Rule 34 works as both a photography suggestion as well as, well... Rule 34.
July 13, 2012 11:25 AM Subscribe
Goofball? God. I watched the first four, and disagree with the tips and his self-centered, time-wasting presentation. I shot my Nikomat (Nikkormat for those bought outside Japan) with both UV filter and rubber lens hood. The purpose was totally to protect the lens from knocks, as well as making it painless to take a shirt or handkerchief and wipe the filter clean. And I treated my Nikomat as my baby, and it served me well for 25 years. And I don't waste any time on haters or hating. Except for this guy.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 12:06 PM on July 13, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 12:06 PM on July 13, 2012 [1 favorite]
Re: Tip number 1:
I had a UV filter on my lens a few weeks ago, taking snapshots at Multnomah Falls. I handed the camera to my wife to hold while I helped my son along a slippery bit of the path. She walked three steps, slipped on some moss, the camera swung out and whacked against a rock. There was a moment of sickness as I stared at the crack right down the middle of what I thought was the lens. Then I realized I had the filter on the lens, unscrewed it, and the lens itself was fine. Glad it was there. Probably could have accomplished the same thing with a lens cap, I guess.
His approach here sort of militates against taking much time to dwell on any point, but what's it hurt to just use a filter?
posted by mph at 12:07 PM on July 13, 2012
I had a UV filter on my lens a few weeks ago, taking snapshots at Multnomah Falls. I handed the camera to my wife to hold while I helped my son along a slippery bit of the path. She walked three steps, slipped on some moss, the camera swung out and whacked against a rock. There was a moment of sickness as I stared at the crack right down the middle of what I thought was the lens. Then I realized I had the filter on the lens, unscrewed it, and the lens itself was fine. Glad it was there. Probably could have accomplished the same thing with a lens cap, I guess.
His approach here sort of militates against taking much time to dwell on any point, but what's it hurt to just use a filter?
posted by mph at 12:07 PM on July 13, 2012
Something about people who are obviously (appearance-wise) of Asian or African heritage sporting strong non-American accents (British/NZ/Aus) always really catches me off guard.
posted by pdq at 12:11 PM on July 13, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by pdq at 12:11 PM on July 13, 2012 [1 favorite]
Yep, knocked my new DSLR off a desk and had the same sickening stomach-drop, then a swoop of joy when I realized it was just the UV filter.
The camera shop dude who helped me remove the jammed-on filter said that protecting the real lense was essentially the whole point of the UV filter. He also asked if he could keep it to show other customers to demonstrate why they might want to get one.
posted by L'Estrange Fruit at 12:12 PM on July 13, 2012 [1 favorite]
The camera shop dude who helped me remove the jammed-on filter said that protecting the real lense was essentially the whole point of the UV filter. He also asked if he could keep it to show other customers to demonstrate why they might want to get one.
posted by L'Estrange Fruit at 12:12 PM on July 13, 2012 [1 favorite]
There's just something delightful about "douchebag" said in the Hong Kong accent.
posted by Hollywood Upstairs Medical College at 12:23 PM on July 13, 2012 [2 favorites]
posted by Hollywood Upstairs Medical College at 12:23 PM on July 13, 2012 [2 favorites]
I really liked it, thanks for posting.
And the preview at the end reminded me of Top Gear, if Top Gear was made by a hipster, the dude that barely speaks English and a girl.
posted by Keith Talent at 12:43 PM on July 13, 2012
And the preview at the end reminded me of Top Gear, if Top Gear was made by a hipster, the dude that barely speaks English and a girl.
posted by Keith Talent at 12:43 PM on July 13, 2012
Re: Tip number 1: but what's it hurt to just use a filter?
posted by mph
Agreed. Aside from help with impact damage, having a filter can be useful in some other specific circumstances. For instance, shooting in Yellowstone with the acidic vapors of geysers and pools, I was sure to keep my glass protected with filters. Better to replace one of those then potentially have damage to the lens. Granted, I was shooting all day everyday for a month so the likelihood of buildup was probably greater than the average visitors, but still.
posted by blaneyphoto at 12:45 PM on July 13, 2012
posted by mph
Agreed. Aside from help with impact damage, having a filter can be useful in some other specific circumstances. For instance, shooting in Yellowstone with the acidic vapors of geysers and pools, I was sure to keep my glass protected with filters. Better to replace one of those then potentially have damage to the lens. Granted, I was shooting all day everyday for a month so the likelihood of buildup was probably greater than the average visitors, but still.
posted by blaneyphoto at 12:45 PM on July 13, 2012
This is fun, but I still prefer William Wegman's version from 1986.
posted by InspiredChaos at 12:49 PM on July 13, 2012 [2 favorites]
posted by InspiredChaos at 12:49 PM on July 13, 2012 [2 favorites]
Here's another vote for filters as cheap insurance. I was carrying my camera bag in one hand and my D80 fell out and hit the wood parquet floor (total fall height was about 5 inches). The filter died, but the lens (worth more than the camera body) made it through with no damage.
Lens filters for life.
posted by longdaysjourney at 12:51 PM on July 13, 2012
Lens filters for life.
posted by longdaysjourney at 12:51 PM on July 13, 2012
I have no dog in this fight, but in the great debate of filter-vs.-no-filter, the no-filter group tends to take the position that a cheap filter of the sort commonly purchased will reduce your image quality (usually stated as something like "why would you put a $25 piece of plastic in front of your $1000 highly-engineered lens?"). The other argument is that sure, maybe your filter broke when you dropped the camera five inches, but that's because it was cheap and easily breakable, while the lens is much more solid and probably wouldn't have taken any damage.
Obviously there are counterarguments, and like I said I'm not taking a position, but those are the common arguments from those anti-filter.
posted by Partial Law at 1:24 PM on July 13, 2012 [1 favorite]
Obviously there are counterarguments, and like I said I'm not taking a position, but those are the common arguments from those anti-filter.
posted by Partial Law at 1:24 PM on July 13, 2012 [1 favorite]
It might be a good idea to always have the camera on burst mode: Canon vs. Nikon.
posted by Kronos_to_Earth at 1:34 PM on July 13, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by Kronos_to_Earth at 1:34 PM on July 13, 2012 [1 favorite]
"why would you put a $25 piece of plastic in front of your $1000 highly-engineered lens?"
I see the point for people shooting at a certain level I am not at. I was hedging my narrative a little with words like "snapshot," but wasn't willing to go full-on with the self deprecation to make the point that I'm not shooting with a $1,000 lens, can barely justify the $250 I paid for the lens that was saved, and that I get to buy even that much lens in exchange for a steady flow of adorable shots of the boy.
If the Canon PowerShot G-series weren't still too slow to tolerate after years of shooting with even low-end DSLRs, if the thought of reinvesting in micro 4/3 weren't a total nonstarter for reasons given above, and if the available light performance of those options could come anywhere near my $200 35mm/f1.8 Nikon lens, I'd spare myself the constant worry and expense my rig entails.
I'd really like it if Pentax or Nikon decided that the thing to add for momentary advantage in the low-end DSLR competition wasn't the gimmicky video modes and was instead a little of the ruggedization/seal you get when you take the next step up. Or, I guess I'd like it if Canon would quit playing coy with the G-series. It hasn't felt like one of those cameras has consistently delivered the goods without cynical tradeoffs (no RAW this year! No swivel display the next!) since the G5. I really wouldn't mind going back to carrying a compact little brick that has the good sense to tuck its lens behind a cover when it's not in use.
posted by mph at 1:44 PM on July 13, 2012
I see the point for people shooting at a certain level I am not at. I was hedging my narrative a little with words like "snapshot," but wasn't willing to go full-on with the self deprecation to make the point that I'm not shooting with a $1,000 lens, can barely justify the $250 I paid for the lens that was saved, and that I get to buy even that much lens in exchange for a steady flow of adorable shots of the boy.
