Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Filters any good on digital compact?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 12:47:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I wonder...i have Canon S2...
and i'm thinking...is it worthed to get any filter, like UV filter or
polarization filter? All this can (or is) supposely done with software
already in the camera, since i can choose among number of preset scenes,
like beach, snow etc...
But, i guess you guys will know more. OK, some say filter is good for lens
protection, but i wonder if it does anything else
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 12:47:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
news:13NKe.1283$cE1.195284@news.siol.net...
>I wonder...i have Canon S2...
> and i'm thinking...is it worthed to get any filter, like UV filter or
> polarization filter? All this can (or is) supposely done with software
> already in the camera, since i can choose among number of preset scenes,
> like beach, snow etc...
> But, i guess you guys will know more. OK, some say filter is good for lens
> protection, but i wonder if it does anything else
>

What does "worthed" mean? I can't find it in any dictionary.
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 12:47:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

SleeperMan wrote:

> I wonder...i have Canon S2...
> and i'm thinking...is it worthed to get any filter, like UV filter or
> polarization filter? All this can (or is) supposely done with software
> already in the camera, since i can choose among number of preset scenes,
> like beach, snow etc...
> But, i guess you guys will know more. OK, some say filter is good for lens
> protection, but i wonder if it does anything else


UV or skylight filter is mandatory for lens protection. Polarization filter
can reduce or eliminate reflections from glass off a window or car and so
on, no software will be able to do that as effectively. But other filters
like colored gradients and such are pointless as those can be better done
with software without dropping the exposure through the lens.
Related resources
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 12:47:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <13NKe.1283$cE1.195284@news.siol.net>,
"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:

> I wonder...i have Canon S2...
> and i'm thinking...is it worthed to get any filter, like UV filter or
> polarization filter? All this can (or is) supposely done with software
> already in the camera, since i can choose among number of preset scenes,
> like beach, snow etc...

There are somethings that can be fixed digitally. Not UV though. (Tell
me the work flow to get rid of fog and haze if I am wrong.)

And most things the polarizing lens is used for, flare and reflection of
water and glass, can not be reproduced digitally.

> But, i guess you guys will know more. OK, some say filter is good for lens
> protection, but i wonder if it does anything else

--

http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 12:47:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
news:13NKe.1283$cE1.195284@news.siol.net...
>I wonder...i have Canon S2...
> and i'm thinking...is it worthed to get any filter, like UV filter or
> polarization filter? All this can (or is) supposely done with software
> already in the camera, since i can choose among number of preset scenes,
> like beach, snow etc...

Well, your camera can't do internally what a polarizer does. If you really
need a polarizer then that's what you need, but I wouldn't be in a hurry to
get one until you know you're going to have a need for it. A polarizer will
reduce or eliminate certain kinds of reflections under certain
circumstances, and also will darken a blue sky (making clouds stand out
better) under certain circumstances, and may otherwise increase color
saturation--under certain circumstances. But really it's an item that most
photographers will find very little use for. I have several polarizers and
can't remember the last time I used one.


> But, i guess you guys will know more. OK, some say filter is good for lens
> protection, but i wonder if it does anything else

There are two schools of thought about this. My own preference is to *never*
use a filter "to protect the lens." Other people disagree, and of course it
is possible to damage a lens (like anything else) and it's possible that a
filter might prevent such damage. I have been using cameras fairly seriously
for over 50 years now, have used filters when I needed one for the purpose
for which filters are designed (to remove or reduce certain wavelengths of
light), have *never* used one "to protect the lens" and have never had a
lens damaged because it didn't have a filter on it. I do like to use a lens
hood when possible (not all lenses will accept one) and that offers some
protection without the drawbacks of filters.

Does the Canon S2 even have a lens that's threaded for filters? Or would you
have to buy an accessory tube to do that?

N.
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 12:47:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Nostrobino,

I'd have to disagree that a polarizer is unnecesarry. I use mine all
the time.

