometimes needs to be done. like when i use a flashlight for AFing my cameras on dimly lit subjects...
actually, don't bother laying it out, i don't care. what am i doing here anyway....

 

[grahamclarkphoto]

...

Yea, Canon 5Ds R is great, but it's utterly useless for landscape photography with it's ISO 12k limitation, unfortunately. ...

Graham

Statements like this discredit you as a photographer. If you need more than ISO 12,000 for "landscape photography", you probably aim for fancy post processing and visual effects rather than a landscape shot. Maybe you should focus on graphic dsign. ISO 400 should do for most landscapes, except for astro photography.

Gang, he's clearly doing something in low light with LiveView that we don't understand. (Perhaps nailing critical focus on something dark in the foreground before the sun comes up? I'm speculating here.)

Graham, we just can't figure out what the heck you're doing -- in specifics -- where you need such crazy high ISO to set up a landscape shot. Do explain or the skeptics will keep reloading their pop guns.

But in all my readings about Canon gear, I've never heard someone decry limited LiveView high ISO levels as a reason to not use a rig for landscapes.

- A

Anytime you're shooting a sunset.

Or using ND filters.

Which is pretty much 90% of the time for landscape photography.

Graham

 

[grahamclarkphoto]

Gang, he's clearly doing something in low light with LiveView that we don't understand. (Perhaps nailing critical focus on something dark in the foreground before the sun comes up? I'm speculating here.)

Graham, we just can't figure out what the heck you're doing -- in specifics -- where you need such crazy high ISO to set up a landscape shot. Do explain or the skeptics will keep reloading their pop guns.

But in all my readings about Canon gear, I've never heard someone decry limited LiveView high ISO levels as a reason to not use a rig for landscapes.

- A

If I had to guess, I'd say he's using live view after putting strong ND filters on. That way the ND filter can stay there between photos of different scenes, instead of having to take it off between each new scene.

Or no ND filter at all in a place with cloudcover.

The point is that the Canon 5D Mark II outperforms the 5Ds R for purposes of composition and manually focusing at 100%, and that's simply an "oops, we fucked that up" on Canon's part, not a conscious design decision.

Graham

 

[AvTvM]

Or no ND filter at all in a place with cloudcover.

@Graham - that's were I cannot follow you.
As long as there is no ND filter in front of the lens LiveView ISO 3200 or maybe 6400 should be sufficient compose image and manually focus on desired spot using 5x or 10x magnification feature - even in situations with cloud cover or in a forest ot sunset/sunrise. And 12k LiveView ISO should really cover any reasonably imaginable capture situation ... as long as there is no ND filter in front of lens. No?

 

[jeffa4444]

Gang, he's clearly doing something in low light with LiveView that we don't understand. (Perhaps nailing critical focus on something dark in the foreground before the sun comes up? I'm speculating here.)

Graham, we just can't figure out what the heck you're doing -- in specifics -- where you need such crazy high ISO to set up a landscape shot. Do explain or the skeptics will keep reloading their pop guns.

But in all my readings about Canon gear, I've never heard someone decry limited LiveView high ISO levels as a reason to not use a rig for landscapes.

- A

If I had to guess, I'd say he's using live view after putting strong ND filters on. That way the ND filter can stay there between photos of different scenes, instead of having to take it off between each new scene.

Or no ND filter at all in a place with cloudcover.

The point is that the Canon 5D Mark II outperforms the 5Ds R for purposes of composition and manually focusing at 100%, and that's simply an "oops, we F_____ that up" on Canon's part, not a conscious design decision.

Graham

I guess we all have our own way of working cannot say I feel restricted by the live view on the 5DS so far. I tend to focus without the filter holder in place and clip it back on & check the grad line after.

 

[grahamclarkphoto]

Or no ND filter at all in a place with cloudcover.

@Graham - that's were I cannot follow you.
As long as there is no ND filter in front of the lens LiveView ISO 3200 or maybe 6400 should be sufficient compose image and manually focus on desired spot using 5x or 10x magnification feature - even in situations with cloud cover or in a forest ot sunset/sunrise. And 12k LiveView ISO should really cover any reasonably imaginable capture situation ... as long as there is no ND filter in front of lens. No?

Just a few weeks ago I was with Art Wolfe on one of his workshops in Olympic National Park, at 3PM the 5Ds R was useless for everyone using one.

Even if light is low, not with ND, it's a huge issue.

If you go back to the 5D Mark II and use it for a while, you'll get a feeling again for how much a low ISO Live View sucks. Then make that problem twice as bad = 5Ds R.

