Variable ND filters-disappointment? How can they even sell them?

Golf007sd

For sunset, I have found the best way of addressing the light is to use a graduated neutral density filter. Under expose by two stops. To smooth out the water, slow down the shutter speed. A tripod is very useful is such a setting. Shoot using a wide angle lens, ISO no more than 400 @ f/16 or more. Should you decide on using an ND filter, 3-4 stop should be good enough. For composition do not put the sun in the center of the frame.

WestEndBoy

For sunset, I have found the best way of addressing the light is to use a graduated neutral density filter. Under expose by two stops. To smooth out the water, slow down the shutter speed. A tripod is very useful is such a setting. Shoot you using a wide angle lens, ISO no more than 400 @ f/16 or more. Should decide on a using an ND filter, 3-4 stop should you good. For composition do not put the sun in the center of the frame.

When somebody from San Diego talks about how to shoot sunsets, I listen!!

Msmoto

A couple fo thoughts on ND filters…especially for sunsets/sunrise, the use of an IR filter…I have used the B+W 52mm IR Dark Red (092) Filter which blocks visible light up to 650nm.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/8944408490/in/set-72157634238703006

And, I have the B+W 52mm 093 (87C) Infrared Glass Filter allows 1% transmission at 800nm, increasing as the wave length gets longer. This will be used for some sunsets in the near future.

Killerbob

Perhaps I am experiencing a brainfart, but hope you'll forgive me if so; I have three ND filters from Hoya, the Pro-1 Digital ND2, Pro-1 Digital ND4, and the Pro-1 Digital ND8. It is only recently I have become aware that I can stack these, and just wonder, you all mention stacking two of these, but there is no issue with stacking three (or more), is there?

WestEndBoy

Perhaps I am experiencing a brainfart, but hope you'll forgive me if so; I have three ND filters from Hoya, the Pro-1 Digital ND2, Pro-1 Digital ND4, and the Pro-1 Digital ND8. It is only recently I have become aware that I can stack these, and just wonder, you all mention stacking two of these, but there is no issue with stacking three (or more), is there?

I suppose that there is the potential for image degradation. The question will be whether you can see that and you are able to test.

Vignetting will be the biggest issue likely.

Elvishefer

@TaoTeJared yeah it's a Hoya? but still... $140 for the lens

Pricing for the Singh-Ray 77mm thin vari ND is ~$450.
The thin 77mm duo (2-8 stop vari ND and Polarizer) is ~$500.

I point this out as an example of filters I've read pros write about using, and that in the world of filters, like lenses, quality isn't cheap.

Perhaps you should return the one you have until you can afford something that won't disappoint you.

Golf007sd

These video might shed some light on using such filters.

Jared is using this filters: Heliopan 77MM Variable (1 to 6 stops) Gray ND Neutral Density Filter

tcole1983

Perhaps I am experiencing a brainfart, but hope you'll forgive me if so; I have three ND filters from Hoya, the Pro-1 Digital ND2, Pro-1 Digital ND4, and the Pro-1 Digital ND8. It is only recently I have become aware that I can stack these, and just wonder, you all mention stacking two of these, but there is no issue with stacking three (or more), is there?

I believe if you stack too many you will run into problems at wider angles....just like using a lens hood and the on camera flash at wide angles. Also each degrades the image to some point. There is info on it, but the more you use the worse it is.

Msmoto

Stacking of filters…. on a PC lens, no filter is usable if the lens is dramatically shifted. Even a thin frame filter will cause vignetting.

Stacking of filters increases the number of glass/air interfaces the light travels through. With the very best coatings this will be minimal degradation of the image, however, as the quality of the filter decreases the image quality does degrade.

TaoTeJared

@TaoTeJared yeah it's a Hoya? but still... $140 for the lens

Are you kidding? That is cheap!!! The actual amount it costs doesn't equal quality - What shows quality is the cost relative to everything else. After all this is photography.

Think of it this way, a Hoya HD2 UV filter for 77mm costs $170 and the HD polarizers are $220. Most Vari ND filters I see are over $300.

PB_PM

I use a cheap Cameron Veri ND filter and don't get any strange patterns, sounds like the Hoya is a ripoff.

TaoTeJared

From what I have seen when I looked at getting one is that most ND filters have this phenomenon. Some manufactures build a hard stop so one doesn't go past the point where the patterns show. The most stuff I have seen on it is if you search for video with vari-NDs. It is really throwing some videographers for a loop.

Personally I am like MSMOTO, I use just a "normal" ND filter and a few 2-stop grad/hard Cokin style grads. For my last trip I really wanted to find a decent 10-stop to shoot shorelines with, found one that supposedly was rated well and around $100 - It absolutely sucked - real bad. Uneven density and created a red glow like it was a IR filter, but only in a few spots across the image. We all get burned at some point.

It does seem in the ND filter world that the "best" always seem to be $300+ no matter what ND strength it is and there is a lot of compromise on various levels (color cast, patterns, IQ deterioration, evenness, etc) with anything under that high $ amount. I mostly use them for bringing down the sky exposure if it is more than 6 stops difference from the lower half. Under that I can make up in post. I will use a 2-stop on my 1.4s with lighting to drop backgrounds out dark.

kanuck

Yes they can be quite tricky I agree with you. They are very expensive and you will get what you pay for as well. The Singh Ray, vari ND can run you $400-$500. I use a Schneider 5 stops vari myself. There can be odd color shifts especially when shooting in direct sunlight. Closing the shutter curtain and blocking all strays of light does not always help. 8 stops, 10 stops or more and these filters become even harder to use. Remember that over 5 stops the ND filter is no longer neutral and color shift becomes unstable.

spraynpray

I don't agree that you get what you pay for - compare the cost of one small flat piece of glass with an entire lens then tell me how you justify that statement. $500 for one little sheet of treated glass over an entire zoom lens - oh yeah, rip-off big time.

You are all mistaking 'you get what you pay for' for 'paying what you have to'.

kanuck

Comparing Tien-ya ND filters for example from China to Singh Ray or Lee filters the coating and resin used is totally not comparable. However, we are getting a little off track here. I would not spend a significant amount of money on a vari-nd filter, but they can yield some pretty pretty amazing results.

Msmoto

My conclusions are: for video one must in most cases use a variable ND as the shutter speed is taken out as a an adjustable parameter…or determined by other considerations. But, unless one has a very specific exposure time, e.g., to establish a particular motion effect with water or other dynamic subject, I will stick with my stacking two ND filters or using one if appropriate for still photos.

As in every case of photography, our individual experiences and preferences will determine how we approach a particular photo shoot.

kanuck

Well said Msmoto I couldn't agree with you more

WestEndBoy

I don't agree that you get what you pay for - compare the cost of one small flat piece of glass with an entire lens then tell me how you justify that statement. $500 for one little sheet of treated glass over an entire zoom lens - oh yeah, rip-off big time.

You are all mistaking 'you get what you pay for' for 'paying what you have to'.

I doubt it would pay to spend more than $50 for a filter on a $500 zoom.

But if you have a prime for $2,000 or more, it could make sense. I have heliopause, B&W and Hoya. My variable nd is Hoya. I am thinking of the thin mount Singh Ray in 5 stop and 10 stop plus the thicker 10 stop for stacking. That is almost $1,000 and that sounds like a lot, until I recall that with step up rings this could work on a $10,000 plus lens collection. Not bad if nd is a significant part of your shooting.

Or put it another way. If you think $500 is a ripoff, find something for cheaper that can do the same thing.

And I don't mean "almost the same thing" or "the same thing 99% of the time", but I mean "exactly" the whole thing "100%" of the time. If such an animal does not exist, the market may be small, but it is not a ripoff.

For a professional photographer, this kind of money may be nothing when their prize photos worth thousands of dollars are at stake.

MikeGunter

Hi all,

"I doubt it would pay to spend more than $50 for a filter on a $500 zoom."

Does the $500 zoom only take $500 quality images? Or is it for pictures that needs $50 filtration?

Is that the lens used only for cheap pictures? ;-)

I don't think light cares what the lens costs, but the project, particularly a video project will. :-)

My best,

Mike

WestEndBoy

Hi all,

"I doubt it would pay to spend more than $50 for a filter on a $500 zoom."

Does the $500 zoom only take $500 quality images? Or is it for pictures that needs $50 filtration?

Is that the lens used only for cheap pictures? ;-)

I don't think light cares what the lens costs, but the project, particularly a video project will. :-)

My best,

Mike

Well said. It is rarely that simple.

cholson

@tiCreativeMedia sorry to hear you've had back luck with your filters. while i use variable ND filters primarily for video projects, i've captured some photos using my set of hoya variable ND filters (also the Singh-Ray version) in bright light situations like full sun, snow, etc. so i can keep the aperture down to f/1.4... it makes for a unique look. i really like my hoya set...

that said, i agree... you have to be careful to avoid the X vignette, which shows up on the extreme ends of the ND settings. i typically back it off a bit (around a stop or so) to avoid the issue. while it may not be as "perfect" as what a solid ND filter would provide, i believe with a little adjustment in how you shoot with it, you should get great results. for my needs, the variable ND is too convenient for my video projects and changing solid filters won't be practical

i like to think of camera gear as a set brushes that we as photographers use to paint on our canvas. each tool has personality (both strengths and weaknesses)... our job is to learn that personality and know when/how to apply it to capture the moment. i think we all get caught up in the internet frenzy of expecting every tool to be perfect/clinical (and sometimes without character)... but if that's the case, our photos would lack personality. for me, the new nikon 58mm f/1.4 lens is a good example of this... but that conversation is for a different thread

enjoy... and good luck with whatever ND filter direction you choose

FlowtographyBerlin

$500 for one little sheet of treated glass over an entire zoom lens - oh yeah, rip-off big time.

You are all mistaking 'you get what you pay for' for 'paying what you have to'.

Wise words.

I don't think light cares what the lens costs, but the project, particularly a video project will. :-)

More wise words. :-)

If you think $500 is a ripoff, find something for cheaper that can do the same thing.
If such an animal does not exist, the market may be small, but it is not a ripoff.