If the Canon PowerShot G-series weren't still too slow to tolerate after years of shooting with even low-end DSLRs, if the thought of reinvesting in micro 4/3 weren't a total nonstarter for reasons given above, and if the available light performance of those options could come anywhere near my $200 35mm/f1.8 Nikon lens, I'd spare myself the constant worry and expense my rig entails.
I'd really like it if Pentax or Nikon decided that the thing to add for momentary advantage in the low-end DSLR competition wasn't the gimmicky video modes and was instead a little of the ruggedization/seal you get when you take the next step up. Or, I guess I'd like it if Canon would quit playing coy with the G-series. It hasn't felt like one of those cameras has consistently delivered the goods without cynical tradeoffs (no RAW this year! No swivel display the next!) since the G5. I really wouldn't mind going back to carrying a compact little brick that has the good sense to tuck its lens behind a cover when it's not in use.
posted by mph at 1:44 PM on July 13, 2012
For instance, shooting in Yellowstone with the acidic vapors of geysers and pools, I was sure to keep my glass protected with filters. Better to replace one of those then potentially have damage to the lens. Granted, I was shooting all day everyday for a month so the likelihood of buildup was probably greater than the average visitors, but still.
I never thought of that. But then, most geyser stupid.
posted by hal9k at 1:50 PM on July 13, 2012 [1 favorite]
I never thought of that. But then, most geyser stupid.
posted by hal9k at 1:50 PM on July 13, 2012 [1 favorite]
For awhile I always had a clear filter on my lenses. Then I took the time to do comparisons and it turned out that they really did mess with the image quality, even with filters that cost $100. Now if I need to protect the lens I pop the lens hood on. It makes more sense as a protective element than compromising IQ with a piece of glass (that is not inexpensive) millimeters away from what you're trying to protect whereas a cheap plastic hood can take some damage and still be functional.
posted by linux at 2:24 PM on July 13, 2012
posted by linux at 2:24 PM on July 13, 2012
Although I only use a filter when the circumstances require it (environmental, as I mentioned before or covering a protest where pepper spray might be an issue, etc) I've never noticed any image degradation when using one. I make a living doing this, and my agency holds the images to the highest standards, so I don't know what to make of the "why would you put a $25 piece of plastic in front of your $1000 highly-engineered lens?" - I'm just not seeing it. My suspicion is that there might be more obvious degradation with cheaper lenses. I kind of expect that my lenses (that run from $1500 to almost 10K) should be able to produce quality images with a filter. And then there's polarizing filters, neutral density filters, etc - all intended to do a job... and I don't think they're reducing the quality of the image.
The lens hood argument is reasonable, but they do fall of, break and generally add size and weight to what is already a big hulk of a camera if you're carrying a large DSLR (or two or three, depending on the job.) The only lens I regularly use with a hood is the Canon 24-70mm because its not internally focusing and the barrel extends. The hood on that lens covers the entire barrel, protecting it somewhat from rain, blowing sand, etc.
posted by blaneyphoto at 4:49 PM on July 13, 2012 [1 favorite]
The lens hood argument is reasonable, but they do fall of, break and generally add size and weight to what is already a big hulk of a camera if you're carrying a large DSLR (or two or three, depending on the job.) The only lens I regularly use with a hood is the Canon 24-70mm because its not internally focusing and the barrel extends. The hood on that lens covers the entire barrel, protecting it somewhat from rain, blowing sand, etc.
posted by blaneyphoto at 4:49 PM on July 13, 2012 [1 favorite]
« Older "Ridicule is an occupational hazard of the job" | "We’ve been asking people with same-sex... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by caddis at 11:54 AM on July 13, 2012