Every time you have a partially cloudy sky, you'll need a polarizer to
actually see the blue behind it.

Every time you want to see fish in a pond, you need a polarizer.

If you want to make your macro shots of flowers look more "waxy", get a
polarizer.

I'd say the polarizer and a good graduated ND filter are the outdoor
photographers best friends. Digital or film.
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 12:47:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <YL6dncqS7LfELmbfRVn-jQ@comcast.com>,
"Nostrobino" <not@home.today> wrote:

> I have been using cameras fairly seriously
> for over 50 years now, have used filters when I needed one for the purpose
> for which filters are designed (to remove or reduce certain wavelengths of
> light), have *never* used one "to protect the lens"

Now you can buy filters like the Heliopan protection filter which does
nothing except protect the lens. It is crystal clear multi coated glass.
It removes no UV and does no warming. It's job is to simply protect the
front element of your lens while not reducing the quality of the image
or modifying the image in any way.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 12:47:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"wavelength" <sbrisendine@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123797265.037235.185590@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Nostrobino,
>
> I'd have to disagree that a polarizer is unnecesarry. I use mine all
> the time.
>
> Every time you have a partially cloudy sky, you'll need a polarizer to
> actually see the blue behind it.
>
> Every time you want to see fish in a pond, you need a polarizer.
>
> If you want to make your macro shots of flowers look more "waxy", get a
> polarizer.
>
> I'd say the polarizer and a good graduated ND filter are the outdoor
> photographers best friends. Digital or film.

A friend of mine would definitely agree with you about polarizers. He
strongly believes in them, or at least did when he was using 35s and
presumably still does now that he's gone all digital. As I mentioned, if you
really need a polarizer I agree there isn't any substitute for it. Again, I
have owned polarizers for many years and rarely had occasion to use them.
It's just something that people can disagree about the need for.

As for the original poster, when *and if* the time comes that he really
needs a polarizer, I think he'll know it. IMO it would probably be a waste
of money for him to buy one at this point.

As for graduated ND filters, I found those very useful with film, but
haven't used any since going digital. There are software approaches that I
think do the job better, though admittedly not easier than using a graduated
filter.

N.
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 12:47:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bob Salomon" <bob_salomon@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bob_salomon-50DBA2.16360611082005@news.isp.giganews.com...
> In article <YL6dncqS7LfELmbfRVn-jQ@comcast.com>,
> "Nostrobino" <not@home.today> wrote:
>
>> I have been using cameras fairly seriously
>> for over 50 years now, have used filters when I needed one for the
>> purpose
>> for which filters are designed (to remove or reduce certain wavelengths
>> of
>> light), have *never* used one "to protect the lens"
>
> Now you can buy filters like the Heliopan protection filter which does
> nothing except protect the lens. It is crystal clear multi coated glass.
> It removes no UV and does no warming. It's job is to simply protect the
> front element of your lens while not reducing the quality of the image
> or modifying the image in any way.

I remember when Spiratone sold gadgets like that, clear plano-plano optical
glass intended only to protect the lens. That must have been 50 years ago.
(Anyone else here remember Spiratone? They sold a lot of gadgets, some
useful, some not. They had a second-floor store in NYC the one time I did
business there in person.)

N.
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 1:37:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ed Lowe wrote:
> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
> news:13NKe.1283$cE1.195284@news.siol.net...
>> I wonder...i have Canon S2...
>> and i'm thinking...is it worthed to get any filter, like UV filter or
>> polarization filter? All this can (or is) supposely done with
>> software already in the camera, since i can choose among number of
>> preset scenes, like beach, snow etc...
>> But, i guess you guys will know more. OK, some say filter is good
>> for lens protection, but i wonder if it does anything else
>>
>
> What does "worthed" mean? I can't find it in any dictionary.

