Question (about ND Filters) after reading forum

[solveg@aol.com]

I was reading all the forums and there were a lot of filter questions.

In one, people were saying that now you don't need neutral density filters if you fix the image in post. Well, don't you sometimes need* the neutral density if you want to manage your depth of field, and there's too much light??

And why do the video cameras come with a built in neutral density filter but cameras don't?

And why, with all the brand talk, does noone prefer B+H, which I thought was the best?

[RichardtheSane]

I agree with you that it is not possible to fix most images where ND is required in post. Other filters, to an extent, yes. But not ND. It is possible to create an ND grad effect in post but some prefer not to.

Some cameras do come with an ND filter fitted, I know my powershot G5 had one. However SLR's tend not to because of practicalities. I suppose it depends on what sort of cameras you are thinking of really.

Personally I prefer seperate filters as I would rather have the choice of which ND filter to buy, wether to buy a graduated one, and what level of light loss I want. The second reason I would not want an in camera one is quality. I use good quality lenses, L glass in the most cases so I don't want a budget filter in front of it because that will reduce the quality. I buy either cokin or lee filters because they are very good quality and there is only a slight degradation in image quality. Cheaper 'own brand' filters tend to show a more noticable degradation.

[solveg@aol.com]

But B+W is good, right? (I think I wrote B+H in my previous post. Y'all know now where I buy my stuff!) I chose them basically because they cost a lot so I figured they'd be good.

Do you know exactly how in-camera ND works? I wasn't sure where it kicks in within the camera. but I did make the (probably wrong) assumption that if it was Canon glass, it would be as good as the lens. I like it in my video camera because I don't have to stack filters, but I never really thought to check if degraded the image more than real filters.

[pushtoexit]

I have always assumed that with Point and Shoot in - camera ND filter was an electronic function and not really a physical glass element. I propose that electronically it makes the sensor less receptive to light. I believe this is not possible with SLR because what u see is what u get reflected onto the sensor from the mirror.

BTW/ Trust me B+H gets lots and lots of business from this form

[RichardtheSane]

B + W filters are also good (I thought you meant an own brand B & H filter). When it comes to screw in filters B+W, Hoya, Tiffen are good brands :)

IN camera ND is not an electronic function. Certainly not on my camcorder or G5 it wasn't anyway. When the ND was activated on both you could see and hear the ND filter get moved into place between the lens and the sensor.

It is not practical on an SLR as the place the filter needed positioning would be between the rear of the lens and the mirror, and that is rather a large opening so the mechanics of it would make the cameras much larger and be another part that can fail. I would be possible to put one in front of the sensor and then have the camera programmed to take this into account when exposure metered but seems kind of a silly excercise when the majority of photographers that use ND would prefer one on the end of the lens anyway. Plus, again, the increase in size factor....

No, I am happier with an ND in front of the lens.