Polarizing Filters
- Thread starter wat17
- Start date
As with most things, you pretty much get what you pay for.tomwato said:
Over the years I've invested in Cokin filters (non polarising) for my DSLR's and Hasselblad. For the FC200 I would suggest buy the best you feel you can justify for the amount you're going to use it. IMO, All of the polarisers you mentioned are perfectly suitable filters with hardly any noticeable difference (for comparable gradings) for the size of lens you'll be using.
I got a cheap Polaroid plastic-rimmed one (even plastic weighs the same as the filter kit, 12g). If it looks promising then I might pony up for a more quality item. Until I get some decent weather to properly test the results from it I won't know if it will be worth spending more (and adding more weight).
I've also pre-ordered a Rotorpixel gimbal so probably want to wait until I see how easy it is to balance the camera+filter kit+lightweight filter before going for a heavier one.
I've also pre-ordered a Rotorpixel gimbal so probably want to wait until I see how easy it is to balance the camera+filter kit+lightweight filter before going for a heavier one.
Given the "quality" of the lens that comes with the camera, I wouldn't bother putting a super $$$ filter in front of it.
A Tiffen or Hoya will be fine.
Save the B+W filters (and your $$) for your nice L series or ED glass lenses.
A Tiffen or Hoya will be fine.
Save the B+W filters (and your $$) for your nice L series or ED glass lenses.
FSJ Guy said:
+1. Love my L glass with B&W's but would not think of spending that kind of money on the Vision.
AnselA said:
I keep thinking the same thing. I shoot all Canon L glass & my filters cost a ton. But with the FC200 am I going to see any difference at all with good glass vs just ok glass filters? My guess is no.
ResevorDG said:
Poor filter cannot make any better compared without. More uncoated surfaces -> more flare, less contrast, etc.
What are you hoping to achieve with an ND filter? It makes things darker, which forces exposure compensation - either via longer shutter-speed (more motion blur) and/or higher ISO (more noise). I use them all the time for photos/videos that are shot on a tripod. I'm just not sure what value it brings to a moving aerial camera.tomwato said:
jimre said:
Well, if you've been following this hobby for awhile, it's been shown that the ND filters slow down the shutter, which somehow reduces jello. (there are numerous video's online showing it).
.which of course seems counter to those who swear that shooting 60fps, which leans towards faster shutters, also eliminates jello.
I've always been a fan of polarizers in shooting scenics with my DSLR
..and picked up a LayerLens polarizing adapter for my Tarot mounted GoPro. seems to work just swell.
Polarizers I understand for this application; ND filters I do not - sounds like voodoo.Gizmo3000 said:
From what I've read, *maybe* in some cases - with some other aircraft - an ND filter might lengthen the shutter speed to be slower than the prop-vibration frequency. But does the P2V even have a prop-vibration Jello issue? I certainly haven't noticed it. A popular consensus seems to be that the props don't even need balancing. The P2V has lots of fisheye warping & bending in its videos, but that's a different problem from vibration-induced CMOS "jello".
I've just taken delivery of a grad ND filter which I'm looking forward to trying when/if we ever get weather that is anything other than raining or blowing a gale...
It will be interesting to see if it does work and reduces the blown out sky when exposing for the ground.
It will be interesting to see if it does work and reduces the blown out sky when exposing for the ground.
Will be interested to see your results. I use graduated nd filters on my dslr, but it's way easier to compose a shot on land. At least for this rookie pilot.Pull_Up said:
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
Well that's what I need to experiment with. The thing that will really help with shots using a grad filter would be a 2 axis gimbal. In GPS mode you should be able to get a nice level horizon and then tilt just right. I know lots of people want a gimbal for silky smooth video but I'm thinking it will be a boon for stills, too.
One little thing I want to try is a time lapse - taking the same aerial shot once a fortnight or so (weather permitting!) to then watch the scene change as the year progresses. A gimbal would make the shot nice and steady, and the ground station waypoint flying would make it easy to find the same spot in the sky again and again. That would be a cool use for it, actually. Load up the saved waypoint, tell the aircraft to go there and up to 150ft or whatever and yaw to a set compass reading. Check and click!
One little thing I want to try is a time lapse - taking the same aerial shot once a fortnight or so (weather permitting!) to then watch the scene change as the year progresses. A gimbal would make the shot nice and steady, and the ground station waypoint flying would make it easy to find the same spot in the sky again and again. That would be a cool use for it, actually. Load up the saved waypoint, tell the aircraft to go there and up to 150ft or whatever and yaw to a set compass reading. Check and click!
Similar threads
- Sticky