Hm... worth maybe?
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 1:39:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Proteus wrote:
> SleeperMan wrote:
>
>> I wonder...i have Canon S2...
>> and i'm thinking...is it worthed to get any filter, like UV filter or
>> polarization filter? All this can (or is) supposely done with
>> software already in the camera, since i can choose among number of
>> preset scenes, like beach, snow etc...
>> But, i guess you guys will know more. OK, some say filter is good
>> for lens protection, but i wonder if it does anything else
>
>
> UV or skylight filter is mandatory for lens protection. Polarization
> filter can reduce or eliminate reflections from glass off a window or
> car and so on, no software will be able to do that as effectively.
> But other filters like colored gradients and such are pointless as
> those can be better done with software without dropping the exposure
> through the lens.

aha...so you mean lens protection as against scratches etc...? OK, i can go
with that, since lens in my camera can't be removed and UV filter is cheap.
So, it doesn't degrade quality, but doesn't improve it either...?
So, polarization filter in short removes your image
reflection...interesting...
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 1:39:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
news:xPNKe.1288$cE1.195316@news.siol.net...
> Proteus wrote:
>> SleeperMan wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder...i have Canon S2...
>>> and i'm thinking...is it worthed to get any filter, like UV filter or
>>> polarization filter? All this can (or is) supposely done with
>>> software already in the camera, since i can choose among number of
>>> preset scenes, like beach, snow etc...
>>> But, i guess you guys will know more. OK, some say filter is good
>>> for lens protection, but i wonder if it does anything else
>>
>>
>> UV or skylight filter is mandatory for lens protection. Polarization
>> filter can reduce or eliminate reflections from glass off a window or
>> car and so on, no software will be able to do that as effectively.
>> But other filters like colored gradients and such are pointless as
>> those can be better done with software without dropping the exposure
>> through the lens.
>
> aha...so you mean lens protection as against scratches etc...? OK, i can
> go with that, since lens in my camera can't be removed and UV filter is
> cheap. So, it doesn't degrade quality, but doesn't improve it either...?

The actual purpose of a UV filter is to filter out ultraviolet. Very few
people actually need to do this, and UV filters are mostly used "to protect
the lens." It certainly won't improve image quality (except in the unlikely
case that some loss of quality is due to ultraviolet) and may degrade it
somewhat, since you are adding two more air/glass surfaces to the front of
your lens which may add reflections, collect dust, etc. A friend of mine
left a UV filter on his camera all the time "to protect the lens," and it
became stuck so fast to the filter ring that it couldn't be removed. Still
dust managed to work inside, and since he couldn't get the filter off he
couldn't clean the dust out either.


> So, polarization filter in short removes your image
> reflection...interesting...

The important phrase here is "under certain circumstances." EVERYTHING a
polarizer does, it does only under certain circumstances. It removes some
kinds of reflections, but not specular reflections. It removes reflections
from water--when the angle of reflection is within certain limits. It
darkens a blue sky--when the camera is pointing 90 degrees from the
direction of the sun, but the darkening effect falls off as you move away
from that angle. And so on.

