Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main Photography Discussion
UV filter for high altitude
Page <prev 2 of 2
Jan 24, 2014 13:58:36   #
gessman Loc: Colorado
 
hawaiidave wrote:
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?
I'm going to Cusco and Machu Picchu. One guide bo... (show quote)


When I shoot film at altitude, a UV filter is a must because all your images come out with a blue/green cast to them but with digital there is no need for a UV filter on a digital camera. I regularly shoot up to 14,000 ft. and no UV filter.

Reply
Jan 24, 2014 14:35:13   #
rebride
 
MT Shooter wrote:
Absolutely wrong. The OLPF on DSLR sensors have no UV reduction. A very common misconception.


I don't know about DSLR's but Fuji X-trans cameras it is done by sensor.
From Fuji's literature for X-Pro1 with no optical low pass filter - "Since UV filtering is carried out at the camera body (by a sensor), we boldly made a filter specifically designed to protect the lens that is completely colorless and transparent so that description is not negatively affected.

Reply
Jan 25, 2014 01:37:18   #
Underwaterant
 
hawaiidave wrote:
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?
I'm going to Cusco and Machu Picchu. One guide bo... (show quote)


Do you realise that the sensors are already
UV stabilised ??

Reply
 
 
Jan 25, 2014 09:02:32   #
houdel Loc: Chase, Michigan USA
 
mwsilvers wrote:
Its possible who ever wrote it does not realize UV filters on digital cameras is not the issue it is on film.

More correctly stated, "UV filtration on digital cameras is not as significant an issue it is on film". Digital sensors ARE somewhat sensitive to UV but not to the extent of film. Bayer CMOS sensors are generally the least sensitive; Fovean CMOS sensors somewhat more sensitive and CCD sensors the most sensitive. OP said he will be taking photos at high altitudes where UV and IR radiation will be very high; a good UV/IR cut filter will improve his photographs with no perceptible degradation in image quality.

Reply
Jan 25, 2014 10:02:38   #
joealdrich Loc: Texas
 
I did the trip in 2000 - adding Lake Titicaca at 14000 ft.
Test shots aren't going to do you any good unless you go up 8500-11000 feet and shoot with full sun.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 2
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.