E.L.. Shapiro wrote:
Of course, stuff happens, especially in your line of work. I hope you realize that my comments are kinda "ttoung in cheek" and did not mean to be nasty in any way.
I too will admit that most of my gears in no longer saleable at the end of its serviceable life In certain aspects of my work it is exposed to, shall we say, less the good environmental conditions. I use my stuff 'till it nearly disintegrates and then replaces it.
In my younger day, I served 2 tours in Vietnam- it was not a vacation or a recreational trip. I used a lot of specialized and ruggedized photographic equipment for aerial surveillance, etc., but my documentation kit was a Leica M-3 and 3 lenses. What did not happen to that camera was a shot list. I dragged it through the jungle, swamp, and its life ended with a ricochet bullet wound that would have wounded me- long story. Funny thing, I never scratched the lens. Well- it would have been a more exciting and enlightening experience if all those pesky unfriendly folks were not shooting at us or attempting to blow us up. Some fols are so inhospitable and have terrible manners!
When I came "back to the word" I took a job shootg for a newspaper up here in Canada. It's
usually peaceful here but I came just in time for some political upheaval and got to cover many riots, violent demonstrations, and deliberately set fires. As Mr. Williams here, can attest, that is kinda hard on the gear and those old "skylight" filters did save some of my glass. The only thing left unprotected was my head. I should have swiped my combat helmet and taken it home- seems the government takes a dim view of that!
The truly funny stores I sometimes hear are stuff like "the cat knocked my camera off the table" or I dropped my camera into a fish tank- at home"! Folks should be more careful, especially if they are not working in unfavourable or dangerous conditions.
Sorry for my language. I speak bad English, a bit of French, NY street Spanish, and fluent Yiddish, but my secret weapon is sarcasm- it's my coping mechanism in today's turbulent world.
Kindes regards!
Of course, stuff happens, especially in your line ... (
show quote)
No worries and no offense taken…I often don’t speaks so goodly myself.
And, I yield to your Vietnam experience…none of the dangers I’ve experienced in the natural world have come at me with the speed and finality of bullets.
JhnMhn wrote:
“I'm curious- there are so many, horror stories, on this forum, about damaged gear. What are some of y'all doing with your stuff, engaging in some kid mortal combat using your camera as bludgeons? After all, it is precision optical, mechanical and electronic gear, not a firearm made of gunmetal! “
Over the last few decades I have taken my cameras & lenses: on open water kayak crossings from Minnesota’s N. Shore to Isle Royale and circumnavigated it, 5 times, camera and lens frequently pulled out of cockpit to photograph rough water; hiked the Tongoriro Crossing and numerous other wild areas in New Zealand, always with a camera & lens carried at the ready; frequently portaged canoes in wilderness areas with camera & lens strapped to my chest, with branches not infrequently hitting my chest and equipment; etc., etc. I continue to make my living doing this type of photography. I don’t mean this to be rude, but stuff happens, and many of us do things outside of normal experiences…inability to imagine it doesn’t stop it from happening.
“I'm curious- there are so many, horror stories, o... (
show quote)
Well, to quote a line from one of my favorite movies, "...there is always the unexpected!"
[quote=wdross]
>My lenses have banged into walls, doors, fences, etc.
I've been shooting for over 50 years and I've never "banged" (or even bumped)
a lens into anything. Do you guys only shoot when you're drunk??? <g>
Harry
[quote=hrblaine]
wdross wrote:
>My lenses have banged into walls, doors, fences, etc.
I've been shooting for over 50 years and I've never "banged" (or even bumped)
a lens into anything. Do you guys only shoot when you're drunk??? <g>
Harry
Do you really think your life is so large it encompasses all possibilities?
JhnMhn wrote:
Do you really think your life is so large it encompasses all possibilities?
That is the UHH doctrine.
wdross
Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado
JhnMhn wrote:
Do you really think your life is so large it encompasses all possibilities?
No, I don't think my life is all encompassing. People like professional gwilliams6 have a much more encompassing photographic life than I will have. He has used his camera much more than I have used mine. He has had objects come straight past the the hood and on to the glass filter. I my case, I have always been fortunate to have my lens cap on when that has happened. But for gwilliams6, having a lens cap on is taking the chance of losing a money shot. That does him no good. For me with the lens cap on, it is only an "ah s**t" moment. I do not get to take my camera out every week. I am willing to bet that it is a rare week that gwilliams6 camera isn't out of the camera bag.
My photographic life all encompassing? Hardly!
wdross
Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado
[quote=hrblaine]
wdross wrote:
>My lenses have banged into walls, doors, fences, etc.
I've been shooting for over 50 years and I've never "banged" (or even bumped)
a lens into anything. Do you guys only shoot when you're drunk??? <g>
Harry
Sometimes it seems like I am drunk. With a lens hood to take the main blows, I do not necessarily "baby" my camera. Ever since Olympus made the E-M5 weatherproof, I have spent less time worrying about my camera and more time worrying about what and how I was shooting (way out of practice compared to my younger days). That means that every once in awhile, I fail to take proper attention to my camera and it's position. It will swing and hit something fairly hard. And sometimes hard enough that I stop and check my camera's condition. Almost always, it has hit the lens hood first and absorbed most of the blow. And there have been sometimes that the object has hit the front of the lens - with the lens cap on. Odds are that there will be a day when something will get damaged. Just not yet. Of course with a 20, 40, 50, etc. foot drop, a filter or lens cap or lens hood is not going to prevent much. But until then, especially now retired, I'll just keep on shooting. Need a lot more practice to get back to where I should be.
tgreenhaw wrote:
I always buy a protective filter when I get a new lens. I just bought an RF 16mm f2.8 lens (an incredible lens especially for $300 new).
Whenever I buy slim wide angle filters, the lens cap doesn't like to stay on.
Does anybody have a recommendation for a 43mm filter for an ultra wide angle lens?
I stopped using protective filters and use the lens hood instead. Why shoot through a window with an expensive camera lens?
Successful photographers understand the difference in 0.3% transmission of light.
Walkabout08 wrote:
I stopped using protective filters and use the lens hood instead. Why shoot through a window with an expensive camera lens?
And I bet UHH hugely led you to adopt that approach ;-)
Here is a link to a very comprehensive article pertaining to a light transmission of "protection" filters.
It includes the mysterious .03% thing and also includes other optical phimonina.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of possible vignetting or pros or cons as to the use of thin or standard thickness of filters. It has nothing to do with lens caps!
If there's any visually perceivable issue of loss of lig transmission or optical distortion caused by a filter, it will be present over the entire filter, not just the edges. If the is any vignetting it will be caused by the rim, ending or the adapter ring, retaining ring, or filter hold interfering with the lig path even before it passes through the front element. That could be due to the thickness of the filter or not. It depends on the diameter of the filter being too mass for the lens or the filer being too f far from the front elemental. As the les is stopped down, the rim, edge or other aforementioned obstruction comes more into focus and the degree of vignetting worsins.
If you have the appropriate filters and lens shade for your wide-angle lenses, vignetting should not occur.
At my studio, I do not have the optical analyzing instrumentation to test filters transmission. I have to go by manufacturers' specifications or independents tests. In any event, I have used skylight, UV, and clear protection filters where required, made very large prints, in some cases photomurals, from the negatives and digital filer, over many years, and never observed a loss of IQ.
If any of y'all can SEE a transmission loss of .03%, indeed you have a rare talent!
wdross
Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado
CHG_CANON wrote:
Successful photographers understand the difference in 0.3% transmission of light.
Not so much transmission as the slight change in aberration especially in the corners.
Funny no one ever suggests genuine Canon, Sony or Nikon lens protective filters... or for that matter find a specifically designed protective filter from the manufacturer as an accessory in the box. Isn't it odd that they are all aftermarket products...Kind of like paint protection for your car, or special covers to protect your trucks mud flaps.
As an ending note, years ago I destroyed a Canon 24-70 f2.8 when the shattered shards of a broken filter scratched the lens coating beyond repair. I thought I was being wise. Since then, never a problem going bare lens...
It probably doesn't matter, but under certain conditions they do have negative effects. Used car salesmen and UV filter salesmen I think come from the same family DNA. Arguments will be endless.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.