N.
August 12, 2005 1:47:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Nostrobino" <not@home.today> wrote in message
news:YL6dncqS7LfELmbfRVn-jQ@comcast.com...
>
>
> There are two schools of thought about this. My own preference is to
*never*
> use a filter "to protect the lens." Other people disagree, and of course
it
> is possible to damage a lens (like anything else) and it's possible that a
> filter might prevent such damage. I have been using cameras fairly
seriously
> for over 50 years now, have used filters when I needed one for the purpose
> for which filters are designed (to remove or reduce certain wavelengths of
> light), have *never* used one "to protect the lens" and have never had a
> lens damaged because it didn't have a filter on it. I do like to use a
lens
> hood when possible (not all lenses will accept one) and that offers some
> protection without the drawbacks of filters.
>
A "protective" filter saved me serious money exactly once. I dropped an F3
lens first (100-300 zoom) onto some gravel. The builtin hood did not help,
but the filter cracked, and the lens was fine.
UV filters may help some with film because all of the layers are sensitive
to UV. UV filters may help with digital because they supplement the builtin
low pass filter in the camera. A low pass filter is needed to avoid
aliasing of UV energy down into the visible range during the analog to
digital conversion (most likely the reason for moire effects).
Jim
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 3:04:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Nostrobino wrote:
> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
> news:xPNKe.1288$cE1.195316@news.siol.net...
>> Proteus wrote:
>>> SleeperMan wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wonder...i have Canon S2...
>>>> and i'm thinking...is it worthed to get any filter, like UV filter
>>>> or polarization filter? All this can (or is) supposely done with
>>>> software already in the camera, since i can choose among number of
>>>> preset scenes, like beach, snow etc...
>>>> But, i guess you guys will know more. OK, some say filter is good
>>>> for lens protection, but i wonder if it does anything else
>>>
>>>
>>> UV or skylight filter is mandatory for lens protection. Polarization
>>> filter can reduce or eliminate reflections from glass off a window
>>> or car and so on, no software will be able to do that as
>>> effectively. But other filters like colored gradients and such are
>>> pointless as those can be better done with software without
>>> dropping the exposure through the lens.
>>
>> aha...so you mean lens protection as against scratches etc...? OK, i
>> can go with that, since lens in my camera can't be removed and UV
>> filter is cheap. So, it doesn't degrade quality, but doesn't improve
>> it either...?
>
> The actual purpose of a UV filter is to filter out ultraviolet. Very
> few people actually need to do this, and UV filters are mostly used
> "to protect the lens." It certainly won't improve image quality
> (except in the unlikely case that some loss of quality is due to
> ultraviolet) and may degrade it somewhat, since you are adding two
> more air/glass surfaces to the front of your lens which may add
> reflections, collect dust, etc. A friend of mine left a UV filter on
> his camera all the time "to protect the lens," and it became stuck so
> fast to the filter ring that it couldn't be removed. Still dust
> managed to work inside, and since he couldn't get the filter off he
> couldn't clean the dust out either.
>
>> So, polarization filter in short removes your image
>> reflection...interesting...
>
> The important phrase here is "under certain circumstances."
> EVERYTHING a polarizer does, it does only under certain
> circumstances. It removes some kinds of reflections, but not specular
> reflections. It removes reflections from water--when the angle of
> reflection is within certain limits. It darkens a blue sky--when the
> camera is pointing 90 degrees from the direction of the sun, but the
> darkening effect falls off as you move away from that angle. And so
> on.
> N.

seems pretty complicated....as whole photography is. Still looot to learn, i
guess. Thanks
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 3:09:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Nostrobino wrote:
> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
> news:13NKe.1283$cE1.195284@news.siol.net...
>> I wonder...i have Canon S2...
>> and i'm thinking...is it worthed to get any filter, like UV filter or
>> polarization filter? All this can (or is) supposely done with
>> software already in the camera, since i can choose among number of
>> preset scenes, like beach, snow etc...
>
> Well, your camera can't do internally what a polarizer does. If you
> really need a polarizer then that's what you need, but I wouldn't be
> in a hurry to get one until you know you're going to have a need for
> it. A polarizer will reduce or eliminate certain kinds of reflections
> under certain circumstances, and also will darken a blue sky (making
> clouds stand out better) under certain circumstances, and may
> otherwise increase color saturation--under certain circumstances. But
> really it's an item that most photographers will find very little use
> for. I have several polarizers and can't remember the last time I
> used one.
>
>> But, i guess you guys will know more. OK, some say filter is good
>> for lens protection, but i wonder if it does anything else
>
> There are two schools of thought about this. My own preference is to
> *never* use a filter "to protect the lens." Other people disagree,
> and of course it is possible to damage a lens (like anything else)
> and it's possible that a filter might prevent such damage. I have
> been using cameras fairly seriously for over 50 years now, have used
> filters when I needed one for the purpose for which filters are
> designed (to remove or reduce certain wavelengths of light), have
> *never* used one "to protect the lens" and have never had a lens
> damaged because it didn't have a filter on it. I do like to use a
> lens hood when possible (not all lenses will accept one) and that
> offers some protection without the drawbacks of filters.
> Does the Canon S2 even have a lens that's threaded for filters? Or
> would you have to buy an accessory tube to do that?
>
> N.

