PL Filter: So I have a PL filter and a mirrorless camera I have read opposing POVs regarding the use of a PL filter on mirrorless. I know a lot of you folks here seem to have...

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

So I have a PL filter and a mirrorless camera I have read opposing POVs regarding the use of a PL filter on mirrorless.

I know a lot of you folks here seem to have encyclopedic knowledge of photography and cameras so I thought that maybe you could share your thoughts.

letmedance Loc: Walnut, Ca.

I my opinion there should be no difference in it's use, the mirror function is to send the image to the viewfinder it has no effect on the image the lens projects on the sensor.

User ID

Blurryeyed wrote:

So I have a PL filter and a mirrorless camera I have read opposing POVs regarding the use of a PL filter on mirrorless.

I know a lot of you folks here seem to have encyclopedic knowledge of photography and cameras so I thought that maybe you could share your thoughts.

Not sure what your concern is .....

If its a linear PL and you are concerned whether you need a circular PL, no hey problemo. LPLs were the norm for many decades until certain SLRs developed "special needs" that were addressed by the CPL. Now that SLRs are behind us, LPLs are again the norm.

Bill_de Loc: US

User ID wrote:

Not sure what your concern is .....

If its a linear PL and you are concerned whether you need a circular PL, no hey problemo. LPLs were the norm for many decades until certain SLRs developed "special needs" that were addressed by the CPL. Now that SLRs are behind us, LPLs are again the norm.

Not sure about the norm. Looking at B&H almost everything being sold seems to be cpl.

---

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I have Olympus cameras and I use linear polarizers with no issues.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

User ID wrote:

Not sure what your concern is .....

If its a linear PL and you are concerned whether you need a circular PL, no hey problemo. LPLs were the norm for many decades until certain SLRs developed "special needs" that were addressed by the CPL. Now that SLRs are behind us, LPLs are again the norm.

Yes, that is my concern, does the PL work on the mirrorless as well as a CPL. I would rather use the PL than I would a CPL but have read varying opinions on their use.

cahale Loc: San Angelo, TX

Blurryeyed wrote:

So I have a PL filter and a mirrorless camera I have read opposing POVs regarding the use of a PL filter on mirrorless.

I know a lot of you folks here seem to have encyclopedic knowledge of photography and cameras so I thought that maybe you could share your thoughts.

Please do not be offended by this question, since I am rather interested in vocabulary and speech patterns. Why do you preface your sentence with "So?" It adds nothing to the meaning. I'm trying to find if this is something colloquial or copied from some TV personality or other cause. Similar to this is the new trend in women sounding as though they are running out of breath at the end of a sentence. Just curious.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

cahale wrote:

Please do not be offended by this question, since I am rather interested in vocabulary and speech patterns. Why do you preface your sentence with "So?" It adds nothing to the meaning. I'm trying to find if this is something colloquial or copied from some TV personality or other cause. Similar to this is the new trend in women sounding as though they are running out of breath at the end of a sentence. Just curious.

Maybe an ice breaker, no real reason other than to maybe suggest a bit of familiarity.

Bill_de Loc: US

cahale wrote:

Please do not be offended by this question, since I am rather interested in vocabulary and speech patterns. Why do you preface your sentence with "So?" It adds nothing to the meaning. I'm trying to find if this is something colloquial or copied from some TV personality or other cause. Similar to this is the new trend in women sounding as though they are running out of breath at the end of a sentence. Just curious.

Politicians and others answerering questions will say 'so', or some other short words while they are putting an answer together. "Well", the way I see it ....

---

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Bill_de wrote:

Politicians and others answerering questions will say 'so', or some other short words while they are putting an answer together. "Well", the way I see it ....

---

I think that it has become more common than it once was to use these words, probably the influence that media has on us, I don't think that in the past it was a word that I used often in the manner that I used in in the OP, but it does not bother me that I used it or that another hogger asked about it.

Bill_de Loc: US

Blurryeyed wrote:

I think that it has become more common than it once was to use these words, probably the influence that media has on us, I don't think that in the past it was a word that I used often in the manner that I used in in the OP, but it does not bother me that I used it or that another hogger asked about it.

No reason for it to bother you. I think it's interesting how words are sometimes used.

---

User ID

Bill_de wrote:

Not sure about the norm. Looking at B&H almost everything being sold seems to be cpl.

---

"The norm" means whats normally needed.Was not referring to retail inventory where "one size fits all" is simplest and best for the bottom line.

Theres a whole ultra geeky concept that the geeky Hawgsters have overlooked. CPLs cantain two PL folis but LPLs have only one.

We have some Hawgs who either use $250 Filters or no filter, in pursuit of optical perfection. Such airheadedness SHOULD include using only LPLs to avoid that additional foil.

In terms of imaging, LPLs work on *ALL* cameras. Certain user conveniences in SLRs are hobbled by LPLs, but so what. Image perfection overrules convenience. For Hawgster geeks with EVFs they should dump all their CPLs and switch over to LPLs.

Have I tested IQ of LPLs compared to CPLs ? Acoarst not. This doesnt require scientific proof. This is the pursuit of perfection, whether you can actually see it or not. One foil is obviously more perfect than two !

petrochemist Loc: UK

User ID wrote:

Theres a whole ultra geeky concept that the geeky Hawgsters have overlooked. CPLs cantain two PL folis but LPLs have only one.

That's not quite right. A CPL employs a quarter wave plate, with a linear polariser, rather than 2 polarisers.
The filter using two polarisers is a variable ND filter.

User ID

petrochemist wrote:

That's not quite right. A CPL employs a quarter wave plate, with a linear polariser, rather than 2 polarisers.

Still same thing. Two layers vs one. The image perfection geeks need to catch on.

Doesnt matter that it doesnt matter. Any extra layer must be eliminated in pursuit of perfection of IQ !!!

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Blurryeyed wrote:

So I have a PL filter and a mirrorless camera I have read opposing POVs regarding the use of a PL filter on mirrorless.

I know a lot of you folks here seem to have encyclopedic knowledge of photography and cameras so I thought that maybe you could share your thoughts.

Light reflecting off a surface at an angle is polarized in the process of reflection. The closer to skimming in parallel to the mirror, the stronger the polarization, but even at 45 degrees it enough to make a difference in the meter indication or auto exposure settings when a linear polarizer is set at a different angle. Once the mirror swings out of the way and the light passes straight to the film, the cross polarization effect goes away, resulting in over exposure.

In cameras with no mirror, none of this ever happens. Linear polarizers will work as well or better than circular polarizers on a mirrorless camera, and they are generally noticeably less expensive. Of course all the benefits of better filters over lower tier filters of the same type still apply.