Difference in HD & UV filter


Status
Not open for further replies.

kababoom

Senior Member
Nov 23, 2004
7,468
0
36
Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
#1
is ther any difference between these 2 filters thinking of getting GH-1 which comes with HD kit lens will it degrade the images if i were to use normal UV filter on this?
thks for an info
 

ortega

Moderator
Staff member
Nov 2, 2004
23,694
10
38
Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
#4
thks for the info but what would be the recommended choice of filter in the case HD lens shld go with HD filter? since HD filters are generally more expensive compare to normal filters
unfortunately, i cannot help you on that as i do not use filters on my lenses
 

YSLee

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
2,326
1
38
Visit site
#6
Argh here we go again. Hoya HD filters are not Hi-def filters. The HD stands for HARDENED.
 

Limsgp

New Member
Dec 16, 2005
1,128
0
0
Singapore, Bedok
#8
Say, on some mountains/high ground, during a bright sunny day, where the UV radiation is probably higher than at sea levels, trying to take some landscape pictures.

Wouldn't the UV cause some weird colour shift or other artifacts? Since the camera doesn't have UV filtering and the sensor is sensitive to UV.

In this case, a good UV filter might actually improve the picture quality overall.

While the statement is usually true.. it may not be always true..


anything you put in front of your lens will degrade your image
 

Octarine

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 3, 2008
12,543
33
48
Pasir Ris
#9
Say, on some mountains/high ground, during a bright sunny day, where the UV radiation is probably higher than at sea levels, trying to take some landscape pictures.
Wouldn't the UV cause some weird colour shift or other artifacts? Since the camera doesn't have UV filtering and the sensor is sensitive to UV.
Read about the UV transmitting capabilities of any standard kit lens, it's fairly limited. Your camera also has filters to prevent anything else than visible light from hitting the sensor. That's the reason why UV filters are actually redundant in digital days. Even at high altitudes, a slight blueish cast can be corrected later in post processing. Artifacts are caused by JPG compression.
 

Last edited:

Limsgp

New Member
Dec 16, 2005
1,128
0
0
Singapore, Bedok
#10
Not really.. the camera actually allows a fair bit of UV to pass thru. Cameras only have dedicated IR filters in front of sensor, no dedicated UV filter. The glass does limits the amount of UV, but only those further from the visible range/wavelength.

The artifacts that I mentioned refers only to colours related.

Hmm.. if you bring in Post processing, it can change a lot of things.. We're considering the "picture quality" straight from camera for discussing ya..

My comment is not intended to discuss whether "put filter better or no filter better" but more to whether "adding a filter will always degrade the pictures".


Read about the UV transmitting capabilities of any standard kit lens, it's fairly limited. Your camera also has filters to prevent anything else than visible light from hitting the sensor. That's the reason why UV filters are actually redundant in digital days. Even at high altitudes, a slight blueish cast can be corrected later in post processing. Artifacts are caused by JPG compression.
 

eezzi

New Member
May 24, 2009
27
0
0
#11
HD filter is better.. normal UV one may cause slight tinge of yellow or orange.. =))
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom