Building a Filter System: Lee or Cokin?

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #2382507
It's axiomatic that filters should be made from glass and multicoated. This only leaves you with Lee.

But ask yourself - do you really want such a bulky system? You're only starting out - maybe buy the screw-in filters? That's what most people get.

Mmm, food for thought! I already use a circular polariser ... Thanks, Doc.

ruairidh wrote in post #2385001
Back to the subject. If you intend to upgrade to a FF camera in the future I would recommend a larger filter size (such as Lee) as opposed to Cokin P series, which can cause vignetting below 28mm focal lengths.

Thanks for this practical tip!

very true... this is why i still think the ND system is WAY better than just PP.

ruairidh wrote in post #2385001
So what happens when the range exceeds the ability of the camera to record? Neutral Densitys allow you to reduce the overall range between brightest and darkest areas of the image. Unless you are going to take two exposures, instead of two different RAW conversions, you can loose detail in the shadows or highlights.

The seperate exposure is ok for a clean horizon but if there is anything moving then this can cause difficulties in merging the exposures.

Back to the subject. If you intend to upgrade to a FF camera in the future I would recommend a larger filter size (such as Lee) as opposed to Cokin P series, which can cause vignetting below 28mm focal lengths.

Jon wrote in post #2385000
I quite agree. To handle a 3-stop difference in post-processing requires two separate shots; unless you're well-positioned to use a tripod (not always possible due to terrain and not always feasible due to traffic) maintaining the necessary alignment will be very difficult. Slide the appropriate soft or hard grad down and it's a single-shot effort.

Are you taking scenic/ladnscape shots without a tripod often?
Are you handholding while you adjust your fiddly ND filter?
Are the cars in the line between the sky and the horizon?

My point is that you're bound to use a tripod anyways... might as well use photoshop with merged exposures.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #2385104
Are you taking scenic/ladnscape shots without a tripod often?
Are you handholding while you adjust your fiddly ND filter?
Are the cars in the line between the sky and the horizon?

My point is that you're bound to use a tripod anyways... might as well use photoshop with merged exposures.

Yes, yes, and traffic through where I'm standing, not the more specific "automobile traffic" against the horizon. Mountain trails aren't all that tripod-friendly.

Edit - Oh, and ever hear of a monopod?

Jon wrote in post #2385123
Edit - Oh, and ever hear of a monopod?

Let's see your cokin rig on a monopod.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #2386404
Let's see your cokin rig on a monopod.

if I can use a 600 f4 on a monopod, I really don't see how adding a p-holder and a ND filter complicates the situation all that much. What, you've added 2 or 3 ounces to the deal. Where do you get the impression that these filters are combersome? They don't add any more complexity to shooting then does a circ. polariser. When I used to run the mythically beautiful Colorado River through Flaming Gorge between Utah and Colorado, I used these systems all the time as the canyon was quit dark and to get proper exposure for the sky, you have to use an Grad. ND. I used a grad. ND just the other day shooting basketball in an venue where there was considerable glare hitting a remote camera I had setup. I was able to move the horizon line up very high so that it just cut the lighting from the overhead lights by 1 stop, which balanced the shots way better then any fixed ND could have. There was no amount of RAW post magic that was going to recover highlights that were already gone. Not that there isn't use in traditional filters, they have their use. Not that there isn't a lot that can't be done by faking it in PP. But to say they have no use or are combersome show that you haven't learned how to use them yet. Give 'em a whirl amigo.... they can really save you hinnie sometimes. Well worth the few ounces they add.

Balliolman wrote in post #2380249
So are Lee overrated given their price?

I don't think they are.
I had a Cokin GND system (and a couple of colours, I must admit!!) previously and with the GNDs I noted a colour cast that many people said they saw previously in Cokins (thought lots didn't as well!)
I took the plunge to Lee a couple of months back - I have NO problems with Lee now.
Not only are the filters of better quality, but they are huge, which helps out a heck of a lot with composition, and the holder is brilliant. It is customisable, so if you are shooting UWA, with 1 filter, you can take off the additional "spaces" on the holder so it doesn't vignette your shot.

AdamJL wrote in post #2388390
I don't think they are.
I had a Cokin GND system (and a couple of colours, I must admit!!) previously and with the GNDs I noted a colour cast that many people said they saw previously in Cokins (thought lots didn't as well!)
I took the plunge to Lee a couple of months back - I have NO problems with Lee now.
Not only are the filters of better quality, but they are huge, which helps out a heck of a lot with composition, and the holder is brilliant. It is customisable, so if you are shooting UWA, with 1 filter, you can take off the additional "spaces" on the holder so it doesn't vignette your shot.

Thank you, Adam!