Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Panasonic / Leica

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 23, 2010, 4:05 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10
Default FZ35 with a UV filter

I love this camera but one thing I don't like is you can't have it turned on with the lens cap in place so I bought an Optix UV filter to protect it. All was fine until I shot some night video and noticed the extra lights dancing around. Is Optix just a bad brand or is this a side effect of having something in front of the lens? Check out my video, there is also one shot right after without the filter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl8ik...eature=channel

Last edited by mrjason; Jan 23, 2010 at 4:07 PM. Reason: spelling, grammar and bad link
mrjason is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jan 23, 2010, 4:31 PM   #2
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

its a bit of both. any extra glass from a filter on the front of a lens can cause some glare problems, and that brand is pretty inexpensive, meaning it has not multicoat, increasing the probability of glare.
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2010, 5:57 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10
Default

Cool, thanks. Maybe I'll try the Panasonic or Hoya one. It seems like a waste if I have to keep taking it off at night though.
mrjason is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2010, 8:22 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

mrjason-

Welcome to the Forum. We're pleased that you dropped by.

A UV filter is very effective in daylight. However, you must be willing to take it off when necessary, as it measurably reduces the amount of light captured by the FZ-35's lens. It is not an option thing, it is a necessity, otherwise you are going to have to use a good tripod for any low light level shots. That is the reality of a UV filter.

Have a great day.

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2010, 9:39 PM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10
Default

Alright, I guess I'll have to live with the exposed lens. I'll just have to be careful.
mrjason is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2010, 11:07 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Seems logical to me.

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2010, 12:47 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtclimber View Post
A UV filter is very effective in daylight. However, you must be willing to take it off when necessary, as it measurably reduces the amount of light captured by the FZ-35's lens...
A good UV filter should have absolutely no affect in the amount of light passing through it. The two filters that affect incoming light are the polarize and ND filters. UV filters serve two specific purposes: 1) protect the lens against the environment (dust, dirt, sand, water, finger prints, etc.) and 2) cut down haze. I use UV filters on every single camera I have (I use either Sigma MC or Hoya MC filters) and haven't noticed any degradation in IQ what-so-ever. I also haven't really noticed a whole lot of improvement in terms of haze reduction but since I don't use them primarily for this purpose, it does not matter. Some filters can cost an arm and a leg and I don't subscribe to them either. A few years back I spent quite a lot of money buying various UV filter brands just to compare them against each other and found that a good Sigma performs just as well as a very expensive B+W. In the old film days, Skylight filters were far more popular than UV. I personally don't like them because they will affect the color since the glass has a pink'ish tone to it.

Panasonic filters tend to be expensive and not as good as the Hoya or sigma. Most are not multi-coated and the ones that are will cost too much. I'd stick to Hoya and/or Sigma. if you want to go a bit cheaper, then Promaster, Vivitar or Tiffen may work (but I don't recommend).
__________________

Tullio
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2010, 2:16 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Hi, Tullio-

Thanks for catching that error. You are 100% correct in your analysis, of course. And quality does indeed make a substantial difference.

I apologize for being in too great a hurry. Luckily it does not happen very often. Have a great day.

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2010, 7:37 PM   #9
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10
Default

Maybe I'll try the Hoya. Its the HMC one I want, multi coating, right? I didn't see 46mm listed on any website, in Canada, but other sizes are around $30. I'm fine with spending that. The B+W is $55 and the Pana is $35, I also see a Cokin for $30 though I've never heard of them. I knew I should not have bought that Optix crap, oh well I still have the receipt.

Last edited by mrjason; Jan 24, 2010 at 7:43 PM.
mrjason is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2010, 7:54 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

mrjason-

Filters are priced on the basis of size: Hoya, Kenko, and Cokin are the lowest levels that I would want to use. You might try www.filterhouse.com. They have a 46mm Kenko UV filter for $4.73, plus shipping of course.

Sarah Joyce

Last edited by mtclimber; Jan 24, 2010 at 7:58 PM.
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:53 PM.