Not true, and you name it yourself:

For a professional photographer, this kind of money may be nothing when their prize photos worth thousands of dollars are at stake.

If the target group is ready to pay for it, you charge them what you can. That's why first class plane tickets cost 20 times as much as economy. It's called second order price discrimination, and it's an old, old marketing / product design principle.

The D4 costs more than twice as much as the next-affordable camera in the product line, which even has other specs that some may perceive as better for their needs (i.e. resolution). You think that's because it's twice as expensive to manufacture? No, it's because the main target group, photojournalists, depend on the various features like frame rate and hardware sturdiness that the other products don't have (and will trade those in for resolution and money).

You think an Audi A8 costs three times as much as an A4 because it's three times as expensive to develop and manufacture?

It's always the target group. Of course, many times the more expensive product is more costly to manufacture. But not ten times.

WestEndBoy

Not sure I am following what you think is not true FlowtographyBerlin......

If you are saying that my two statements are contradictory (because professionals are not a very small group), I did not mean that the same points may apply to the same product.

I also find discussion of costs very interesting, given that I am an accountant in the development business and my wife is an accountant in the manufacturing business. Using your D4 point as an example, what costs are you speaking of? Variable cost to manufacturer? Full cost, meaning an allocation of all the fixed costs such as product development?

At variable cost, the D4 may only be 25% more than a D800 to produce. But perhaps the D4 cost the same to develop but there are only about 10% as many D4s as D800s to allocate the development costs over. Or find another number, you get the idea.

Nikon may even be loosing money on the D4 but see the loss worthwhile to support the rest of their line as a marketing expenditure. I find this quite common in the retail industry. A retail or restaurant chain may open in a prime and very expensive location knowing that they will never turn an operating profit, but it is a "flagship" location and is expected to pay its way through its marketing benefit.

Maybe Nikon and Canon are thinking the same thing with there "flagship cameras".

FlowtographyBerlin

Not sure I am following what you think is not true FlowtographyBerlin......

If you are saying that my two statements are contradictory (because professionals are not a very small group), I did not mean that the same points may apply to the same product.

I also find discussion of costs very interesting, given that I am an accountant in the development business and my wife is an accountant in the manufacturing business. Using your D4 point as an example, what costs are you speaking of? Variable cost to manufacturer? Full cost, meaning an allocation of all the fixed costs such as product development?

At variable cost, the D4 may only be 25% more than a D800 to produce. But perhaps the D4 cost the same to develop but there are only about 10% as many D4s as D800s to allocate the development costs over. Or find another number, you get the idea.

Nikon may even be loosing money on the D4 but see the loss worthwhile to support the rest of their line as a marketing expenditure. I find this quite common in the retail industry. A retail or restaurant chain may open in a prime and very expensive location knowing that they will never turn an operating profit, but it is a "flagship" location and is expected to pay its way through its marketing benefit.

Maybe Nikon and Canon are thinking the same thing with there "flagship cameras".

You're mixing up accounting and marketing (in the sense of product design) issues.

You're correct with what you're saying, that high development costs for one type of product may be (and often times are) cross-covered by another lower-market (maybe more high-volume) product. But there are market sectors where this isn't true anymore, or the boundaries are diluted.

Anyway, this is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about what the price tells you about the product, and that this can vary from a lot to very little. As a manufacturer, you want the customer to give you whatever he or she is willing to pay. So you design different products for different target groups, and you distribute the features accordingly. A consumer will not give you 7000 bucks, a pro will. Yes, the pro model will cost more to manufacture (variable cost), but not ten times. And development will be mainly total cost anyway.

To use the classic example: In the times where there were three different classes of train coaches, the third class didn't have a roof. This wasn't because the ticket prices were so cheap that the train company couldn't afford to put a roof on. It was to make sure that anyone who could afford to travel second class would do so.

A D3000-Series camera doesn't have less buttons and manual-adjustment features than a D800 because it saves marginal cost. (It does. But in fact, it takes a lot more effort to develop algorithms that automate adjustments and still deliver the average user a result that makes him go "wow". Ok, marginal vs. total cost, but that's not the point.)

It has less adjustment features so that someone who has more money has a reason to spend it. Designing a lower-end product is hence often a lot more tricky than designing the flagship model; on the one hand, you can't put the "hottest stuff" in there, on the other hand, it has to beat the competition, and one way would be with better features.

Of course, there's a LOT more to the product price, no question, and you as an accountant know it best. All I'm saying is that just because a product costs more, it's not better, and most certainly not by its price proportion. Take the Nikkor 58mm/1.4 vs. the 50mm/1.8. The 58mm may be more expensive to manufacture, and may have results that some consider "better" (sharper, more pleasant bokeh etc. blabla). But the price proportion is a typical second-order price discrimination issue. It's marketing. There's a market segment of people who will pay this much for a prime, so you design a product for them.

Again, don't get me wrong, it's not ALL of the price difference. But in some products, it's a lot of it. The larger the manufacturer, the more standardized the production, the more high-volume the production, the larger this is.

And you can bet that the D4 is far away from being sold at a loss ;-)

WestEndBoy

Sounds reasonable. I think that we both agree, but are looking at it from a different perspective.