Nothing more to be said really, film was the medium that developed and consolidated the framework and technical infrastructure for the fundamentals of photography.

"Digital" brings the simplified version to the masses and I for one believe that is good for imaging but not necessarily for photography per se.

Those elements of photography, that are needed to produce a proficient film image, without having the luxury of seeing it and retaking it, are not wholly necessary anymore.

The technical, lighting and compositional fundamentals, forged in film days that set the principles FOR PRODUCING A GOOD fILM IMAGE are not needed when you have unlimited heuristic ( trial and error ) opportunities "on the hoof" in real-time, to hone the image, providing you understand the deficiencies of course.

DIGITAL IS DIFFERENT for sure, it affords the photographer the opportunity to practice the heuristic approach and if the outcome looks good then who cares how many shots and how much real-time tweaking took place.

We can always check and get the shot with digital; with film you just didn't know until it was processed; and you needed, ahead of seeing the image, to consider, contrast, tonal / dynamic range, color temperature etc.

Now, we take it, preview it, make adjustments 'till it looks acceptable and then assess, if it is still a little off the mark, whether post processing can correct it; a different process; a less challenging or risky process.

Digital is wonderful as a medium, but we must never forget the deep knowledge and demanding skill requirements that were necessary to be a successful film photographer because even today's "new age" practitioners are better knowing them and practicing them, than not.
.
Anyone in doubt should consider doing a wedding today vs 30 years ago, the main challenges then were a multitude of technical parameters and compositional principles a different you got it wrong you couldn't have a retake; with digital it is arguably reversed.

Today we can shoot weddings without flash, in large part and post-process in the "Photoshop Wonderland" and more; it is just so different;

is it progress ?

I think so. !

I love the freedom and limitless scope of digital but have a profound respect for the film era and it's knowledgeable image makers and practitioners and we should instill and uphold most of those principles today,

Regards

E

See my comments in the image gallery photo

If it's a Manfrotto, yes (they start at £24); I paid £41 for my last one a couple of years ago and it has been great,mlike the ones before it.

Currently shooting with the Bemoth (Pentax 150-450) on it, no problems. It is very secure and offers decent ( subtle) control of panning.

I also use a wonderfully engineered,old Benbo ball and socket head, which is like a rock, but the £40 Manfrotto does the same, despite looking a bit less beefy.

Regards

Optically it is wonderful so much so I sold my DA* 50-135 because the 60-250 is as good as it and has the extra reach.

Unlike the 50-135 the focusing is crisp and reliable, curiously it seems to be somewhat better on this point with the HD 1.4x on it.

It is my "go to" lens for outdoor sports and events and never fails to impress and is also great for wild life ( see below, juvenile Orangutan - Borneo see comments in my portfolio on this shot)




I bought it the first day it was available and it has been hammered, sometimes in very bad environments where the elements have really been extreme and it has never let me down, I will never part with mine

Thanks everyone for your very helpful contributions; I think there's enough of a consensus from the comments submitted to support the view that;

"Purely for protection , filters are really an expensive and unnecessary evil;"

Best Regards

Daronl

Thanks for your input here Bill; For clarity, my concern is specifically about Sharpness being degraded by the filter in front of the lens element so I would like to get rid of the filter .

Your comment regarding scratches is absolutely correct with protection filters too; one of my fellow photographers uses a very expensive Schneider Filter on his 300mm which has a fairly pronounced score mark at the eight o’clock position and it seemingly doesn't create a problem.

But I think sharpness is a more subtle and important issue for me and the resolution of the latest sensors coupled with the magnification of the big lenses definitely show up inferior optical qualities in all but the most highly specified filters.

My own tests have lead my conclusions in that direction so I would like to do away with the need and the cost of big pro-grade protection filters which is becoming horrendous; if the general experience expressed by PU members concurs it is not a problem then I will not buy Schneider for my 150-450 which is at least £110 delivered .

Regards

Thanks Dave,

Interestingly in more than several decades of Photography, I spent many years living and snapping away in very hostile environlments and I have never damaged, scratched or abraded a protection filter which is more food for thought as to wether I need worry about a lens being exposed.

For sure the hood offers good protection from the elements and also can provide somewhat of a buffer to any impact on a front lens element too.

I have incresing suspicion though that with long telephotos an big zooms, in conjunction with teleconverters a filter also chips away away against IQ, more apparent when large crops are made but with the advent of some of these 600mm zooms (Tamron and Sigma) the filter might become more than negligible in adversely affecting image quality.


Regards

Daronl

Daron

Filter discussion;

Like many photographers , more so those of us "with more mileage", like me, I religiously fit skylight, UV or clear optical filters to my lenses in the belief that it offers a degree of protection.

They are only ever removed when a "correction or effects" filter is needed.

Understanding that any additional layer of glass fixed in front of a lens does bring a degree of image degradation I have only once found a filter to really create a problem .

What that means in my parlance, is the image was degraded more than negligibly, i.e. noticeably.

The filter was not a budget type but an expensive SMC UV mounted on a DA* 50-150 which is generally accepted as one of the best optics around, hence the difference was more conspicuous.

I recently started to use the HD 1.4 converter more frequently on my DA*300 and whilst I am very happy with it I decided I should try this set up without the filter to see if to what degree the converter affected the 300mm which again as we all know is a stunningly sharp lens.

Having ascertained that the image is slightly different but not in anyway unacceptable, I refitted the filter and very soon realised there was now a more noticeable effect from the filter.

Backtracking I then assessed the filter effect without the converter deployed and the difference was not detectable until the image was enlarged (cropped) significantly and then it was still not not obtrusive or unacceptable

Having just acquired the HD150-450 I fitted an expensive UV filter for protection (not the most expensive but still approaching £70) And It has now become more or less clear that there is a varying effect on IQ as the lens is zoomed until fully extended (450) .

I guess this is not a surprise but now being confronted with purchasing an even more expensive "protection filter" or working without one.

I wroye this post because I would like to learn from other people's wisdom and experiences regarding the the subject of protection filters;

1. Is it generally accepted they are needed ?

2. Has anyone else concluded from practical experience that filter quality is far more critical with large telephotos / large tele zooms / super zooms ?.

3. What is the general opinion regarding the multi coating ?

I was recently told that there are three basic generic versions when it comes to filters

(i) Not coated,
(ii) One-Side coated
(iii) Both sides coated

Is this correct ; if so, for protection only, a filter as in (iii) above would likely not be necessary ?

5. Also as regards the difference in a £110+ filter and a £50 filter there is also the coating specification and quality to consider ? ( experience based Comments welcomed)

6. What is the general opinion on the deployment of a clear optical glass protector (no filterIng) as it often commemted that modern cameras and software can take care of the subtle corrections provided by skylight 1a and UVs

The relevance to this discussion for me is justifying the cost of the best protection filter for the big zoom which will be around £110 - £ 150 depending on what it is and where it is bought.


I would welcome any wisdom from other PU contributors here

Regards

daronl

Is this Full Frame compatible; ie. will deliver 55mm image on the FF ensor

Still a. Cracking shot though