hawaiidave Loc: Honolulu, HI

I'm going to Cusco and Machu Picchu. One guide book I read said because of the high level of UV light at those altitudes you should use UV filters. I will take a Nikon AFS 10-24, 35 mm prime and 55-200 tele. All the lenses have UV filters (I know, lots of highly respected photographers on UHH think they're superfluous) but no expensive filters. I do have a CPF that will fit on the 35 and 55-200. The UV for the 10-24 cost me $35. Should I make a quick run to the camera store and get better filters?

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Regardless of the price paid for UV filters you really need to know the effect they may have upon the image taken while using them as many can degrade the image to varying extent.
I always suggest setting up your camera and lens on a tripod and focusing on a fixed object at some distance. Take two identically exposed shots, one without the UV filter and another one with it mounted. Look at a particular object in those images at 100% and compare the sharpness and color of them. I have a cemetery behind the church across the street from my store that has lots of artificial flowers all year round that make for a very good comparison. Knowing what your own filters do on your own lenses is valuable information to have. If a filter has a strong negative effect on the image, that makes for very good evidence to have in hand when returning that filter to the store also. Always better to know this before an expensive trip than after too!

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Is the guide book referring to digital or film cameras? Its possible who ever wrote it does not realize UV filters on digital cameras is not the issue it is on film.

hawaiidave Loc: Honolulu, HI

So nice to get advice from the pros. Thanks Carter, I'll do that. And next year when I'm gearing up for the African Safari I'll be sure to contact you about any equipment I may need.

hawaiidave Loc: Honolulu, HI

Gee, They didn't say. I'm going to do what MT Shooter sId and run tests on my filters. Thanks for your reply.

hawaiidave Loc: Honolulu, HI

Sorry Mt Shooter and maw silvers. I wasn't able to respond the right way.

John in DC

Right. The sensors on DSLRs already have a UV filter in front of them.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Absolutely wrong. The OLPF on DSLR sensors have no UV reduction. A very common misconception.

Shakey Loc: Traveling again to Norway and other places.

You are so right. Film will pick up a haze or misty look at altitude if you don't have a filter. This will lead to very disappointing results if you don't know that.

At my age I don't climb many mountains unless it's by car. Digital images don't suffer from the same problem. I'll add the caveat that the highest I've been to these days is Grandfather Mountain and Mount Pisca, NC.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

I agree. Canon calls it a low-pass filter and from what I have been able to find out it only filters IR, not UV. Seems to me that the suggestion to do some test shots would be the way to go.

Psergel Loc: New Mexico

I think this article seems pretty authoritative. What I get from it is;
-digital sensors are even more UV sensitive than film
-they do indeed have UV filters "built in" (as well as IR filters)
-they are still sensitive to UV, but not very

http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2262/are-digital-sensors-sensitive-to-uv

This is one of those subject that people seem to have strong opinions on.
I tried a not very expensive uv filter at a mere 10,000 ft one day and I couldn't discern any difference between shots taken of the same scene with and without. Admittedly not a very rigorous test.

Does anyone have a white paper from one of the manufacturers addressing this?

Psergel Loc: New Mexico

A long and interesting discussion on this subject
www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=1965.0

steve40 Loc: Asheville/Canton, NC, USA

Most digital cameras, already have sufficient UV blocking, and extra filtering is not needed.

However I have a Fuji HS35EXR, that is so UV/IR sensitive I can hand hold most IR shots. While this is a plus for IR, it is not the best at other times.

I did not get a UV blocking filter, as it would have not remedied the problem. I got a UV/IR cut filter, quite a different animal. It also improved the regular color imaging; quite a bit.

These however are not cheap, start thinking $100.00 +.
So if you have a digital camera, when viewing a TV remote through the lens. You can see the IR spot as bright as a small penlight, you would definitely benefit your images, by investing in a "UV/IR Cut Filter".

But on the other hand I can install my Hoya IR filter, and go snap happily down the road. The $100 for the filter, and still being able to use it for normal color imaging, is much cheaper than having a camera converted for IR. And the Fuji HS35, is about the same price as the average IR conversion would be.

All of this said, you can still use the camera without the filter. But the IQ and the Dynamic range of the camera, are improved over 50%. :)

houdel Loc: Chase, Michigan USA

Quality UV filters are made in various strengths as UV radiation does significantly increase in strength at higher altitudes. In addition to the haze caused by light scattering in a high UV/IR environment, high levels of UV/IR radiation will also affect colors, most noticeably green, due to the high IR reflection off chlorophyll in vegetation.

steve40 Loc: Asheville/Canton, NC, USA

High sensitivity to IR, also causes the whites in your images to blow out. Since the IR image is white, this adds to the mix. And as mentioned has an effect on colors, notable Green.

But if faced with wanting to buy a filter for UV/IR, I would opt for the extra expense of a UV/IR cut filter. Not a cheap UV filter. There is a reason the UV/IR cut filter is expensive. They are of high quality glass, double glare coated, and the filtering is accomplished by layering the filter, by as many as 10 layers of UV/IR reflective coatings.

I keep mine on at all times (with no image deteriorating effect), even using flash. So it serves as a UV/IR cutting filter, but also a protective filter for the lens.

Check B&H Photo, I got mine on sale for $90.00. Like I said it ain't cheap.