Actually, it's my wife's experience.

We just had a week vacation in the Canadian Rockies (Calgary, Canmore, Banff, Jasper, and many lakes, waterfalls, wildlife, etc.)€“ had a great time. There were hundreds of tourists from many nations everywhere we went and I couldn't believe how many carried their DSLRs without using the strap (I use the Op/Tech Custom Strap Pro with X-Long extensions and Uni-Loop connectors which allows me to sling the strap/camera across my body and have no neck or shoulder discomfort). And, I couldn't believe how many times I had to remind my wife to use her strap (she didn't appreciate my reminders but I recently upgraded her Canon SX30 to a Nikon P900).

I know that digital camera sensors eliminate UV light so that UV filters are superfluous. But having several from my film camera lenses, I use them as protection instead of buying new clear filters. I'd much rather clean a filter several times a day than my lens, and in Canada we both needed to clean our filters constantly (I mostly used a CPL filter on my wide angle lens and a UV filter on my telephoto lens; I took only two lenses with me). Well, on the last day at night as we entered our room to pack up, my wife dropped her camera on a very hard floor (again she was hand holding without the strap on). I contained myself as much as possible. Fortunately, the UV filter that I gave her was on the camera – it shattered (don't know what it hit) but there are no dings or scratches on the camera or lens glass and the camera works fine.

I have taken many test shots with and without a UV filter, with all of my cameras, and cannot tell the difference. I'€™ll replace her filter with a clear glass quality filter. For us, the protective filters will remain on. Hopefully, lesson learned about the strap!

First there actually has been experimentation that showed there is virtually no protection provided for the type of impact described.

But in this case it is extremely obvious from the picture provided that the damage to the filter is not from frontal penetration, where the filter supposedly would block the foreign object from hitting the front surface of the lens. Instead the damage is from impact with a floor that is flat and not penetrating. It hit the edge of the lens and the filter had virtually zero effect. (Other than to provide convincing evidence that careful handling is important.)

Damage from a drop forceful enough to damage the filter, may also damage internal components inside the lens. Especially newer lenses with multiple elements, delicate electronic motors, plastic gears, etc. Yes, filter will protect against fingerprints, et al. That said, most of that type of damage is minor and won't show up in an image anyway. I've bought several lenses with small scratches on the front element & you cannot tell the difference. Bottom line is , use one if it makes you feel safer, don't if it doesn't. I have been shooting since the late 1960's & I have yet to drop or damage a camera or lens. My God people, take proper care of your gear & avoid damage to begin with. My only damage was to an older Minolta camera that I loaned to a friend. He wound up getting dirt inside the film speed selection dial & paid to have it repaired. I have never loaned out any gear since. Must be that people spending money to replace front elements have no sense of safety or realize that damage to that element will have to be petty severe to have any effect. Look at mirror lenses as an example. They all have that huge plastic disc in the center of the element but other than bokeh being affected, the images are no worse than lenses without that disc. People are too hung up on any "damage" on the front element. Actually, damage to the rear element is more detrimental to the image than on a front element. Coatings on the front element are more suspect to be damaged than the actual glass & most newer lenses are coated on more than just the front element.