DSLR: Any differences between Hoya Pro1 Digital MC and MC UV(0) ?


Status
Not open for further replies.
Jan 3, 2008
93
0
0
Punggol
#1
Many photographers are divided on the use of protective filter, some feel that it is not necessary or taking the filter off for some types of photography shooting.

Is it true that for digital photography a clear protective filter is all that is needed as the sensor does not have the sensitivity of film to UV and blue light. UV and Skylight filters are used for cameras with film ??

Did anyone actually test (non-scientific) using different filters (perhaps different brands/types) and did see some differences for outdoor shots.

Is B+W really worth the money even for a 17-55mm/2.8 len (I know it is just a fraction of the cost of the len) but I am really curious to hear if there is really any noticeable differences for general photography ?

Thanks.
 

lsisaxon

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2004
11,941
0
0
#2
Many photographers are divided on the use of protective filter, some feel that it is not necessary or taking the filter off for some types of photography shooting.

Is it true that for digital photography a clear protective filter is all that is needed as the sensor does not have the sensitivity of film to UV and blue light. UV and Skylight filters are used for cameras with film ??

Did anyone actually test (non-scientific) using different filters (perhaps different brands/types) and did see some differences for outdoor shots.

Is B+W really worth the money even for a 17-55mm/2.8 len (I know it is just a fraction of the cost of the len) but I am really curious to hear if there is really any noticeable differences for general photography ?

Thanks.
NC gives slightly more saturated colour than L37c. This might got to do with the improved coating rather than the UV cut which would benefit film more. Never compared Hoya but I guess the newer Pro1 digital protector has a better coating as well.
 

Jan 3, 2008
93
0
0
Punggol
#3
I was reading some reviews with test shots on other forums, it was never convincing enough or tell the differences from the photos taken with various filters. Guess a hood mounted is more important for outdoor shots than picking on the type of filter. ;)
 

Snoweagle

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2005
14,002
0
0
Pasir Ris, Singapore
#4
Many photographers are divided on the use of protective filter, some feel that it is not necessary or taking the filter off for some types of photography shooting.

Is it true that for digital photography a clear protective filter is all that is needed as the sensor does not have the sensitivity of film to UV and blue light. UV and Skylight filters are used for cameras with film ??

Did anyone actually test (non-scientific) using different filters (perhaps different brands/types) and did see some differences for outdoor shots.

Is B+W really worth the money even for a 17-55mm/2.8 len (I know it is just a fraction of the cost of the len) but I am really curious to hear if there is really any noticeable differences for general photography ?

Thanks.
I have been using Hoya Pro 1 Digital before making a switch to B+W. Other than B+Ws are much easier to clean, there is a difference in both qualities.
 

NikonOnly

New Member
Oct 14, 2006
61
0
0
Bishan
#5
Honestly I find that the lighting conditions, camera settings play a bigger part in the resulting photo than a filter as long as it is of a reasonable quality. Have yet to try B+W, although I don't have any doubt about the physical quality of the filter itself since one must be paying top dollars for one to start with. But whether it really makes a difference - unfortunately not convinced for now...but am still learning...
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom