ISO 50 and below

This will prove to most that I am an anarchist....or at least a dullard. And given the very detailed and insightful session on pixel physics (still haven't re-assembled all the grey matter that leaked out when my head exploded - I think some is permanently missing) I am a little wary of opening this can of worms....

I found myself recently having to look at the ND filter world in order to get the exposure settings I wanted. Too much light - who would have thought.... (Any suggestions would be appreciated on the quality ND set)

So why is it we discuss the other end of the spectrum, noise concerns, etc, I suspect more people push the higher iso limits, but we also have 1/8000 shutter speeds. I suspect the ISO 50 would be used more than the 1/8000?

Are there too few people looking for longer exposures in bright light? f22 has a significant image degradation and sometimes we don't want that forever DOF.... Or is there a physics thing again.

Thanks

Mike

Here's my 2 cents (worth every penny too:p).........

With Canon cameras I think only the 1D series offer ISO 50 (not sure of this) but anyway I think very low ISO settings are commonly used in landscape photography where the primary reason to acheive great detail and/or a long exposure with minimal noise. Even with ISO 50 an ND filter is still frequently needed for long exposures in normal daylight. The Lee filters and Singh Ray filters consistently seem to get good reviews. As for 1/8000 shutter speed, I do not see it being used much. Maybe because somewhat slower speeds will work for sports and wildlife except Hummingbirds or other high speed events where 1/8000 is too slow and the technique of multi-flash photography is then used. I don't why this issue isn't more frequently discussed.

You are not alone. I find myself using long exposures during broad daylight for flowing water, tree branch swaying, etc.

I would up with 3 Kenko solid ND filters (1, 2, and 3 stops) for 77mm threads which works for the three lenses I use the most for this. Beware of lower quality variable ND filters. I had one for about an hour that enabled long shutter times and provided the most artisticly blurred shots I have ever rejected. After that experience I went with separate filters as no local retailer carries the better variable versions in my area and I didn't want to waste more time before getting back to work.

Other people use the 4x4 and 4x6 plate filters. These can be used in the holders or just held against the front of the lens or hood which is a good choice for aligning graduated ND filters.

Should add that the 5D2 and 5D3 offer ISO 50 in the extended range. The question is whether it is really ISO 50 or a manipulation of an ISO 100 file?

It's a physics/electronic thing. A CMOS sensor has one 'native' level of sensitivity, usually in the ISO 100-200 range. Electronically, it's easier to amplify a signal (gain) than to reduce it, so the latter can only be done to a point.

Bottom line, if you want long exposures in daylight, or if you want to use your f/2 or faster primes wide open in sunlight, you need ND filters.

I use B+W filters, quality is excellent. They come in single- and MRC-coated versions, the MRC is easier to clean but otherwise not really necessary, since the main purpose of a multilayer coating is to reduce transmissive light loss, and the whole point of an ND filter is to lose that light.

The next issue is how strong? For fast prime portraits and adding motion blur to waterfalls, I find a 3-stop filter usually does the job. I don't see the point in anything weaker. Also, a CPL gives ~1.75-stops of darkening, and I sometimes use that with a 3-stop ND for moving water. I also use a 10-stop ND for extreme water blur, cloud blur, and to 'eliminate' people from architectural shots.

What about sizes? Depends on the lenses you'll use them with, of course. One possibility is to get filters sized for your largest diameter lens, and get step-up rings. I tried that - got 77mm filters and adapters. Then I got the 16-35L II, and needed 82mm filters (note: only Schneider Optics, B+W's parent company, make an 82mm threaded 10-stop, AFAIK). Also, I have a 72mm 3-stop since that fits all three of my fast primes (35L, 85L II, 135L) - one issue with step up rings is they usually preclude using a hood.

One other commonly recommended option is a variable ND filter. Some swear by them, others don't (I'm among the latter). There have been some threads on here discussing them, I'd summarize as anything short of the Singh-Ray or Schneider options give you a detectable IQ hit. My issue with them is I often use NDs with wide/ultrawide lenses, and just like a CPL results in uneven polarization with ultrawide lenses, vari-NDs (which are basically a pair of stacked polarizing filters) result in a 'Maltese cross' artifact with UWA lenses.

Probably too much information, but hope that helps...

--John

Thanks to all.

It sounds like I need to bite the bullet on the ND. I like the 3x and a good CPL. 4 stops is an iso of 6 from 100. What gets me is that per piece of glass the filters cost a lot more than a lens and I find it comical that Canon/Nikon, etc can shape both sides of a piece of glass, mount in precision alignment, etc than a flat piece of glass.

Just seems to rub me the wrong way.

I used to get bitter about prices too. After a while I realized that it was less expensive to buy rather than make. Of course if you went far enough to become a manufacturer than the high prices would keep you smiling all the way to the bank.

On a more practical note for you I'd recommend trying to dig up some lab comparisons on filters in general. High price tags do not mean higher quality!!! (Yes this includes B&W)

I chose the Lee filter system, it requires a mounting bracket, but with step up rings I can use my filters on any lens.
The quality of the filters is EXCELLENT

There are some good reviews of the Singh Ray variable filter, you might want to visit their website, the variable filter really makes sense.

