ND filter or Variable ND filter
- This topic has 9 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated Oct 27, 2011 at 12:15 pm by
.
-
Posts
-
Should i get a regular ND filter that will be a high stop number for getting smooth water shots or a variable ND filter. I would only really want the filter to get the smooth water shots but i am open to all recomendations. which gives better IQ are there pros and cons to each?
I think a high stop number is perfect and probably going to be better quality than a vari nd.
I have the BW 10 stop and it works perfectly even in high sun.
Don’t know that it really matters and doubt it will affect iq one way or the other.I went variable so I could control how much light I was reducing at any given time, in order to get the shot I want.
The longer you leave the shutter open, the more things are “smoothed” out when shooting something in motion. Be it water, long grass, etc.
Again, keep in mind theres no “right or wrong” answer, but I (and maybe you) don’t want always want to slow things down as much as possible.With waterfalls for example, the water will start to lose “definition” and become a uniform white ribbon.Also keep in mind the SS you use and the effect you achieve will be determined by the volume and speed of the water.
3 seconds
.5 second
Had I shot that at say 1.5 seconds the individual ribbons/streams would have become more of a uniform curtain.
similar also at .5 sec.
Heres one at 3.2 seconds
That WF doesn’t have the same flow, as the first 3 images. Had I shot it at .5 seconds the finer area’s of the fall (where theres very little flow) likely wouldn’t have come through as well or much at all. All shot one the same day so light would have been similar for each.
in the end I don’t think it matters much at all which you get. There are ways are to fiddle with exposures times (open/close lens, raise/lower iso).To me I always like having as many choices/options as possible.
With a variable the choice is yours with regards to how much light you want to reduce. Sometimes maybe just a little, others maybe a lot.
I just noticed that to Zach, even I see it. Ive been revamping my website (moving/merging old galleries and images)and must have inadvertantly flipped a switch on one galllery to prevent Downloading (also prevents sharing/linnking). Will see if I can figure it out.
/edit add.
Think it’s fixed, atleast I can see them now.woah, thanks a lot for that reply. I always figured you needed to have 10+seconds to get a good blur. But those shots were stunning! I got an ND8 a while back and it has fascinated me to no end with what i can do with it 🙂
Hey John, do you have a Singh-Ray VND filter? They have some interesting options with a combo and trio option with warming and polarizing glass added in, damn are they pricy though.
Hi Loren.
All my CPs, and NDs, GND etc are Singh Ray. Pricey? Yes, and thus why it’s taken me a few years to acquire what I have (with a few more to go yet).Subjective
To me and in my opinion only, I’ve yet to own or use any filter that I felt delivered the same IQ as the Sing Rays. That’s not saying others deliver “bad” or even poor IQ but theres just a subtle difference that I a) don’t like and b) notice anytime I do use one of my B+H or Hoya’s. Subsequently anytime I do use one, I find myself wishing I had that in the SR.So, to answer your question.
The Variable I own is SRs, but the bare bare bones.
Reason being, I own a few CPs, and I like the ability to choose which I want to mount on the variable at any given time (if at all).Its the power of choice/options versus being locked into a combo “warming CP + Variable”.
Its not as convenient and there are times Id rather the all in one, but I always try to “open doors”….”expand my options/choices” when shooting.
Hi,
I use both, although i use a 6stop nd for photo and the vari for video!
There is a difference in quality for sure!grtz maarten
I agree Maarten.
Anytime this discussion comes up, (here or elsewhere) I always have a difficult time “quantifying” it. In large part because, I want to avoid at all cost..the impression that’s there’s anything “wrong” with other filters. There isn’t. Its just that SRs (at least imo) have this certain “something”.
So I want to stress if someone is thinking about introducing filters to their “kits” don’t feel as though you can’t/shouldn’t consider brand X.
Are SRs worth the extra?
Thats a subjective question.When on assignment at the end of August (see “over the rainbow”). I shot a lot with the 16-35 f2.8. It’s not a lens I use “a lot”. By far, and I do mean by far, my workhorse is the 24-70 f2.8.
16-35 is 82mm (very few lenses are 82mm)
24-77 is 77mm (by far the most common diameter of good glass).Most of my CPs are 77mm.
I use BWs top CP for the 16-35mm. Why?Because the SR 82mm thin (neccessary at 16mm) warming color CP is over $500 Canadian. Plus its been out of stock for months.
Many, many of the shots I took with the 16-35 (alot because I was in a tin can and needed the wide end) I was not entirely satisfied. In fact I ended up spending quite a bit of time in post “correcting” some things on shots I didnt outright delete due to CP IQ “problems”.
16+35 + BW CP (some time in post correcting)
24-70 + SR warming CP. No time in post. Pretty much out of the box raw to tiff
and I still see differences 🙂
But to spring $600 for a 82mm SR thats been out of stock forever, for a lens I maybe use 5% of the time?
Subjective.
I will say, hopefully next spring or fall I have a SR for the 16-35
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.