The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Amateur question about leica lens

Brian S

New member
The flood light- shot with a 1955 Jupiter-3, single-coated front element, front triplet, uncoated rear triplet. With an IR dichroic filter. It's a Mirror.

I can live with the flood light, night scene.

This "filter/No filter" argument is about as age-old as it gets.

The resolution and dynamic range of the sensor in the M9 is not high enough to resolve any difference with the filter in place. That, and you have a thick IR absorbing filter in front of the sensor, an RGB Mosaic filter in front of the Sensor, grid of offset microlenses in front of the sensor, and a highly reflective surface of the CCD: all are going to affect the image far more than a high-quality multicoated filter in front of the lens. Comparing images from my M8 with my M9 using the same lens, the M8 images are crisper probably due to the thinner IR absorbing filter used over it's sensor. I read on the LUF one member wanted to replace the M9 filter with the one from his M8. I've just learned to live with it, but use the M8 for collimating lenses.

If you are THAT worried about attaining the highest possible quality from your Leica glass, shoot film.

If you do not care about damaging your lens, don't use a filter. With an M9, the filter in front of the lens is not going to make any difference in the final image.
 

Moonshine

New member
just realized that the person who sold me the lens included a skylight filter by Soligor. Has anyone heard of Soligor? Is that a good filter? just curious...
 

Brian S

New member
Soligor puts their name on products from many maufacturers. Hard to tell, but you would probably do better with a Leica or B&W brand filter. Buy a multicoated filter for best results.
 

Jan Brittenson

Senior Subscriber Member
If you are THAT worried about attaining the highest possible quality from your Leica glass, shoot film.
Been there, done that. Sold my Mamiya 7II. The Ma7+43mm and TMAX100 developed in XTOL 1:1, then scanned on my Imacon is comparable to the M9+WATE and Silver eFex Pro. For my purposes, digital has caught up. Film is history. (Actually, the M9 and Silver eFex is superior to film. I'm not kidding.)
 

Jan Brittenson

Senior Subscriber Member
The resolution and dynamic range of the sensor in the M9 is not high enough to resolve any difference with the filter in place. That, and you have a thick IR absorbing filter in front of the sensor, an RGB Mosaic filter in front of the Sensor, grid of offset microlenses in front of the sensor, and a highly reflective surface of the CCD: [blah blah blah]
Real world: M9 results are VASTLY better than film in reproducing subtle tonal differences.

Your little Internet Theory predicts otherwise.

Reality is right.
Your theory is wrong.
 

SYGTAFOTO

New member
For me, benefits of having a filter in front heavily outweighs any occasional negative effects it may have. Occasional flare I can live with. And I have never had a case where I've seen a significant flare difference between filter/no filter.
Once I put the filter on, no need to ever touch the front element (no possibilities for scratching), and no need to put on/take off front lens cap.. these two alone were enough for me to buy filters.

Personal preference really..
 

Brian S

New member
Panatomic-X in Microdol was my combination. My first DSLR did not have a Mosaic Filter or IR filter in front of it. Still works, and I've used it for some "filter vs non-filter" tests. Using a Hood with any lens is more important under most shooting conditions than worrying about using a high-quality filter.
 

Brian S

New member
Your little Internet Theory predicts otherwise.

Reality is right.
Your theory is wrong.
I was not being obnoxious about this, why are you?


No one has produced an image with/without use of filter that shows a dramatic increase in image quality.

The "no Filter" crowd will always parrot their message.

Listen or not, do what you want.

I've been using the Internet since 1980, and filters for longer than that. Try it yourself, and report back. Anyone posting on the Internet is just typing, not shooting.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I have. No filters unless you're looking to filter light for some reason. Any other use of filters is to help give the camera salesman a bonus, which isn't a bad thing to do but does nothing for your camera or lens or photography.
 

monza

Active member
Filters do something for my lens and my photography. I'll just leave it at that. ;)

Back to the beach: filter or not, if the front of your lens is affected by being on the beach, things probably don't look so good for the rest of the lens and camera too!
 

