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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 26, 2005, 9:19 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
LadyhawkVA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,374
Default

I love #3 & 4. The leaves look gorgeous.
LadyhawkVA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 26, 2005, 1:47 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
fmoore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,116
Default

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.
fmoore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 26, 2005, 5:30 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
HarjTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,535
Default

Rainer

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

HarjTT

:-)
HarjTT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 26, 2005, 5:35 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
boyzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,544
Default

rduve wrote:
Quote:
squirl033 wrote:
Quote:
interesting effects. the polarizer didn't darken the sky as much as i'd expect. judging from the shadows in the pictures, it looks like the sun was in front and a bit to the left for #1 & 3; the leaves appear almost backlit. the other shots, 2 & 4, the sun angle looks lower and more to the left...

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


boyzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 26, 2005, 5:41 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
José A.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 367
Default

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:
José A. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 26, 2005, 6:32 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

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?
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 26, 2005, 7:31 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

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.
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2005, 10:40 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,093
Default

mtngal wrote:
Quote:
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."


tclune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 28, 2005, 8:20 AM   #19
jcr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 152
Default

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...
jcr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 28, 2005, 8:28 AM   #20
Member
 
jchad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 39
Default

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
jchad 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 3:47 PM.