Breakthrough Photography Promises The Best Circular Polarizer

[tpatana]

Interesting, need to keep my eye on this. Also the ND, as a recent owner of the TS-E 24. Which one people usually use, 6 or 10?

Hey tpatana! Take a look at their HP. They have a quite good nd buying guide:
http://breakthrough.photography/2015-nd-buying-guide/
Maybe this will help you to decide.


By the way:
They told me lately they would start shipping probably around Dec. 30th.
Hope they manage to do so...

Interesting link, thanks. But they have one mistake on the guide when they tell to go ISO50 for longer exposures. Almost all cameras ISO50 is artificial, hence no point using it over ISO100. But sounds like ND6 would be good then anyway?

 

[wsmith96]

I went out on a limb and supported these guys. I'll let you know what I think of the product if it is actually produced.

We've already said in the updates that we're finished manufacturing them and that we're now working on packaging, why wouldn't you think that we would actually ship?

Graham

I miss understood the kickstarter, sorry about that. I read it as all of the pledges must be filled before shipment starts. Not knocking your company, just the amount of pledges required and if people will put forth the money.

For those who supported this kickstarter, have you received the product yet? I'm still waiting on mine. I was under the impression it was to ship in early December.

 

[Maximilian]

For those who supported this kickstarter, have you received the product yet? I'm still waiting on mine. I was under the impression it was to ship in early December.

Ther was a kickstarter update yesterday (29th) that they'll start shiping right now:
"... The first wave will ship within the next 24 hours, primarily 77mm and 82mm. We'll ship in the order of backer order. ..."

So expect the first deliveries soon after New Year's Day.

Mine has to travel over the Atlantic and I added one of their NDs, so I suppose I'll have to wait a little bit longer.
But I'm going to report as soon as I have it in my hands.

 

[wsmith96]

Thanks - I got a 77mm so sounds like I should have it shortly. I'll be comparing against my Nikon CPL and will report back once I have it in my hands

 

[DeafByDrumming]

I've had their X3 ND3 & 10 but never got the Limited Edition X2 CPL from their first kickstarter. Got an email this morning that stated that they shipped me the newer CPL version X4. It should get here on Monday Jan 4, going by USPS tracking information. I only have a Kenko CPL to compare it with atm.

 

[RGF]

I've had their X3 ND3 & 10 but never got the Limited Edition X2 CPL from their first kickstarter. Got an email this morning that stated that they shipped me the newer CPL version X4. It should get here on Monday Jan 4, going by USPS tracking information. I only have a Kenko CPL to compare it with atm.

Let us know once you had a chance to use the CP.

 

[tpatana]

Tried their ND6 quickly. It makes the pictures much darker.

 

[grahamclarkphoto]

There's been a few people here wondering when the X4 CPL will ship:

1. We shipped 1,000 on December 21st
2. We're shipping 2,500 more on Friday or Saturday

We got nearly 6,000 X4 CPLs ordered in less than 30 days which blew away our expectations. But all said and done we're on-schedule to have them manufactured and shipped in less than two months after the Kickstarter ended.

Most Kickstarter projects never ship, but we do our best to ship as soon as possible, which means no time off for Christmas, New Years and the rest, so your patience is appreciated.

We've spent a lot of time engineering the CrystalVision CPL film, the new frame design and more to make this the best CPL on the market. Looking forward to delivering it and hearing your thoughts after you've had a chance to put yours to the test.

Check out our FB page to see updates from photographers who have received theirs:

https://facebook.com/breakthroughphotographyfilters/

Graham

 

[lholmes549]

Hi Graham, you said through a kickstarter update you began shipping on the 28th December, but said above you began on 21st. Which one was it?

Also, not to drag on about it but I took time out to type out a fairly lengthy comment on kickstarter asking about the B+W transmission chart linked in the comments and all you responded with was that the B+W chart was incorrect. I appreciate you are busy, and want everyone including myself to get the filter as quickly as possible, but if you are going to make claims like that in response to a very honest question I think you should back it up with why the chart is incorrect or else it seems like you're calling B+W out on false charts.

Luke

 

[grahamclarkphoto]

Hi Graham, you said through a kickstarter update you began shipping on the 28th December, but said above you began on 21st. Which one was it?

Also, not to drag on about it but I took time out to type out a fairly lengthy comment on kickstarter asking about the B+W transmission chart linked in the comments and all you responded with was that the B+W chart was incorrect. I appreciate you are busy, and want everyone including myself to get the filter as quickly as possible, but if you are going to make claims like that in response to a very honest question I think you should back it up with why the chart is incorrect or else it seems like you're calling B+W out on false charts.

Luke

Hello Luke, we said we would be shipping on December 25 but we started shipping on December 21.

We have tested the B+W transmission polarizer and the transmission chart is on our website.

Notice how the transmission charts look different.

Graham

 

[Loswr]

Running a test and getting a result different from that of another does not necessarily mean they're the one who is incorrect.

 

[grahamclarkphoto]

Running a test and getting a result different from that of another does not necessarily mean they're the one who is incorrect.

Have you seen how different the results are or are you just speculating?

Graham

 

[Loswr]

Running a test and getting a result different from that of another does not necessarily mean they're the one who is incorrect.

Have you seen how different the results are or are you just speculating?

Graham

I've seen the difference. I'm also familiar with 'tests' performed to support marketing claims. Auto makers (don't we just love car analogies here?) can all claim to make the safest cars, which is why data from an independent party like the IIHS is useful.

 

[grahamclarkphoto]

Running a test and getting a result different from that of another does not necessarily mean they're the one who is incorrect.

Have you seen how different the results are or are you just speculating?