Moonshine

New member
Filters do something for my lens and my photography. I'll just leave it at that. ;)

Back to the beach: filter or not, if the front of your lens is affected by being on the beach, things probably don't look so good for the rest of the lens and camera too!
Does this mean it's just not a good idea to use Leica M stuff on the beach??:confused:
 

Y.B.Hudson III

New member
:bugeyes: did anYbodY saY uLtra violet... cough, cough, cough... oops! somEbody forgot sumfin? *








* Leic@ engineerinG... "fiLters, wE don't nEEd no stinkin fiLters"...mmmmmmmm gOOd onE.
 

Brian S

New member
Older lenses pass ultraviolet light through to the image sensor, and it is not well corrected at the focal plane. The 90 Elmarit is an older lens. This is more of a problem when using film cameras as the sensors in the M8 and M9 are not sensitive in the deeper UV.

http://www.kodak.com/ek/uploadedFil...utions/Datasheets(pdfs)/KAF-10500LongSpec.pdf

But- it does extend down to 3500Ansgtroms, which is below what you can see and what the lens is well-corrected for.

I keep a UV/IR filter on my longer lenses, even with the M9 and it's stronger IR absorbing filter. There is still some leakage in Infrared. The problem is: the lenses are not as well corrected for UV and IR light, and it tends to smear out the image. Post processing cannot correct it, as it is past the absorbtion curve of the color filter. It corrupts all of the bands. It looks like a weak, out of focus image overlaid on the original.

With the Internet- you can typically judge the value of advice by the tone that it is given. When there is an "Internet Argument" as occurs with the filter/no filter debate- test for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

I have a collapsible 9cm f4 Elmar that is the same vintage as the 90 Elmarit. The "Tele-Elmarit" 90/2.8 is later, and a different design. Next nice day that i have some free time, I'll try each with and without filters. The M8 and M9 sensors are limited by the size of their pixels and Bayer pattern Mosaic filter. The absolute resolution is 72 Line-pairs per millimeter (LP/mm). The bayer filter limits it further to 36LP/mm before color aliasing can set in. With these resolution, the difference in a high quality filter will not impact the image. I get color-aliasing with my cameras when using filters. They do not reduce the image quality by an amount that is detectable. Reflections under some situations- you'll see the issue on the M9 screen, take the filter off if it is a problem.
 
Last edited:

thrice

Active member
I use filters, and will continue to always use filters. They have never negatively impacted IQ in any appreciable way. I only use B+W filters.

Those who say you don't need filters at the beach must be shooting far from the water-line or during very still days/evenings. I routinely clean a sparkling layer of salt off my filters after shooting at the sea-side. The camera also benefits from a wipe down with some distilled water on a tissue after a trip to the beach.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Panatomic-X in Microdol was my combination. My first DSLR did not have a Mosaic Filter or IR filter in front of it. Still works, and I've used it for some "filter vs non-filter" tests. Using a Hood with any lens is more important under most shooting conditions than worrying about using a high-quality filter.
Totally depends on the beach and what the conditions are. It's not a yes or no question ... it's a maybe sometimes one.

Recently I was in St. Pete's beach FL with my H4D/60 and a few pretty expensive lenses. The wind was whipping really, really fine sand particles all over the place, and I could actually feel the grit on my teeth. This is not the type of soil you wipe with a micro-fibe even after using an Air-bulb ... it takes compressed air, and a lot of it to get this stuff off the lens and camera.

Filter on.

Later on, it was filter off.

It's easy to just carry one in the bag for conditions that warrant it. I put one on my wides when it's snowing because the shallow hood doesn't protect like a deeper telephoto hood does.

-Marc
 
V

Vivek

Guest
I'll be using an Elmarit 90 to take pictures of my kids on the beach and was wondering if i should buy a filter to put on the lens before i use it there. Many folks say not to use a filter but since it is the beach i was concerned about protecting the lens...any thoughts?
Thanks
If your kids can withstand the sand/grit and what not your camera and lens ought to as well. If it won't (as it appears from the posts) get an all weather digital cam that will probably cost about the same as some of these filters.
 

Double Negative

Not Available
This is one of those questions for the ages. It will never be answered, and opinions are many.

I used to use filters, but stopped. The only time I use one is on my Canon L weathersealed lenses (it completes the sealing) or when I expect there may be some danger imminent.
 