You must buy adapter for this purpose. And since i bought tele and wide lens
i also bought adapter. But, on this adapter can be attached lens hood, but
in this case no filter can be attached - i know, it's not SLR, but compact.
But, so far SLR is my wish, but too expensive. One day, i hope...
I just asked because i have this adapter and if those filters would be of
real use, i'd buy them. But, i guess i'm not that pro that i would know how
and when to use them. But i do thank you all for these very helpfull
replies!
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 3:09:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
news:J7PKe.1294$cE1.195250@news.siol.net...
> Nostrobino wrote:
>> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
>> news:13NKe.1283$cE1.195284@news.siol.net...
>>> I wonder...i have Canon S2...
>>> and i'm thinking...is it worthed to get any filter, like UV filter or
>>> polarization filter? All this can (or is) supposely done with
>>> software already in the camera, since i can choose among number of
>>> preset scenes, like beach, snow etc...
>>
>> Well, your camera can't do internally what a polarizer does. If you
>> really need a polarizer then that's what you need, but I wouldn't be
>> in a hurry to get one until you know you're going to have a need for
>> it. A polarizer will reduce or eliminate certain kinds of reflections
>> under certain circumstances, and also will darken a blue sky (making
>> clouds stand out better) under certain circumstances, and may
>> otherwise increase color saturation--under certain circumstances. But
>> really it's an item that most photographers will find very little use
>> for. I have several polarizers and can't remember the last time I
>> used one.
>>
>>> But, i guess you guys will know more. OK, some say filter is good
>>> for lens protection, but i wonder if it does anything else
>>
>> There are two schools of thought about this. My own preference is to
>> *never* use a filter "to protect the lens." Other people disagree,
>> and of course it is possible to damage a lens (like anything else)
>> and it's possible that a filter might prevent such damage. I have
>> been using cameras fairly seriously for over 50 years now, have used
>> filters when I needed one for the purpose for which filters are
>> designed (to remove or reduce certain wavelengths of light), have
>> *never* used one "to protect the lens" and have never had a lens
>> damaged because it didn't have a filter on it. I do like to use a
>> lens hood when possible (not all lenses will accept one) and that
>> offers some protection without the drawbacks of filters.
>> Does the Canon S2 even have a lens that's threaded for filters? Or
>> would you have to buy an accessory tube to do that?
>>
>> N.
>
> You must buy adapter for this purpose. And since i bought tele and wide
> lens i also bought adapter. But, on this adapter can be attached lens
> hood, but in this case no filter can be attached - i know, it's not SLR,
> but compact. But, so far SLR is my wish, but too expensive. One day, i
> hope...
> I just asked because i have this adapter and if those filters would be of
> real use, i'd buy them. But, i guess i'm not that pro that i would know
> how and when to use them. But i do thank you all for these very helpfull
> replies!

You're very welcome. As you've noted yourself, your camera already has many
features that you can use to creatively modify your pictures. Most digital
cameras do, nowadays. I really don't think filters of any kind are anywhere
near as useful as they used to be with film cameras.

