[Recovered Thread: 77763]

[LadyhawkVA]

I love #3 & 4. The leaves look gorgeous.

[fmoore]

Very interesting. I think I prefer polarized, at least on the close-up. I don't use a polarizer much but this comparison shows it to good advantage. Thanks for posting.

[HarjTT]

Rainer

Really impressed with how well shots 3 & 4 compare to the original non polarised ones.

HarjTT

:-)

[boyzo]

rduve wrote:

squirl033 wrote:

As far as I recall the influx of light was quite similar with me shooting straight up and having the sun to the left at about a 45 degree angle, but I might have turned the camera vertically. So I am not sure. In any case, when properly adjusting the filter, the sky suddenly turned darker and the leaves became deeply saturated and almost orange. Interesting effect which I had previously not experienced. This is a linear polarizer by the way, which works just fine, John.

Thanks Rainer seems to indicate to me linear is the way to go

[José A.]

I've got a circular polarizer for my FZ-10 and the results, although noticeable, are not quite impressive. I shall post pics later on.

And yes, I wasn't sure at the time I bought it if my camera accepted linear polarizers, but now I know it does. :angry:

[mtngal]

This is the type of results I was expecting when I bought my polarizer (what I remembered from my long-ago 35 mm days), but it doesn't have even half this effect. It's a cheap circular polarizer, so is the difference between linear and circular or is it the difference between one that cost $20.00 and one at $100?

WhatIS the difference between a linear and a circular polarizer?

[rduve]

The polarizer I used in these pictures is the linear polarizer from Raynox. Not expensive at all. I think I got it in a set with a UV lens for $25 or so. I wonder if results with the a circular polarizer would be different. I have a 72 mm circular polarizer to attach to the front of my Raynox DCR 2200. I'll take some comparison shots next time.

[tclune]

mtngal wrote:

WhatIS the difference between a linear and a circular polarizer?

Ira Tiffen, of the Tiffen filter company, wrote an article describing different filters that is worth bookmarking:

http://www.tiffen.com/camera_filters...zing%20Filters

In it, he explains the difference between circular and linear polarizers thus:

"Certain camera optical systems employ internal surfaces that themselves polarize light. Using a standard (linear) polarizer will cause the light to be further absorbed by the internal optics, depending on the relative orientation. A Circular Polarizer is a linear one to which has been added,on the side facing the camera, a quarter wave "retarder." This "corkscrews" the plane of polarization, effectively depolarizing it, eliminating the problem. The Circular Polarizer otherwise functions in the same manner."

[jcr]

Polarizer IS effective in any FZ camera, mainly a Linear good one (effectiveness depends on sun position) , linear are more effective than circular, Linear is cheaper, circular are mandatory to SLR with optical viewfinders, for FZ linear are perfect one's ans cheaper. I recommend the very best one from B+W MRC F-PRO series. keep away from china ones...(and those "made in japan" really made in china) Go to high- end brands like B+W,Heliopan, Rodenstock (for that order of preference for me), remember that You have a Leica Lens !

...and, by the way those are the brands that PRo's I know and read aboutwith many years of experirience use for some reason...

[jchad]

I have been told that a linear polariser will render the auto-focus useless. Is this true? (FZ20)

I bought a Hoya cir-pol, and the results, whilst noticable, don't seem to be as pronounced as I recall them to be with film.

Chad