People think Kodak the best? (not what I think just what I read online)
Nikon, Canon do not make their own sensors?
All not true?
So this world got 1 holy CMOS maker?
Nikon and Canon got wafer fab? Hope you know what a wafer fab is, like Chartered Semiconductor which our country lost a lot of money and now it is no longer ours. If they do then there are 2 sensor manufacturer? Ok, granted, they may design and got it OEM, then why we even bother if stuff are made in Japan, Germany or Russia.
Google is leaving China but still here, so let your finger do the walking.
U r right http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/...mos_sensors.do
Canon makes its own.
Nikon develops but not clear if they manufacture it. There are other articles that claims they are dependent on SONY to make for them but that was in 2007
Last edited by ttmmfast; 25th March 2010 at 07:33 AM. Reason: Mistake
Here are other makers for those who are interested. These are all home pages of the company and of course everyone say they are the best:
Samsung ones I think is in Pentax Camera.
kodak sensors are best? that's like saying canon or nikon is best brand. nonsensical.Originally Posted by ttmmfast
only leica and sigma specify sensor origin? hogwash!
it is easy to sound like a professor on camera subjects, but please, at least bother to make statements based on facts, instead of hearsay and your own cloud fantasies. it is not nice to spread mistruths and mislead people who don't know better.
Last edited by night86mare; 25th March 2010 at 10:06 AM.
on uv filters and sharpness:
http://www.tiffen.com/camera_filters.htmNowadays UV filters are primarily used to protect the front element of a camera lens since they are clear and do not noticably affect the image. With film cameras, UV filters reduce haze and improve contrast by minimizing the amount of ultraviolet (UV) light that reaches the film. The problem with UV light is that it is not visible to the human eye, but is often uniformly distributed on a hazy day; UV therefore adversely affects the camera's exposure by reducing contrast. Fortunately, digital camera sensors are nowhere near as sensitive to UV light as film, therefore UV filtration is no longer necessary.
However, UV filters have the potential to decrease image quality by increasing lens flare, adding a slight color tint or reducing contrast. Multicoated UV filters can dramatically reduce the chance of flare, and keeping your filter very clean minimizes any reduction in image quality (although even invisible micro abrasions will affect sharpness/contrast). High quality UV filters will not introduce any visible color cast.
http://photo.net/equipment/filters/Film, as well as video, often exhibits a greater sensitivity to what is to us invisible, ultraviolet light. This is most often outdoors, especially at high altitudes, where the UV-absorbing atmosphere is thinner; and over long distances, such as marine scenes. It can show up as a bluish color cast with color film, or it can cause a low-contrast haze that diminishes details, especially when viewing far-away objects, in either color or black-and-white. Ultraviolet filters absorb UV light generally without affecting light in the visible region.
It is important to distinguish between UV-generated haze and that of air-borne particles, such as smog. The latter is made up of opaque matter that absorbs visible light as well as UV, and will not be appreciably removed by a UV filter.
this article does address your "our skin does know uv blah blah blah" moot point:
Now there isn't usually a huge amount of UV around at sea level. There is some (that's what gives you a suntan or a sunburn) but most of it is scattered by the atmosphere. However as you gain altitude, for example by going up a mountain, the amount of UV increases. Under these conditions a UV filter can prevent a blue cast in photographs.
I reckon it's time to close the thread.
Haha, just like which brand is better ... keke
I having a hard time removing it at times as well..
and never never attempt to screw one over another, be it ND over UV or CPL over ND..
I am one of those culprits when i asked for trouble by stacking my ND on my UV just becos i m too lazy to remove the UV in the middle of the shot. Ultimately need wrenches to remove..
With most things that are controversial, there are always interest groups giving their own arguments either side of the coin. Am sure filter manufacturers do pay for researches into the advantage of using filters etc ... One thing for sure, as long as we use and we are happy .... hosei liao ....
so much comments, albeit a little ot but i am fine. this thread does not deserve to be closed as there is still much to be discussed (imo). of those who believes that filters are unnecessary, fine. of those that use filters, seems at least to have two groups (to stack or not to stack).
i gather that unless deemed necessary, i shouldnt be stacking them. and if i should, i keeped them stacked all the time, otherwise seizing occurs? so back to the question, if i stack, is it UV between lens and CPL or CPL between lens and UV? any comments?