Good luck with your Canon S2. While I'm not familiar with that model in
detail, it looks like a very capable camera.
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 2:26:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Nostrobino wrote:
> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
> news:J7PKe.1294$cE1.195250@news.siol.net...
>> Nostrobino wrote:
>>> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
>>> news:13NKe.1283$cE1.195284@news.siol.net...
>>>> I wonder...i have Canon S2...
>>>> and i'm thinking...is it worthed to get any filter, like UV filter
>>>> or polarization filter? All this can (or is) supposely done with
>>>> software already in the camera, since i can choose among number of
>>>> preset scenes, like beach, snow etc...
>>>
>>> Well, your camera can't do internally what a polarizer does. If you
>>> really need a polarizer then that's what you need, but I wouldn't be
>>> in a hurry to get one until you know you're going to have a need for
>>> it. A polarizer will reduce or eliminate certain kinds of
>>> reflections under certain circumstances, and also will darken a
>>> blue sky (making clouds stand out better) under certain
>>> circumstances, and may otherwise increase color saturation--under
>>> certain circumstances. But really it's an item that most
>>> photographers will find very little use for. I have several
>>> polarizers and can't remember the last time I used one.
>>>
>>>> But, i guess you guys will know more. OK, some say filter is good
>>>> for lens protection, but i wonder if it does anything else
>>>
>>> There are two schools of thought about this. My own preference is to
>>> *never* use a filter "to protect the lens." Other people disagree,
>>> and of course it is possible to damage a lens (like anything else)
>>> and it's possible that a filter might prevent such damage. I have
>>> been using cameras fairly seriously for over 50 years now, have used
>>> filters when I needed one for the purpose for which filters are
>>> designed (to remove or reduce certain wavelengths of light), have
>>> *never* used one "to protect the lens" and have never had a lens
>>> damaged because it didn't have a filter on it. I do like to use a
>>> lens hood when possible (not all lenses will accept one) and that
>>> offers some protection without the drawbacks of filters.
>>> Does the Canon S2 even have a lens that's threaded for filters? Or
>>> would you have to buy an accessory tube to do that?
>>>
>>> N.
>>
>> You must buy adapter for this purpose. And since i bought tele and
>> wide lens i also bought adapter. But, on this adapter can be
>> attached lens hood, but in this case no filter can be attached - i
>> know, it's not SLR, but compact. But, so far SLR is my wish, but too
>> expensive. One day, i hope...
>> I just asked because i have this adapter and if those filters would
>> be of real use, i'd buy them. But, i guess i'm not that pro that i
>> would know how and when to use them. But i do thank you all for
>> these very helpfull replies!
>
> You're very welcome. As you've noted yourself, your camera already
> has many features that you can use to creatively modify your
> pictures. Most digital cameras do, nowadays. I really don't think
> filters of any kind are anywhere near as useful as they used to be
> with film cameras.
> Good luck with your Canon S2. While I'm not familiar with that model
> in detail, it looks like a very capable camera.

