Just out of curiosity, where exactly did you see that Canon said this?
Apr 03, 2010 00:40 | #16 ben_r_ wrote in post #9917600 Just out of curiosity, where exactly did you see that Canon said this? Cheers,
LOG IN TO REPLY |
ckckevin Goldmember 1,439 posts Likes: 1 Joined Jul 2009 Location: Bay Area More info | Apr 03, 2010 00:51 | #17 fotoworx wrote in post #9917595 Wouldn't it still have to suck past the filter thread though? no. Because the threads are so fine that unless you submerge the lens under water at a high pressure for a while, i don't think any water would go past the filter thread. But WAY before that the camera that u use will already be having heavy water damage Kevin life= learning
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Apr 03, 2010 02:15 | #18 Thanks. I've seen those little holes before and never knew what they were for. Cheers,
LOG IN TO REPLY |
dwarfcow Senior Member 640 posts Joined Feb 2010 Location: South Central, Alaska More info | Apr 03, 2010 03:16 | #19 blackhawk wrote in post #9919348 No reason to cause needless wear and tear for minimum (or no) results, or to save a few dollars when you've invested thousands already. if i invest thousands in a good lens, i want to see that in my images. if i damage my front element, i'll get it replaced, or replace the lens with a newer better one. "Evidently the photo shop at the college I go to is one of the best in the country. They actually have a handful of digital medium format cameras for students to use; Haliburtons, or hasslehoffs, or something like that."
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Apr 03, 2010 04:17 | #20 Hmmmm, 'Consider using a UV....." doesn't really sound like a recommendation, more a suggestion. Certainly not as definite as 'I would remove all filters for maximum optical performance' or 'ANY and ALL UV/protection filters have some degree of negative impact on image quality.' Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Apr 03, 2010 04:44 | #21 hollis_f wrote in post #9924232 Hmmmm, 'Consider using a UV....." doesn't really sound like a recommendation, more a suggestion. Certainly not as definite as 'I would remove all filters for maximum optical performance' or 'ANY and ALL UV/protection filters have some degree of negative impact on image quality.' Mr Misinformation has revisited the thread. You're selective quoting......... Cheers,
LOG IN TO REPLY |
blackhawk Goldmember 1,785 posts Joined Dec 2009 Location: East coast for now More info | Apr 03, 2010 14:00 | #22 dwarfcow wrote in post #9924122 if i invest thousands in a good lens, i want to see that in my images. if i damage my front element, i'll get it replaced, or replace the lens with a newer better one. ![]() On short lens (200mm or less) you will not see any degrading other than ghosting with point light sources in rare instances. You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em
LOG IN TO REPLY |
![]() | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such! 2633 guests, 157 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||