Whats wrong with Hoya HMC?

[erwinx]

http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6855
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7987

From these threads, one can see that even people with consumer digicams refuse to use Hoya HMC filters. Instead, they go for Hoya SHMC or B+W MRC.

Since I'm using Hoya HMC all the way, can someone tell me whats wrong with Hoya HMC?

Oh no... getting 'finger paralysis syndrome' already... must replace Hoya with B+W....

 

[ckiang]

Originally posted by erwinx
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6855
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7987

From these threads, one can see that even people with consumer digicams refuse to use Hoya HMC filters. Instead, they go for Hoya SHMC or B+W MRC.

Since I'm using Hoya HMC all the way, can someone tell me whats wrong with Hoya HMC?

Oh no... getting 'finger paralysis syndrome' already... must replace Hoya with B+W....

You hit the nail on the head. Somehow, it is indeed the finger paralysis syndrome. I know people who uses nothing but B+W filters, don't know what's wrong with the regular Hoya HMC. I seriously doubt anyone can tell the difference in the resultant images. I guess, it's the "brand" and the "status" thing again.

"I need a Leica/F5/1V/Hassy to make good images"
"I need B+W filters. The rest deteriorate my images too much"

All these are probabably mostly FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) - when someone says B+W are the best, Hoya is crap, everyone follows suit. Particularly newbies.

And of coz, having spent so much for the filter, the users start to swear by its superiority, without even trying out the Hoya HMC ones. This is one of those things which reach the point of diminishing returns - once you reach a certain quality of filters, I don't think there's a difference anymore. If you want ultimate quality, then don't even buy B+W!

Speaking of which, hmm, maybe I should get a F5, the AFS lenses and put B+W filters on them all. Otherwise, my pictures will be crap.

Regards
CK

 

[YSLee]

Originally posted by ckiang

Speaking of which, hmm, maybe I should get a F5, the AFS lenses and put B+W filters on them all. Otherwise, my pictures will be crap.

What? Shooting jap glass? Geez, go buy a Leica already; you need German glass, and don't forget to use Tech Pan for film.

 

[Richard]

No... the feeling is this... "I spent thousands on my equipment and I put $5 filters on them? You've got to be kidding!"

 

[ckiang]

Originally posted by Richard
No... the feeling is this... "I spent thousands on my equipment and I put $5 filters on them? You've got to be kidding!"

True, but people spend $10,000 on cameras and lenses, then go to neighbourhood labs!

My point is, if ultimate image quality is what the user wants, then simply don't use any filters.

Regards
CK

 

[ckiang]

Originally posted by YSLee


What? Shooting jap glass? Geez, go buy a Leica already; you need German glass, and don't forget to use Tech Pan for film.

Oh yes. I should be getting that Leica M7 with a Summilux R 50mm f1.4, load Tech Pan, then mount the whole thing on a hefty Gitzo tripod with AcraSwiss head. Oh yes, and don't forget the B+W filter on the Summilux.

Good. Now, where's the $$$..... ;p

Regards
CK

 

[TME]

Originally posted by ckiang


True, but people spend $10,000 on cameras and lenses, then go to neighbourhood labs!

My point is, if ultimate image quality is what the user wants, then simply don't use any filters.

Regards
CK

Yeah but it is hard not use filters especially the lighting is rather harsh and lousy like in Singapore where the sky is always cloudy and white!

 

[ckiang]

Originally posted by TME


Yeah but it is hard not use filters especially the lighting is rather harsh and lousy like in Singapore where the sky is always cloudy and white!

I believe we are implicitly talking about UV filters here, so they don't enhance the sky. Anyway, even a good Circular Polarizer will not help if the sky is too cloudy.

Regards
CK

 

[TME]

Originally posted by ckiang


I believe we are implicitly talking about UV filters here, so they don't enhance the sky. Anyway, even a good Circular Polarizer will not help if the sky is too cloudy.

Regards
CK

True but a good ND will cut out the harsh light and make the shot look more natural.

 

[erwinx]

What does 'ND' stand for? And why is it only 'good NDs' (whatever that is) will cut out the harsh light? You mean the cheaper ones cannot?

Originally posted by TME


True but a good ND will cut out the harsh light and make the shot look more natural.

 

[mpenza]

Originally posted by erwinx
What does 'ND' stand for? And why is it only 'good NDs' (whatever that is) will cut out the harsh light? You mean the cheaper ones cannot?

"Neutral density". They're supposed to reduce the amount of light entering the lens (a bit like sunglasses ;p) but without modifying the colors.

 

[ckiang]

Originally posted by erwinx
What does 'ND' stand for? And why is it only 'good NDs' (whatever that is) will cut out the harsh light? You mean the cheaper ones cannot?

ND = Neutral Density. I don't use them - don't even have one. The not-so-good ones are said to have some colour cast, so it's not so neutral after all.

TME,
But no, I don't think a normal ND is going to cut off harsh light. It reduces the amount of light into the lens. The meter is going to compensate for this loss by increasing exposure, so there's not going to be a difference. Except when you're trying to do long exposures in bright sunlight, whereby you can then use a long shutter speed. Doing so however, does not make the light less harsh.