Thanks.I've had S1 before, was very happy with it, but it did have some
lacks, which are removed in S2 model, like AF assist lamp, 5M pixels, faster
focusing, etc. I believe it's one of the best compact cameras available. If
i'd want better, i must go into SLR class.
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 3:50:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
news:_1ZKe.1309$cE1.197522@news.siol.net...
> Nostrobino wrote:
>> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
>> news:J7PKe.1294$cE1.195250@news.siol.net...
>>> Nostrobino wrote:
>>>> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
>>>> news:13NKe.1283$cE1.195284@news.siol.net...
>>>>> I wonder...i have Canon S2...
>>>>> and i'm thinking...is it worthed to get any filter, like UV filter
>>>>> or polarization filter? All this can (or is) supposely done with
>>>>> software already in the camera, since i can choose among number of
>>>>> preset scenes, like beach, snow etc...
>>>>
>>>> Well, your camera can't do internally what a polarizer does. If you
>>>> really need a polarizer then that's what you need, but I wouldn't be
>>>> in a hurry to get one until you know you're going to have a need for
>>>> it. A polarizer will reduce or eliminate certain kinds of
>>>> reflections under certain circumstances, and also will darken a
>>>> blue sky (making clouds stand out better) under certain
>>>> circumstances, and may otherwise increase color saturation--under
>>>> certain circumstances. But really it's an item that most
>>>> photographers will find very little use for. I have several
>>>> polarizers and can't remember the last time I used one.
>>>>
>>>>> But, i guess you guys will know more. OK, some say filter is good
>>>>> for lens protection, but i wonder if it does anything else
>>>>
>>>> There are two schools of thought about this. My own preference is to
>>>> *never* use a filter "to protect the lens." Other people disagree,
>>>> and of course it is possible to damage a lens (like anything else)
>>>> and it's possible that a filter might prevent such damage. I have
>>>> been using cameras fairly seriously for over 50 years now, have used
>>>> filters when I needed one for the purpose for which filters are
>>>> designed (to remove or reduce certain wavelengths of light), have
>>>> *never* used one "to protect the lens" and have never had a lens
>>>> damaged because it didn't have a filter on it. I do like to use a
>>>> lens hood when possible (not all lenses will accept one) and that
>>>> offers some protection without the drawbacks of filters.
>>>> Does the Canon S2 even have a lens that's threaded for filters? Or
>>>> would you have to buy an accessory tube to do that?
>>>>
>>>> N.
>>>
>>> You must buy adapter for this purpose. And since i bought tele and
>>> wide lens i also bought adapter. But, on this adapter can be
>>> attached lens hood, but in this case no filter can be attached - i
>>> know, it's not SLR, but compact. But, so far SLR is my wish, but too
>>> expensive. One day, i hope...
>>> I just asked because i have this adapter and if those filters would
>>> be of real use, i'd buy them. But, i guess i'm not that pro that i
>>> would know how and when to use them. But i do thank you all for
>>> these very helpfull replies!
>>
>> You're very welcome. As you've noted yourself, your camera already
>> has many features that you can use to creatively modify your
>> pictures. Most digital cameras do, nowadays. I really don't think
>> filters of any kind are anywhere near as useful as they used to be
>> with film cameras.
>> Good luck with your Canon S2. While I'm not familiar with that model
>> in detail, it looks like a very capable camera.
>
> Thanks.I've had S1 before, was very happy with it, but it did have some
> lacks, which are removed in S2 model, like AF assist lamp, 5M pixels,
> faster focusing, etc. I believe it's one of the best compact cameras
> available. If i'd want better, i must go into SLR class.

And I wouldn't be in any hurry about doing that, either.

I've owned and used 35mm SLRs for over 40 years, still have several such
cameras and a load of lenses and accessories for them. But my experience is
that digital cameras today, and especially the more capable ones, really do
everything I used to need an SLR to do. Granted, digital SLRs have some
advantages over non-SLR cameras, primarily a clearer viewfinder image and
better performance at high ISO speeds. But they have several disadvantages
too, apart from their much higher cost. With film, you *had* to have an SLR
to have access to most of the advanced kinds of hardware, technology and
operating techniques. With digital you simply don't have the same need that
kind of camera.

The main appeal of digital SLRs in my opinion is to let existing owners of
35mm SLR equipment continue to use the lenses, flash units and other
accessories that they already own. I will probably get one or two eventually
myself for just that reason, but it's not something I have a great desire
for at the moment.