Chuck Jones

Subscriber Member
I used to be a fanatic about using filters on every lens. It became my standard practice to buy a new lens, then not even take it out of the box until I had the proper UV for the front. And not just any filter either, they needed to be B&W or Leica or Schneider or something really great and really expensive. After all, I wanted the best quality in everything, so the cost of a good filter was just part of the cost of entry.

I shot for years this way. I didn't know any better. I used to come home after a hard night of shooting, download my night's take, and examine what I got as keepers. I learned to live with the light smears, the "rays" around strong light sources, and all the rest of the aberrations caused by stray light reflections. Some interesting, most degrading the particular image to the point were it was unusable in my opinion.

Talking with some other professional photographers, I began to understand what the problem was, and what was causing it. It was obvious, and quite clear in my images, though I didn't have the background at the time to understand what was causing the problem. I was seeing correctly, and compensating by staying away from shooting direct light sources right into my lens. I was crippling my technique because of flair, and cursed the designers of the lenses I was using for causing this problem.

The night a good friend suggested I remove the filter, and shoot a series without it changed my life, and ended my use of filters for good until the M8 came along. All the proof I ever needed, that camera provided. My conclusion, and I freely admit it is a personal choice, was that filters do a fine job of keeping dirt off of my front element, but at a cost of greatly increased flair problems.

Shooting at the beach as your regular set, maybe you do want to use a filter. Your likely not shooting there at night anyway, and most likely you would have the sun at your back most of the time. Blowing sand or dust, your probably better off gear wise if you just pack it up and go home. Blowing sand and dust can do far worse than getting on the front of your lens. They can both penetrate into the innards of your body if it isn't weather sealed, where they can really cause havoc. Or buy a suitable beach camera, and use that. My wife has a little Canon that is great at the beach, and even capable of shooting underwater down to about ten feet.

For myself though, the difference in my keeper rate shooting without a filter goes up especially shooting at night. I do this for my living, so having as high a keeper rate as possible means money in my pocket. Sure, it's possible one of these days I could get a scratch on a front element. Probably much more likely cleaning my lenses, if I am not careful. Though all the years of shooting with filters, I never had to replace a single one due to damage. Nor have I had to repair a single lens shooting without one in the many years since. Given the high cost of a good filter, I am probably money ahead in the bank when and if I ever need a lens repair. And I guarantee you I am money ahead shooting professionally from having those extra images for my clients I could not have produced using filters.

The rules are different for working professionals. We have to get the shots. We have no excuses when we don't, it's our job. Cameras may be our passion in addition, but fundamentally we must work in such a way that our gear earns us our money - or we don't eat. We're only as good as our last job, and only successful if we meet our clients needs. If meeting that bar means occasionally some of our gear is at risk for damage, that is just a part of the cost of doing business for us.

I don't want to come off here as playing the "P" card either, in dismissing the other side's arguments. There are some very valid uses for filters. For me, it all comes down to doing the math. Each of us is different, both in technique and the subjects we shoot. Speaking only for myself, it is a 3% to 5% difference, or somewhere in that range. Out of 100 frames, if I use a front filter I can count on having three to five of those frames on a night time shoot being unusable for my client. Personally, I need those good frames, as I have no idea in advance if they will be important or not to the story I am shooting. What I do know is the frames I can't use I don't get paid for, and the important ones I can't replace are holes in the story I can not fill.

In the end, we can all debate this subject until the cows come home to no general conclusion that is right for everybody. Photography is an art, and as such is subject to interpretation with no hard and fast rules that work for everybody. I would suggest though, if you have problems with random light patterns especially in your strong sun shots or when your shooting at night, you may want to conduct a test for yourself. Try shooting a couple hundred frames with your filter, then take it off for a couple of hundred frames - in the same lighting - and see what you get. You many just find your answer to better personal photography. If you aren't having a problem, you don't need to bother. It's not a problem for the type of work your doing.

One thing I will agree with, if you decide to use front filters, use the good ones. Multi-coated filters have those coatings to help limit these problems. Which, I guess, is all the proof anyone should need that problems do exist using filters!
 
Top