Thread: Help me decide ....please!!!

For lens protection use a UV filter. Keep in mind that any filter will reduce your glass quality as it introduces an additional surface for the light to refract through / reflect off. UV filters were used extensively on film to prevent UV light exposing the film, but are not needed on digital cameras, as majority of sensors will have an in-built UV / IR filter (unless you're into astrophotography).

If you decide to buy a polarising filter, make sure it is a circular polariser (CP), rather than a linear one, as these can confuse the auto-focus system on digital cameras.

A CP is great for cutting down glare / reflection, whether on water (think nice deep green / blue ocean colour rather than overexposed washed out white), landscape photography or anything with a sky in it (think a bright blue sky with contrasting white coulds rather than greyish sky with little distinction between the two), what else, its a must have for taking photos through plate glass as it cuts out off-the-glass reflection etc etc (you often see tourists snapping photos (with flash!) through glass at zoos, observatory towers and the like - all they get is a massive flash reflection)

A ND filter is a neutral density filter, and it essentially reduces the amount of light entering the lens equally thouhgout the colour range. Generally used to create motion blur in well lit settings (think white waterfalls etc) Also comes in graduated (ND) flavour, where bottom half is clear glass and top half gradually increases in ND - often used for landscape/outdoor shots to get a more even exposure accross the frame by reducing the influence of skylight (top half).

Filter wise, I'd get UV filters for protection and a circular polariser, because of its wide applicability. Other things I'd invest in is a gear bag, a good tripod and posibly a sensor cleaner.

Enjoy your purchase!

Great advice guys thanks - I might hold off on the Polarising filter for now and go with the UV.

Looking forward to experimenting.

There is a line of thought (to which I subscribe) that goes something like this:

Why would you wanna put a (relatively) cheap shard of glass (eg. a UV filter) in front of an expensive optical intrument (ie. lens)?

UV filters achieve bugger all optically (if atmospheric haze is an issue then use a polariser when required), and as for lens protection ... that's what that little plastic cap is for (... and so is the lens hood, whilst shooting)

There is a theory that UV filters were 'invented' by photo retailers to boost their margins, ie. something they can flog to unsuspecting consumers. 30 bucks here on a camera bag, 20 bucks there on an UV filter ... makes all the difference for their bottom line when they're not making much more on the cameras themselves.

My advise Paul, don't waste your money (and the performance of your pretty good lens) on a UV filter. No way you'd find me putting $30 shards in front of my $2000+ lenses

slt
flickr

And for some good reading on Nikon matters see Thom Hogan. He mightn't take the best photos, but he bloody well knows his gear!

Not much of a fan of UV filter protection either after a filter shattered in transit and the shards were trapped between the lens and the lens cap.

Also losing enthusiasm for the hard polariser look.

Originally Posted by slt

There is a line of thought (to which I subscribe) that goes something like this:

Why would you wanna put a (relatively) cheap shard of glass (eg. a UV filter) in front of an expensive optical intrument (ie. lens)?

UV filters achieve bugger all optically (if atmospheric haze is an issue then use a polariser when required), and as for lens protection ... that's what that little plastic cap is for (... and so is the lens hood, whilst shooting)

There is a theory that UV filters were 'invented' by photo retailers to boost their margins, ie. something they can flog to unsuspecting consumers. 30 bucks here on a camera bag, 20 bucks there on an UV filter ... makes all the difference for their bottom line when they're not making much more on the cameras themselves.

My advise Paul, don't waste your money (and the performance of your pretty good lens) on a UV filter. No way you'd find me putting $30 shards in front of my $2000+ lenses

slt
flickr

And for some good reading on Nikon matters see Thom Hogan. He mightn't take the best photos, but he bloody well knows his gear!

my UV does effect the performance of my lens And I would far rather scratch the glass on a uv any day that cost 30bux than scratch the glass on my $2000+ lens Just my opinion but I would not take the chance I cant afford to buy lens like that all the time....i'm still trying to save for my second one

Picked it up today
Geez I've got a lot to learn
Well I've got it working on auto - now to work out all those menu's
Thanks again all - very happy with my purchase.



Now back to that bloody manual..................

if you have concerns re the quality of uv .or protecti9ve filters you can try pro filters or a nikon one..... the world dosent start and end with hoya
try schneider,lee, b@w ,'nikon ,pentax, leica
i dought the diference of even a consumer level filter is visible in a print on 35mm equivelant work.
if the image degeneration caused by an extra peice of glass concerns you think about using prime optics> for those who have unprotected glass consider please how delecate the coating on there front element is.......damaged coating is worse than a scratch, that u can remove from the image

put one on and never take it off is my opinion
have fun with the cam and grab another 2 batterys u will(i do) get around 800 raw images out of 3 bats on mine

to qoute my 3rd semester lecturer
" the quality of the photographer is related to the size of his bin"

I was wondering about the battery life - yes another one (or two) would be handy.

Can you buy a 12volt charger for the car?

Here's my first effort.