 |
| |
| This site requires new users to accept that a small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk after requesting a new account. Thank you. |
| Moderated by: chrisbet, | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
jk
|
I want a variable ND as it is more convenient than carrying a set of ND filters. Looking at this variable ND (x3-400) from Hoya. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Hoya-77mm-77-mm-Variable-Density-NDx3-400-ND3-ND400-Neutral-Camera-Lens-Filter/252087175121?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649 Does anyone have experience of variable ND filters? My previous experience is that they cause colour casts but there are a number of different makes now. Any suggested makes? |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Not answering your question but I believe they are a pair of Polarising filters in variable opposition, that might explain the colour variation? |
|||||||||
jk
|
Yes I have an older variable ND but it is in Spain but also causes colour casts which are very difficult to remove. I am hoping these new Hoya ND filters may be different but I dont want to blow £100+ on a filter that makes colour casts. I can buy a set of Lee 150x170 filters which cost £250 but they come as a set 0.3, 0.6, 0.9 (1,2,3 stops). The x3-400 effectively gives me variable 1 to 6 stops. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Simples, take a leaf out of Eric's book and buy it from somewhere like Wex, on-line, if it fails to make you smile then send it back. |
|||||||||
jk
|
I find that process works well if you live close to the store and can take it back but it irks me to have to post it back. Not entirely logical I concede but..... |
|||||||||
Robert
|
But the point is the distance selling rules mean you have a right to send it back, without stating a reason. If you go to the shop to buy it, it's up to their goodwill if they are prepared to have an even slightly used item back in stock. |
|||||||||
jk
|
Decided that the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 needs the flat ND so that is the way to go as I have the filter holder for it. However the Nikon 14-30 f4 Z series lens will take 82mm screw in filters but I dont have that! So decision made. I will continue with my 14-24 f2.8 on my Z7 using the FTZ adapter and on my D850. Seems so much easier and lesser cost! |
|||||||||
novicius
|
I Fail to Understand why the use of ND filters,..here in Europe light level is rather low, f.ex. , in summer ,100 iso at 100sec. between 2 - 4 midday usually requires f11...equally ,6400 iso at f1.4 , a difference of six f stops could be used ,which is easily overcome by today´s camera`s..and anything in between, enabling the photog to play with DOF,..and as mentioned , they`re supposedly polarizers, so why then not resorting to those, since you seem to have them already anyway..?.. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
novicius wrote:I Fail to Understand why the use of ND filters,..here in Europe light level is rather low, f.ex. , in summer ,100 iso at 100sec. between 2 - 4 midday usually requires f11...equally ,6400 iso at f1.4 , a difference of six f stops could be used ,which is easily overcome by today´s camera`s..and anything in between, enabling the photog to play with DOF,..and as mentioned , they`re supposedly polarizers, so why then not resorting to those, since you seem to have them already anyway..?..Waterfalls etc. is the only reason I can think of. I was dismayed when I discovered my D1 minimum ISO was 200, I had travelled some distance to make my first digital photographs of some brightly lit waterfalls in Yorkshire, but faced over exposure or frozen water droplets. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
What about just mounting 2 polarizing filters? |
|||||||||
Eric
|
chrisbet wrote:What about just mounting 2 polarizing filters?Or go later in the evening when light levels have dropped. |
|||||||||
jk
|
novicius wrote:I Fail to Understand why the use of ND filters,..here in Europe light level is rather low, f.ex. , in summer ,100 iso at 100sec. between 2 - 4 midday usually requires f11...equally ,6400 iso at f1.4 , a difference of six f stops could be used ,which is easily overcome by today´s camera`s..and anything in between, enabling the photog to play with DOF,..and as mentioned , they`re supposedly polarizers, so why then not resorting to those, since you seem to have them already anyway..?..It is not DOF that is desired to be controlled but shutter speed. If you want the sea or water to blur then you need 1/4 or 1/8 second at ISO 100/200 at normal f8 aperture for best sharpness from lens. You need to use ND to get these shutter speeds. I find I need ND of 4 stops. This would mean changing to ISO6/12 (not possible on current cameras). Many variable NDs are two polarisers working in opposition but these give colour casts (brown/green) also polarisers ate not good when used on wide angle lenses. Many landscape photographers use flat ND filters but these are expensive for a superwide angle 14mm as you need a 150x150 or 150x175mm. Going later in the day may be impractical or the light angle changes so the photo does not work. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
jk wrote: Going later in the day may be impractical or the light angle changes so the photo does not work. Thats true. I was really thinking specifically about waterfalls. Many people make the mistake of photographing them in full sun when the contrast range is to high to retain detail in the water. Even when it's meant to be blurred it shouldn't be burnt out or even spectacular white. 😉 |
|||||||||
jk
|
Yep, I know the problem. I managed to just about get it right here but it is not perfect.  Shooting upwards also means that even with HDR the dynamic range is huge. This is not HDR and I didnt have a tripod with me that day. |
|||||||||
jk
|
This is a fail. I need to repeat this image as I was there at midday on a sunny day. I will return on a cloudy day in September. This is HDR and still it is not right.  |
|||||||||
novicius
|
I like that second one , as I appreciate when some movement is shown, and looking forward to you returning there to " do it over " just to see what you have in mind...is this in Cornwall ? |
|||||||||
jk
|
novicius wrote:I like that second one , as I appreciate when some movement is shown, and looking forward to you returning there to " do it over " just to see what you have in mind...is this in Cornwall ?Yes it is on Devon/Cornwall border. It is Speke's Mill Waterfall at Hartland. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
I suppose this is where tastes differ. I too prefer the second image. I would have just masked the area in shade, adjusted the white balance to get rid of the deep shade blue cast and lightened the mid tones like this....  |
|||||||||
Eric
|
The first shot, to me, exhibits the sort of white out that I don't like to see. It loses definition by virtue of over exposure rather than movement. Areas I've greyed out.  Incidentally....you've left a black masking outline around the sunlit rocks. 😉 |
|||||||||
Current theme is Blue
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondsl.uk Thank you. |