N.
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 12:41:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Nostrobino wrote:
> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
> news:_1ZKe.1309$cE1.197522@news.siol.net...
>> Nostrobino wrote:
>>> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
>>> news:J7PKe.1294$cE1.195250@news.siol.net...
>>>> Nostrobino wrote:
>>>>> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
>>>>> news:13NKe.1283$cE1.195284@news.siol.net...
>>>>>> I wonder...i have Canon S2...
>>>>>> and i'm thinking...is it worthed to get any filter, like UV
>>>>>> filter or polarization filter? All this can (or is) supposely
>>>>>> done with software already in the camera, since i can choose
>>>>>> among number of preset scenes, like beach, snow etc...
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, your camera can't do internally what a polarizer does. If
>>>>> you really need a polarizer then that's what you need, but I
>>>>> wouldn't be in a hurry to get one until you know you're going to
>>>>> have a need for it. A polarizer will reduce or eliminate certain
>>>>> kinds of reflections under certain circumstances, and also will
>>>>> darken a blue sky (making clouds stand out better) under certain
>>>>> circumstances, and may otherwise increase color saturation--under
>>>>> certain circumstances. But really it's an item that most
>>>>> photographers will find very little use for. I have several
>>>>> polarizers and can't remember the last time I used one.
>>>>>
>>>>>> But, i guess you guys will know more. OK, some say filter is good
>>>>>> for lens protection, but i wonder if it does anything else
>>>>>
>>>>> There are two schools of thought about this. My own preference is
>>>>> to *never* use a filter "to protect the lens." Other people
>>>>> disagree, and of course it is possible to damage a lens (like
>>>>> anything else) and it's possible that a filter might prevent such
>>>>> damage. I have been using cameras fairly seriously for over 50
>>>>> years now, have used filters when I needed one for the purpose
>>>>> for which filters are designed (to remove or reduce certain
>>>>> wavelengths of light), have *never* used one "to protect the
>>>>> lens" and have never had a lens damaged because it didn't have a
>>>>> filter on it. I do like to use a lens hood when possible (not all
>>>>> lenses will accept one) and that offers some protection without
>>>>> the drawbacks of filters. Does the Canon S2 even have a lens that's
>>>>> threaded for filters? Or
>>>>> would you have to buy an accessory tube to do that?
>>>>>
>>>>> N.
>>>>
>>>> You must buy adapter for this purpose. And since i bought tele and
>>>> wide lens i also bought adapter. But, on this adapter can be
>>>> attached lens hood, but in this case no filter can be attached - i
>>>> know, it's not SLR, but compact. But, so far SLR is my wish, but
>>>> too expensive. One day, i hope...
>>>> I just asked because i have this adapter and if those filters would
>>>> be of real use, i'd buy them. But, i guess i'm not that pro that i
>>>> would know how and when to use them. But i do thank you all for
>>>> these very helpfull replies!
>>>
>>> You're very welcome. As you've noted yourself, your camera already
>>> has many features that you can use to creatively modify your
>>> pictures. Most digital cameras do, nowadays. I really don't think
>>> filters of any kind are anywhere near as useful as they used to be
>>> with film cameras.
>>> Good luck with your Canon S2. While I'm not familiar with that model
>>> in detail, it looks like a very capable camera.
>>
>> Thanks.I've had S1 before, was very happy with it, but it did have
>> some lacks, which are removed in S2 model, like AF assist lamp, 5M
>> pixels, faster focusing, etc. I believe it's one of the best compact
>> cameras available. If i'd want better, i must go into SLR class.
>
> And I wouldn't be in any hurry about doing that, either.
>
> I've owned and used 35mm SLRs for over 40 years, still have several
> such cameras and a load of lenses and accessories for them. But my
> experience is that digital cameras today, and especially the more
> capable ones, really do everything I used to need an SLR to do.
> Granted, digital SLRs have some advantages over non-SLR cameras,
> primarily a clearer viewfinder image and better performance at high
> ISO speeds. But they have several disadvantages too, apart from their
> much higher cost. With film, you *had* to have an SLR to have access
> to most of the advanced kinds of hardware, technology and operating
> techniques. With digital you simply don't have the same need that
> kind of camera.
> The main appeal of digital SLRs in my opinion is to let existing
> owners of 35mm SLR equipment continue to use the lenses, flash units
> and other accessories that they already own. I will probably get one
> or two eventually myself for just that reason, but it's not something
> I have a great desire for at the moment.
>
> N.

Thanks for all input. I looked a bit on SLR's before buying S2, but, as you
said, i don't use it that much to be of any benefit.
Have fun!
!