anyone buy in square filter system and was sorry?

Hi there folks,

One of the few things I do includes various landscape phtography. I live in the ME which, if nothing else, has lots (and lots) of sun.

So alongside an anticipated purchase of a 16-35 IS, I was looking at a square filter purchase as well. The prices are generally manageable and there is a lot of discussion of which filters to get/not get/need /don't need here already.

But what I haven't seen is whether people who invested in the system (whichever one it was) ever decided that it wasn't worth "it". For whatever personal reason, you got rid of it, stopped using it etc...

Is it too bulky? too much bother to set up? doesn't save that much time PP? too fragile? not flexible?

Whatever - anyone who didn't like it - can you share why, please.

p.s. - this isn't really a question of brand XX being better than brand YY - unless it affected the dynamics of your use...

thanks

ceriltheblade wrote in post #17120400
Hi there folks,

One of the few things I do includes various landscape phtography. I live in the ME which, if nothing else, has lots (and lots) of sun.

So alongside an anticipated purchase of a 16-35 IS, I was looking at a square filter purchase as well. The prices are generally manageable and there is a lot of discussion of which filters to get/not get/need /don't need here already.

But what I haven't seen is whether people who invested in the system (whichever one it was) ever decided that it wasn't worth "it". For whatever personal reason, you got rid of it, stopped using it etc...

Is it too bulky? too much bother to set up? doesn't save that much time PP? too fragile? not flexible?

Whatever - anyone who didn't like it - can you share why, please.

p.s. - this isn't really a question of brand XX being better than brand YY - unless it affected the dynamics of your use...

thanks

I bought into the Cokin "C" system with some cheap knockoffs (3 NDs, 3 GND's), some Hi-Tech's (3 RGND's), and the mounting rings and filter holders.

Although I have trialed them all, and they all work as advertised, I must admit I don't use them as much as I thought I would (at least one friend of mine has all the same stuff, and has never even tried them out!).

They are somewhat fragile, I guess, and all that extra stuff is certainly not what I first grab to take on a shoot (there always too much to carry, in my opinion). It also takes quite a lot of time to set them up, so to speak, at a location, and they are, no doubt, "fiddly".

I find myself just ignoring them and often failing to use them, even when I have them along. From experience, I know you can replicate at least some of the effects in post processing, and I get lazy.

I would recommend starting with just a bit of that kind of kit, before you buy it all and find out, sadly, "it's not always for you".

Maxdave

I've not decided it wasn't worth it or stopped using my Cokin square system entirely but I will say that getting a screw in Tiffen variable ND filter has dramatically reduced the use of my square filters:

- it's much more convenient, 2-8 stops of light reduction just by twisting.
- in my experience there is less chance of flares, weird reflections and dust.
- having the whole square setup on the end is more prone to knocks and accidental adjustments, frankly it's a pain.

The Tiffen cannot do grads but to be honest I very rarely use these anymore, maybe just when shooting into the sun but more often I'll bracket. Also I've always used a screw in CPL, I've never tried a square one so I can't vouch for that comparison.

Having said all that I do still often carry the square filters in my bag just in case.

Whenever I do my serious landscape work, I always bring and use my filters. Maybe if Canon's new sensor finally improves on DR, I won't need them as often. I use Lee GNDs. They aren't fit for every situation though, especially when you don't have a straight horizon in your scene.

tagnal wrote in post #17121532
Whenever I do my serious landscape work, I always bring and use my filters. Maybe if Canon's new sensor finally improves on DR, I won't need them as often. I use Lee GNDs. They aren't fit for every situation though, especially when you don't have a straight horizon in your scene.

Someone help me here. I thought the filter holder on a Lee system rotates, so if so, why worry about the horizon not being straight, since you can adjust the filter to match the horizon angle? Am I missing something?

I bought the Cokin Z and a graduated ND about... 8 years ago? Think I used it on one set of shots, maybe two. Seemed to make my images a bit soft.

I still use the Cokin "P" colour filters with gels on flashes/strobes. The same sort of filter effects can get done in Photoshop, I just like to get it done in camera. It is a very rare day when I use the graduated filters. If I were to have my square filters stolen, I don't think I would replace them.

I have used, and modified, several square systems, Cokin P, Hoyarex (long gone) and some that included matteboxes. All involved lots of complexity, carrying a good deal of equipment and the plastic (Cokin called them "Organic Glass" which I found very pompous and a little deceptive) always, ALWAYS effected IQ negatively. I think investing in a premium system - Lee, Singh Ray (do they still do squares) and few others - with glass squares would be less of an image quality problem. But it would still entail a good deal of weight and space. I say that realizing that many use such systems successfully and are very pleased with them.