Graham

I've seen the difference. I'm also familiar with 'tests' performed to support marketing claims. Auto makers (don't we just love car analogies here?) can all claim to make the safest cars, which is why data from an independent party like the IIHS is useful.

Yes, I'm completely with you there in your observations on marketing.

But the results that came out of our industry standard spectrometer are completely objective, and I guarantee you we didn't mess with the numbers.

Graham

 

[Loswr]

Running a test and getting a result different from that of another does not necessarily mean they're the one who is incorrect.

Have you seen how different the results are or are you just speculating?

Graham

I've seen the difference. I'm also familiar with 'tests' performed to support marketing claims. Auto makers (don't we just love car analogies here?) can all claim to make the safest cars, which is why data from an independent party like the IIHS is useful.

Yes, I'm completely with you there in your observations on marketing.

But the results that came out of our industry standard spectrometer are completely objective, and I guarantee you we didn't mess with the numbers.

Graham

...and therefore B+W is incorrect...or lying?

FWIW, I've empirically tested B+W UV and ND filters in my prior lab, and found their published spectra to be accurate.

 

[grahamclarkphoto]

Running a test and getting a result different from that of another does not necessarily mean they're the one who is incorrect.

Have you seen how different the results are or are you just speculating?

Graham

I've seen the difference. I'm also familiar with 'tests' performed to support marketing claims. Auto makers (don't we just love car analogies here?) can all claim to make the safest cars, which is why data from an independent party like the IIHS is useful.

Yes, I'm completely with you there in your observations on marketing.

But the results that came out of our industry standard spectrometer are completely objective, and I guarantee you we didn't mess with the numbers.

Graham

...and therefore B+W is incorrect...or lying?

FWIW, I've empirically tested B+W UV and ND filters in my prior lab, and found their published spectra to be accurate.

Either that or the stuff they put out isn't consistent with the transmission chart they have.

The transmission charts we have are objective and correct, guaranteed. The B+W HTC transmission profile is consistent with Nitto CPL film, which makes sense, with a polarization efficiency of 63% rather than 99.98%.

Graham

 

[lholmes549]

Hi Graham, you said through a kickstarter update you began shipping on the 28th December, but said above you began on 21st. Which one was it?

Also, not to drag on about it but I took time out to type out a fairly lengthy comment on kickstarter asking about the B+W transmission chart linked in the comments and all you responded with was that the B+W chart was incorrect. I appreciate you are busy, and want everyone including myself to get the filter as quickly as possible, but if you are going to make claims like that in response to a very honest question I think you should back it up with why the chart is incorrect or else it seems like you're calling B+W out on false charts.

Luke

Hello Luke, we said we would be shipping on December 25 but we started shipping on December 21.

We have tested the B+W transmission polarizer and the transmission chart is on our website.

Notice how the transmission charts look different.

Graham

Thanks. That was all I wanted to know.

The filters are starting to get into hands around the world so I look forward to receiving mine and taking it for a spin.

 

[Maui5150]

Running a test and getting a result different from that of another does not necessarily mean they're the one who is incorrect.

This x10000

 

[mnclayshooter]

Hi all - sorry to revive an old discussion but this one seems pretty close to what I'm trying to get a little better understanding of.

I am heading out to Yellowstone soon and would like to replace a really clunky old CPL I have (w/dented ring and all... dented in the bag/loose, not on a lens, thankfully).

I likely will have the EF 16-35 f4 on abut 90% of the time and will swap it out for the 100-400 for wildlife.
I've ordered the ND filters from breakthrough but held off on the CPL for two reasons:

1) on my 17-35 lens I used to use the CPL or a fader occasionally, but I didn't like the weird "X" with the fader if I pushed it just a little too far, and I didn't like the weird blue blobs in the sky on the wide end. With the flatter front element on the 16-35 f4, is there a recommended best CPL, or should I just rely on the ND's to tame down the bright sky? Anyone have any example photos with a CPL (B&W kasseman, Breakthrough Photography or other) on the 16-35 f4?

2) 100-400 is notorious for having issues with filters and degrading the image - any experience with the breakthrough photography filters on the mk I lens?

 

[Random Orbits]

Hi all - sorry to revive an old discussion but this one seems pretty close to what I'm trying to get a little better understanding of.

I am heading out to Yellowstone soon and would like to replace a really clunky old CPL I have (w/dented ring and all... dented in the bag/loose, not on a lens, thankfully).

I likely will have the EF 16-35 f4 on abut 90% of the time and will swap it out for the 100-400 for wildlife.
I've ordered the ND filters from breakthrough but held off on the CPL for two reasons:

1) on my 17-35 lens I used to use the CPL or a fader occasionally, but I didn't like the weird "X" with the fader if I pushed it just a little too far, and I didn't like the weird blue blobs in the sky on the wide end. With the flatter front element on the 16-35 f4, is there a recommended best CPL, or should I just rely on the ND's to tame down the bright sky? Anyone have any example photos with a CPL (B&W kasseman, Breakthrough Photography or other) on the 16-35 f4?

2) 100-400 is notorious for having issues with filters and degrading the image - any experience with the breakthrough photography filters on the mk I lens?

I don't use CPLs on UWA lenses when sky is involved due to the uneven polarization effect with such a wide angle of view. For water/snow, it's a different story, so that is when I tend to use CPLs with UWA lenses. Graduated NDs would work especially if you're referring to something like the Cokin/Lee systems where you can place the line where you want it. Otherwise you're stuck exposing for the skies and pushing the exposure for the ground in post or blending multiple exposures.

I've never had problems using filters with either version of the 100-400 (previously I and now II). All my filters are B&W, but I wouldn't mind trying Breakthrough. Some of complained of Breakthrough's support and uneven quality, but if get a good one, then they're very good.