If you are talking about ND Grads, then it's a slightly different story. They lower the contrast difference between the bright and dark parts of the subject so a range within the limits of film/CCD/CMOS. But they need to be used properly, and the dividing line between light and dark needs to be straight/almost straight. So they won't work on things like skylines.

Regards
CK

 

[TME]

Originally posted by ckiang


ND = Neutral Density. I don't use them - don't even have one. The not-so-good ones are said to have some colour cast, so it's not so neutral after all.

TME,
But no, I don't think a normal ND is going to cut off harsh light. It reduces the amount of light into the lens. The meter is going to compensate for this loss by increasing exposure, so there's not going to be a difference. Except when you're trying to do long exposures in bright sunlight, whereby you can then use a long shutter speed. Doing so however, does not make the light less harsh.

If you are talking about ND Grads, then it's a slightly different story. They lower the contrast difference between the bright and dark parts of the subject so a range within the limits of film/CCD/CMOS. But they need to be used properly, and the dividing line between light and dark needs to be straight/almost straight. So they won't work on things like skylines.

Regards
CK

Hmm.....I learnt something new today! But I guess the NDs give u a workable range such that the background is less bright and that gives u some flexibility with your apertures or shutter speeds. If there are subjects, the fill in flash will probably do the trick to cast off the shadows. I suppose if the level of light drops the shutter speed will drop if u hold the aperture, so that might not help also...........well just thinking aloud. Not sure if I make any sense.

 

[Jed]

Sorry to say, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I'm guessing you're still not really getting what an ND is. The part about allowing a better shutter speed/aperture range is right, but the rest of it starts to drop off.

 

[ckiang]

Originally posted by TME


Hmm.....I learnt something new today! But I guess the NDs give u a workable range such that the background is less bright and that gives u some flexibility with your apertures or shutter speeds. If there are subjects, the fill in flash will probably do the trick to cast off the shadows. I suppose if the level of light drops the shutter speed will drop if u hold the aperture, so that might not help also...........well just thinking aloud. Not sure if I make any sense.

Huh?

If you need to drop your shutter speed at a given aperture (like when shooting waterfalls). But it will not solve whatever problems with high contrast, harsh lighting etc as overall exposure remains the same. In fact, harsh lighting cannot be fixed by altering overall exposure. One of the best fix for high contrast is fill flash, not ND filter.

Regards
CK

 

[zapp!]

Of course, there are split ND filters in which the top half is ND and the bottom half is clear...this can very much help a high contrast scene to get a more balanced exposure...but then again, i dun have one so i can only say the theory...

I use a Cokin 4x ND for my waterfall shots...

 

[TME]

Originally posted by zapp!
Of course, there are split ND filters in which the top half is ND and the bottom half is clear...this can very much help a high contrast scene to get a more balanced exposure...but then again, i dun have one so i can only say the theory...

I use a Cokin 4x ND for my waterfall shots...

So what does that filter do for u? Do u get very dark shots for the greenery while the water is well exposed?

 

[TME]

What I was trying to say is that the NDs allow less light in such that u tend to get a better aperture/shutter range. But for shadows cast by strong light, u still need fill flash to remove them. A filter will not help as the face of a human subject will still have shadows if under strong sunlight.

 

[erwinx]

I'm sorry, but this is another different and confusing statement. What is 'better aperture/shutter range?' Zapp has explained that he uses ND for waterfall shots but you don't seem to understand what he is saying..... You also don't seem to understand what ckiang is saying.

How else to ask this umm diplomatically, but

(1) Have you actually used an ND filter?
(2) How do you use your ND filter?

If you have not used an ND filter before, why are you making comments such as:

"True but a good ND will cut out the harsh light and make the shot look more natural."

"But I guess the NDs give u a workable range such that the background is less bright and that gives u some flexibility with your apertures or shutter speeds. "

Originally posted by TME
What I was trying to say is that the NDs allow less light in such that u tend to get a better aperture/shutter range. But for shadows cast by strong light, u still need fill flash to remove them. A filter will not help as the face of a human subject will still have shadows if under strong sunlight.

 

[roygoh]

Guys,

Let's bring the discussion back to UV filters. I personally use one on every lens that I have (either UV or skylight). I am not sure if there is any effect on digital cameras, be it consumer or SLR models, because I am doubtful if the CCD can be made to be sensitive to such a wide range of wavelength. My main purpose for using one is to protect the actual lens from scratches. I might pay a few dollars more for a "better" brand or model, but will go for the cheaper one if the price difference is more than $10.

On my Nikon CP995, I switched from HOYA to B+W, but mainly because the HOYA is thicker and has a shiny silvery rim, causing my wide angle shots in the sun to have washed out corners.


TME,

With all due respect, I don't think you have basic understanding of what an ND filter is, what its function is, and how to use it.

It would be better to make yourself clear whether you are inquiring or offering advice. You comments on ND filters has so far been either vague or inaccurate.

There has been previous discussions on ND filters. You should be able to find some useful information by doing a search. Some practice with using an ND filter will be very helpful also.

- Roy