Frage von SebiG:
I had my XH-A1 is not very long and bäuchte right before I go out to turn a filter to protect the lens.
Since I've been using proboscis Preste course I first compatriots what he used to filter and now there is the question what would s.besten:
Polfilter Heliopan SH-PMC
or
Protection Heliopan SH-PMC
The polarizer is of course an influence on the picture, while the filter protection only serves to protect. Synonymous Therefore the question whether it is not combined with the presets would be better to take the polarizer? Plays no role, I would but it was only then that times to draw purely Protection filter. Since I primarily just want to protect the lens.
Antwort von nicecam:
Hello SebiG,
Also did you help me, perhaps I can now reciprocate.
Synonymous Therefore the question whether it is not combined with the presets would be better to take the polarizer? Plays no role, I would but it was only then that times to draw purely Protection filter. Since I primarily just want to protect the lens. The question I am explicitly not to answer, but I basically only films with UV filter as lens protection. So I changed it with all my held camcorders.
Well, I got my XH-A1 so yesterday, but the UV filter, because I immediately had mitbestellt (B + W), is only me for the weekend in prospect.
So did the first Ojektivdeckel it.
Earlier I went to come - has lasted a small eternity - that I do a UV filter with 72 mm diameter for the wide-angle converter my HV-20 had. Now just sit in front of my XH-A1.
And that is the
Antwort von High_Tension:
I would say that a polarizer is entirely unsuited to the lens to protect it. Reason (as you yourself have said): he changed the picture. That has nothing to do with the presets to be done.
If you want something that is always in front of the lens remains appropriate, take NEN UV filter or filters.
I personally am not a fan of something permanently in front of my lens to have because I subjectively think that the glass synonymous additional Optics slightly changed. The best solution is in my opinion, just careful with the way Cam and the lid is always good thing to do.
Antwort von ruessel:
The polarizer, I have until now only once on the XHA1 screwed, it was with a product range of wind turbines. Fortunately I had the settings without even synonymous polarizer made ..... I had exactly that later in the film exhibition made synonymous.
For me, the polarizer in the XHA1 somehow useless, the camera lenses are heavily coated and delete a little color reflections and the sky a little blue as in the present reality.
The polarizer, I will only come back when shooting through glass mirror from the camera pick suitcases. For me, the Polfilteraufnahmen to "death", they are blunt and are synonymous slightly overexposed s.den bright points of the image (although manual exposure )..... Of the strange colors not to mention.
But that is as always a matter of taste.
Antwort von SebiG:
Does a UV filter for XH-A1 really was? So you see there NEN difference, otherwise I would only just take the protection and good.
Antwort von KrischanDO:
Moin,
apparently is the purpose of polarizing filters are not all known.
Polarizer only allow light of a vibration level. In reflection on nonmetallic surfaces, light is polarized.
Wegfiltern is the reflection of blue sky in leaf green, or all sorts of surfaces, making these colorful effect.
Reflections on water surfaces or (non-metallised) glass can be partially off. As the light blue of the sky synonymous partially polarized is synonymous changes its playback. For extreme wide angle lenses you will see very strange course of effects.
For reflections on metallic surfaces to influence, you have already been to polarize the light.
Depending on the position and the light changes the light transmission.
The Pol-filter is not a protection filter, which is always on the optics can be.
Regards
Christian
Antwort von Bernd E.:
... Bring a UV filter for XH-A1 because really what else ... in fact, I would just take the protection ... No. Optics in this category should still to an additional filter as protection against UV-radiation dependent, because the lens creates a very well alone. If the filters the same quality that is cheaper to get, you can safely take the synonymous - and any NoName-Cheap glasses screw you anyway before the Lens. Heliopan is because in any case a good choice.
Gruß Bernd E.
Antwort von ruessel:
and any NoName-Cheap glasses screw you anyway before the Lens. Very true.
However, I am not quite sure whether to HDV resolution on any difference between various filtering companies can see. I commend myself from my own experience Heliopan ever since I was with an extreme high-resolution (100 megapixel, 5K vertical) Panoramic Camera very good glass differences in UV filter could see was at Heliopan until now everything is in order in the Picture.
There are so synonymous Hardcore Filmer all the filter before the lens to reject, since each additional glass / air surface adversely affects the Picture. This is synonymous correctly, but when HDV Resolutionist is probably not quite as critical. Worse is the glass surface of the XHA1, the front glass is coated seltsam (gummy) and it is very difficult to clean. Especially in the XHA1 does a protective filter to quickly clean any sense to me ..... whether or UV protection is actually cold. My front glass surface I have never cleaned, only the neutral vorgeschraubte filter glass was often in an ultrasonic bath ......