Graham

 

[lholmes549]

Sorry I should have given more info!
I'm planning to use this on the Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS in conjunction with the Lee Filter holder and 105mm adapter ring.

I didn't mean to give the impression that I expected an answer based on an exact set up as ahsanford mentioned, but just wanted an answer in relation to the other offerings from different manufacturers e.g. Formatt, Lee etc.

Your answer of 4.6mm with front threads is all I needed to know, so thank you for your answer but if you have any more info in regards to vignetting on the 16-35 I'd be interested to hear!

Cheers

LHolmes, you are in luck. I could very well have that identical setup -- if you have two slots on that Lee setup and are using the Lee wide angle adaptor ring on your 16-35 (which you absolutely should!).

If that is the case, again, go here:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21554.msg409701#msg409701

You get 16mm without vignetting + two slots + NO CPL in that 105 ring.
You get 20mm without vignetting + two slots + CPL in place in that 105 ring.

My particular 105mm CPL was the B+W Kaesemann. Like most of the 105s I've seen, it is chunky. I just measured it, and it is a total thickness of 11.5mm or so. About 3.0-3.5mm of that is below the non-rotating ring of the CPL that you turn to thread it on to the Lee Adaptor ring, so the rest is a stouter chunk of glass and a very tall ring. So anything thinner than that could possibly get you some of that 16-20mm space back. There are 'slim' 105 CPLs, but not from B+W so I didn't pursue them. There also is a beastly stepped version (105 threads on the back, way bigger on the front) that completely gets out of the 16mm optical path, but I believe that it is discontinued.

That is, if you choose to keep that setup. Tear down the holder to just one slot and you should be fine down to 16mm.

I can't speak for Graham's method -- I've never run that test, but that's an easy test you can run at home (see the link for my rough method). I'd just slap any old 77 filter (UV or CPL) on your 16-35, then mount your Lee ring, then mount your holder and shoot an in-focus white wall. Then compare the thickness of your 77mm filter against Graham's reported 4.6mm and you should be in business.

- A

Thanks ahsanford! You've been a great help, and have held your patience well with me, I really appreciate it!

I do indeed use the Lee wide angle adapter and I have previously tested with a cheapo CPL that was very thin attached directly to the lens and there wasn't much vignetting even with 2 slots, so just wondered how the X3 CPL would compare.

As it turns out I've decided to back them for a 77mm CPL so we'll see how it goes and hopefully I'll be able to post some test shots of vignetting for others!

I had been aiming to get a 105mm CPL for a while but I was holding off because of the price, the added bulk and because it wasn't essential for me, so I'm glad I didn't drop £200 on one. Hopefully these filters live up to the hyper, and I've seen no reason to believe they won't!

 

[ahsanford]

Mining the past posts in this thread, Graham, you make a few mentions of turning off Exposure Simulation in LiveView. I've heard of this done with studio strobe work and for astro, but I've not heard of this for landscapes.

Again, I don't get what you're saying as you're not being explicit when/how this happens, so I'll try to guess that specific scenario again:

1) You are setting up for landscape shot in low light, sunrise/sunset, etc.
2) Your LiveView exposure simulation is OFF.
3) It's so dark on the LCD you need to crank the ISO to frame the shot, perhaps perform 10x manual focus, etc.
4) Once the shot is framed / focused, you then go back to 100 ISO, apply filters, etc.

Is that about right? Is #2 forcing #3 to happen for you, possibly?

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Thanks ahsanford! You've been a great help, and have held your patience well with me, I really appreciate it!

I do indeed use the Lee wide angle adapter and I have previously tested with a cheapo CPL that was very thin attached directly to the lens and there wasn't much vignetting even with 2 slots, so just wondered how the X3 CPL would compare.

As it turns out I've decided to back them for a 77mm CPL so we'll see how it goes and hopefully I'll be able to post some test shots of vignetting for others!

I had been aiming to get a 105mm CPL for a while but I was holding off because of the price, the added bulk and because it wasn't essential for me, so I'm glad I didn't drop £200 on one. Hopefully these filters live up to the hyper, and I've seen no reason to believe they won't!

Then you should be all set -- that's Graham's stacking method (putting the CPL directly on the lens). If that doesn't vignette, you're good to go.

The biggest downside of that approach is if you are using ND Grads with that CPL.

With the 105 CPL in front, you can 100% independently dial-in level of polarization and the orientation of the ND Grad. This is the lowest fuss setup to use, and it's the most common I've seen.

With the 77 CPL on the lens, rotating the ND grad on the holder can turn the adaptor ring, which in turn can rotate your CPL. So it can be a small hassle (not a dealbreaker) to orient everything correctly. But according to Graham, you will get sharper shots this way.