Since "going digital" I have reduced my load a good deal. Almost everything I used to do with filters can now be done in post - including grads. Since I no longer carry grads, I don't need squares so my filter kit is now three 77mm round glass screw-in filters - a CPL, a 3 stop ND, and an 8 stop ND - and 3 step rings for my lenses with smaller diameters. The kit fits in one small pouch that rides on my belt and is completely out of the way.

My opinion, FWIW, unless you insist on using ND grads, you probably do not need squares. And, in almost every case, grads can be better done in post than in the field, although there are exceptions.

rgs wrote in post #17121813
My opinion, FWIW, unless you insist on using ND grads, you probably do not need squares. And, in almost every case, grads can be better done in post than in the field, although there are exceptions.

pretty much my experience. I've had more shots ruined by the lee grad filters than helped. the reason is because almost any good composition would not have a simple horizon of bright on top and dark on bottom. there should be mountains, or foreground objects, or whatever, and because the gradation is straight, it inevitably will darken the tops of objects/moutains/etc. incorrectly. it is much better to take 2 or more exposures and blend them manually in photoshop, that is if you care to have everything absolutely perfect. but if you wanna avoid heavy post-production to save time, I guess the grad filters can be used.

I can see these filters being necessary for film, but in today's digital age there are better alternatives if you are computer savvy.

I think the main advantage of rectangular filters is just to save $. you buy one set of filters and many cheaper adapters to fit them to different lenses. but even then, you can get a similar savings by getting a larger filter and using stepping adapters.

I have a lee collection myself but am slowly phasing it out by getting a set of polarizer and nd's for each filter size. expensive, but much easier to use and carry.

yendikeno wrote in post #17121693
Someone help me here. I thought the filter holder on a Lee system rotates, so if so, why worry about the horizon not being straight, since you can adjust the filter to match the horizon angle? Am I missing something?

It isn't the angle isn't the problem; it is when there are features that extend above the horizon, such as trees, mountains, etc. A grad filter doesn't work quite as well there.

I bought the Cokin system and a square grad on a recommendation, used it once or twice, put them away and haven't used them since.

One problem is gear bloat. My camera gets bigger with every generation. There isn't nearly enough room in my bag for everything. So I grab the obvious things I will need for a shoot and leave everything else behind.

Recently I rebelled against big gear by buying the SL1. Once again I can pack camera and lenses covering 10 to 250mm in one smallish bag, the same one I used back in the film days to hold all my commonly used gear. But there still really isn't room for the grads.

And as others have mentioned, grads are indiscriminate in their darkening because they are straight whereas most scenes are not.

Xyclopx wrote in post #17122000
I have a lee collection myself but am slowly phasing it out by getting a set of polarizer and nd's for each filter size. expensive, but much easier to use and carry.

Food for thought. I use 3 filters and step rings. When I say that, someone always says that you can't use a hood. But there are other options:

• Shade the lens with your hand or your cap. In the film days a dark slide was also a good option.
  
• Use a flag. You can make one yourself with a dark card and a flexible arm the attaches to the camera or the tripod. You can also buy themfrom B&Hand other places.
  
• Get a generic collapsible lens hood for your filter size. You can adjust it for each lens.
  
• And the best, if most expensive option, a compendium lens hood. The bellows extension can't be beat for fine adjustments. Here's one choice but there are others. Some DIY may be needed to make them fit your lenses. Lee makes some also.

yendikeno wrote in post #17121693
Someone help me here. I thought the filter holder on a Lee system rotates, so if so, why worry about the horizon not being straight, since you can adjust the filter to match the horizon angle? Am I missing something?

How would you rotate it to match this horizon for the proper effect in this image?

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/fBTc​AD

Interesting thread... I've just ordered yesterday a Lee system because of the need of GND for landscapes. I tried many solutions with round filters but nothing satisfied me. It will be big, not practical, but at least I won't be cursing myself when loading pictures into Lightroom Well, I hope so.

I have a Lee system, and still use it -- mostly for landscape shots along the water where a GND works best. I do have a couple ND filters for the setup, too, but am considering adding a round variable ND filter for those times I do not want to pack the Lee system. Since my two main landscape lenses use 77mm filters, I do not need to deal with step rings. I already use a round CPL filter, as I shoot a lot handheld with one and do not like using the Lee filters handheld.