I am a believer in that you get what you pay for

Thanks. I thought I saw some filter comparisons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iND

I chose the Lee filter system, it requires a mounting bracket, but with step up rings I can use my filters on any lens.
The quality of the filters is EXCELLENT

There are some good reviews of the Singh Ray variable filter, you might want to visit their website, the variable filter really makes sense.

I am a believer in that you get what you pay for

---

Great information here... thanks everyone! My own experience with the 77 mm Singh-Ray Vari ND has been excellent. My model is the 'duo' filter that incorporates a warming polarizer, so it's the perfect setup for waterfalls. The only catch is that because it's so thick, I can't use it at wider than 35 mm on my full-frame camera without vignetting. I also have a Lee filter system and use a Singh-Ray 5-stop solid ND with it, but it produces a rather strong colour cast that is a bit of a pain to remove (white balance adjustments alone don't work). I'd be interested to know if anyone has had better experience with 4"x6" ND filters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iND

There are some good reviews of the Singh Ray variable filter, you might want to visit their website, the variable filter really makes sense.

I am a believer in that you get what you pay for

---

Me, too. But...sometimes you are paying as much for hype as quality.

With the exception of ND filters where you want to reduce light transmission, it's generally accepted that multicoating is better than single coating is better than no coating. Yet, from the Singh-Ray FAQ:

Q6) Are your filters multi-coated?

A: No. We have carefully evaluated multi-coating of filters, and in our opinion, the benefits are negligible, and outweighed by several disadvantages.

What disadvantages? Honestly, I can only think of one - multicoating would increase production costs, which would decrease profit.

B+W, Hoya, and others publish their transmission curves so you can determine light transmission efficiency and color fidelity. Where are Singh-Ray's?

Mike,

Sometimes, it is necessary to just reduce the light in one part of your image without disturbing the other part. For example, you may want to tame the bright sky only while not affecting the exposure of the foreground. So, besides solid neutral density filters, they also have graduated ND filters, which are darker on the top and lighter or clear on the bottom of the filter. They also sell split GND filters that are threaded, however, then you lose the flexibility of where you would like the demarcation area line of the graduated filter to be, since it is fixed to the lens you are unable to move the filter up or down.

This is where the Lee or Cokin Filter Holder system plays a role. These filters are 4X4" or 4X6" and can be adjusted up or down in the filter holder which will adjust the graduation of the exposure within your frame. Also by having a separate filter holder system that attaches to your lens by an adaptor ring and/or step-up ring, you can buy expensive filters and share them between lenses. These filters and filter holders are also wider than most lenses in order to reduce vignetting.

I will also add that another use for ISO 50 or ND filters is for slower shutter "panning shots" in motor sports.

@iND, I'm glad you're happy with your Lee System.


@Jonathan, I'm fairly new to the 4 X 6's, but my observations so far are as follows. I have a Singh-Ray Reverse 3 GND and I compared it to the Lee 3 stop GND hard (sorry, I don't have sample photos). The Sing Ray actually "pretties-up the photo" a bit, which can be a very nice effect when shooting sun-scapes. The Singh-Ray does not appear as neutral as the Lee filter does, the Lee leans more towards the truly neutral grey side.

Just by looking through the filters without any lenses attached and holding them up to the Sky, I can see that the Singh-ray has a "very slight" color cast towards the blue side of grey and the Lee has no color cast at all and appears very neutral. I would imagine that these discrepancies are magnified at longer exposures. It's kind of like trying on different sun glasses.., some are neutral, some are grayish, blueish, or rosy. The Singh-Ray doesn't keep the clouds as white as the Lee, however the sky looks bluer and prettier through the Singh-Ray.

Another example; I was also looking at some cars through both filters by holding them up, and the color of the cars was exactly the same with the Lee Filter, white was white, red was red, blue was blue, whereas the Singh-Ray filter gave the color of the cars a "very slightly" richer color in every instance, very slight more saturation would be a good way to explain it. I would stress the word "slight." They are both top notch filters and the Singh-Ray quality appears to be actually higher to me. I would not hesitate to buy more Singh-Ray filters and I actually plan on doing so.

Last example, I would also say that the white foam of breaking water, looks more white with the Lee filter. The other factor leading to color casts may be the amount of IR let in via the longer exposures of the higher stop filters. I know that the Lee Big Stopper (10 stop) also claims to reduce the amount of IR that enters the image and this appears to be true as well.

Rich

Rich - thanks for that feedback. Very helpful. I am tempted to get that Lee 10-stop filter at some point. It's interesting that my Singh-Ray ND grads create zero colour cast, but the solid ND gives a big red cast. Maybe it's just the sensor on my 5D2 getting all mixed up by being completely covered. The Vari-ND is also 'clean', but that operates on a different principle with polarizers, so maybe that's the difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Then I got the 16-35L II, and needed 82mm filters (note: only Schneider Optics, B+W's parent company, make an 82mm threaded 10-stop, AFAIK).

---

John, As far as I knew too! Look what just came out, well almost out! :cool:

B+W 10 stop or 6 stop MRC 82mm:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._0_ND_MRC.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._8_ND_MRC.html

Yaay,
Rich

Good news, thanks, Rich!