- A

 

[grahamclarkphoto]

Mining the past posts in this thread, Graham, you make a few mentions of turning off Exposure Simulation in LiveView. I've heard of this done with studio strobe work and for astro, but I've not heard of this for landscapes.

Again, I don't get what you're saying as you're not being explicit when/how this happens, so I'll try to guess that specific scenario again:

1) You are setting up for landscape shot in low light, sunrise/sunset, etc.
2) Your LiveView exposure simulation is OFF.
3) It's so dark on the LCD you need to crank the ISO to frame the shot, perhaps perform 10x manual focus, etc.
4) Once the shot is framed / focused, you then go back to 100 ISO, apply filters, etc.

Is that about right? Is #2 forcing #3 to happen for you, possibly?

- A

No:

Exposure simulation turned ON shows you on Live View what your exposure parameters are
Exposure simulation turned OFF shows you on Live View the scene before the camera with the lowest F-number and ISO moves throughout the range to show you the composition. This is where it should always be so just set it and forget it.

10 photographers all have cameras made in the past 5 years, they are all shooting a sunset, for example, one person is shooting with the 5Ds R.

If you go up behind each one, you can see their composition very clearly on Live View. It's easy to compose and focus (manually at 100%), except the 5Ds R Live View is black.

Graham

 

[scottkinfw]

I ordered one (82 mm) when this first appeared on CR. Went to site and had a "chat" with one of the developers. Should get it by mid December. I am getting this as an additional filter, not a replacement. Price was right, it looks great, and hopefully, it will perform well. It is the holiday season, my camera has been good to me, so I got her a gift.

My input anyway.

sek

<p class="p1"><span class="s1">A fairly new filter company, called Breakthrough Photography, just launched what they are calling “the world’s sharpest and most color neutral circular polarizer”, and they’re even making a version specifically for Canon’s CINE lens lineup. So far, here’s what we know about it:</span></p>
<ul class="ul1">
<li class="li1"><span class="s1">American-made CPL film called <i>CrystalVision®</i></span></li>
<li class="li1"><i></i><span class="s1"><i>SCHOTT B270® </i>Optical glass Made in Germany</span></li>
<li class="li1"><span class="s1">16-layers of multi-resistant coatings</span></li>
<li class="li1"><span class="s1">Nano coatings to repel elements</span></li>
<li class="li1"><span class="s1">Ultra-slim Weather-sealed Brass “Traction Frame”</span></li>
<li class="li1"><span class="s1">25 Year Guarantee</span></li>
<li class="li1"><span class="s1">11 sizes from 39mm to 105mm ($129 to $199)</span></li>
</ul>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">For the next 9 days they’re doing a Kickstarter project, offering up to $50 off while supplies last: <a href="https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/breakthrough/x3-circular-polarizer/"><span class="s2">https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/breakthrough/x3-circular-polarizer/</span></a></span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">On a side note, about 5 weeks ago we received a neutral density filter from Breakthrough, and we weren’t given much information other than a note saying “The X3 ND is the worlds sharpest and most color neutral ND filter, check it out.”. After quite a few comparison tests against a bunch of other neutral density filters here at the Canon Rumors international headquarters, we found their claim held true.</span></p>

 

[grahamclarkphoto]

...
Exposure simulation turned ON shows you on Live View what your exposure parameters are
Exposure simulation turned OFF shows you on Live View the scene before the camera with the lowest F-number and ISO moves throughout the range to show you the composition. This is where it should always be so just set it and forget it.

10 photographers all have cameras made in the past 5 years, they are all shooting a sunset, for example, one person is shooting with the 5Ds R.

If you go up behind each one, you can see their composition very clearly on Live View. It's easy to compose and focus (manually at 100%), except the 5Ds R Live View is black.

That has got to impact contrast based autofocus when using live view too!

But on the topic of these filters, the graph for the X3 has a different shape than (say) B&W.

Whereas B&W has a gradual rise from purple all the way through blue and green to red (where it jumps a bit in near-IR/IR), the X3 peaks in the purple area and shows a decline all the way through to reds. i.e. it responds in an almost opposite fashion to other filters (such as B&W's.)

Every CPL ever made since 1990 uses Nitto CPL film, made in China. We use it on our X1 CPL, it's good stuff, but at 600nm transmission increases giving images a yellow cast.

B+W, Hoya, Tiffen, Formatt, Singh-Ray, whoever - they all use the same.

And then at 700nm it spikes a bit in IR.

Ours declines from 600nm going forward, which eliminates the typical cast you see on all the Nitto CPLs.

Graham