Protection.

[ICary]

So, I'm gonna be filming some edits in the summer with slush conditions, due to it being summer and what not. I was wondering what most of you guys rocked with your camera to help keep it safe? Is a filter the best bet (clear or ND)? Should I buy a cage for my camera to make extra safe?

Usually I just rock it raw. But I never have it with me the whole day. I'm gonna be having it with me the whole day everyday so wanna make sure the camera is solid. This is all for a A7sii

Any input helps. Thanks.

 

[finnolydorb]

Cam will be fine if you are careful and I'm assuming you are if you are so concerned you started a thread about being careful, if anything gets damaged it will be the lens, just be careful or buy a variable ND filter. ND will protect the lens and is very useful.

 

[S.J.W]

always kept me safe

[img=]http://940ee6dce6677fa01d25-0f55c9129972ac85d6b1f4e703468e6b.r99.cf2.rackcdn.com/products/pictures/177279.jpg[/img]

 

[ascent_studios]

Condoms and if you are really worried try the extra thick

jk your camera should be fine, most cages are made for protection but in reality most people only use them for attaching monitors, handles, microphones, etc.

 

[CheddarJack]

Definitely put at least a UV filter on your lens. There's no reason to ever not have one on it as it protects the lens, unless you're being super anal about clarity. But even still,you probably wouldn't notice any difference with a relatively cheap one. I put UV filters on my lenses that minute I take them out of the box and only take them off to put a different filter on. For skiing they're really nice because snow gets on them all the time and you can wipe/clean them much more easily than the lens itself. When the snow melts and dries, it leaves a residue, which is again easier to clean off the filter. And if you're getting hesh with a super close shot and a ski whacks your lens, the filter will take the blow before the lens.

Also, if you have the budget, I would suggest an ND filter for ski filming. On a bright, sunny day, you'll probably have to crank your aperture and/or shutter speed to get the correct exposure, which will affect the quality of your shot. So if you care about that, shelling out the money for an ND filter will be worth it. Or if you're like me and just don't care enough/have better things to spend your money on, you can just deal with the loss in quality. Because of that, I can't recommend any specific ND filters, sorry.

 

[gabew34]

a small company called tadashi makes these really sick filters for fisheye lenses (probably work with ultra wides too). if i had an uwa lens it would be the first thing i would buy for ski filming.

link:https://tadashifilters.com/collections/all

 

[Laurent.]

Definitely put at least a UV filter on your lens. There's no reason to ever not have one on it as it protects the lens, unless you're being super anal about clarity. But even still,you probably wouldn't notice any difference with a relatively cheap one. I put UV filters on my lenses that minute I take them out of the box and only take them off to put a different filter on. For skiing they're really nice because snow gets on them all the time and you can wipe/clean them much more easily than the lens itself. When the snow melts and dries, it leaves a residue, which is again easier to clean off the filter. And if you're getting hesh with a super close shot and a ski whacks your lens, the filter will take the blow before the lens.

A UV FILTER DOESN'T PROTECT THE LENS FROM IMPACTS

A tiny 1mm thick little sheet of glass isn't going to protect a front element which is amongst the thickest pieces of glass in a lens assembly. In an impact great enough to properly scratch a front element the UV-filter will give and break without issues. And if the impact was weak enough for the UV-filter to withstand it would have done jack shit against the front element.

Hell the front element on zooms (not primes) isn't even the thing that breaks 50% of the times, it's the zoom/focus mechanism or an internal element tat shatters. Nothing a UV-filter would do against that.

And UV filters definitely degrade image quality, I'm no pixel seeker and I can clearly see the difference, besides UV-filters usually have issues with ghosting and glare.

I do think they have their uses for dusty environments (deserts) or to seal up a camera with a plastic bag for torrential downpour shoots, but definitely don't leave it on permanently.

You are being overly protective.

tl'dr: If a lens gets hit hard enough to break it, a UV-filter will do very little to stop it.

 

[ICary]

A UV FILTER DOESN'T PROTECT THE LENS FROM IMPACTS

A tiny 1mm thick little sheet of glass isn't going to protect a front element which is amongst the thickest pieces of glass in a lens assembly. In an impact great enough to properly scratch a front element the UV-filter will give and break without issues. And if the impact was weak enough for the UV-filter to withstand it would have done jack shit against the front element.

Hell the front element on zooms (not primes) isn't even the thing that breaks 50% of the times, it's the zoom/focus mechanism or an internal element tat shatters. Nothing a UV-filter would do against that.

And UV filters definitely degrade image quality, I'm no pixel seeker and I can clearly see the difference, besides UV-filters usually have issues with ghosting and glare.

I do think they have their uses for dusty environments (deserts) or to seal up a camera with a plastic bag for torrential downpour shoots, but definitely don't leave it on permanently.

You are being overly protective.

tl'dr: If a lens gets hit hard enough to break it, a UV-filter will do very little to stop it.

I put a UV filter on all the lens, this post is a little old, and I think it was a very smart move on a couple reasons. The biggest is that i film on snow every day, summer camp, it gets slashed with snow sometimes and it's nice knowing Its not hitting the actual lens.

I think it has a nice purpose and personally don't see an issue with image quality. But everyone is different. I think it's better than nothing for my situations.

 

[Laurent.]

I put a UV filter on all the lens, this post is a little old, and I think it was a very smart move on a couple reasons. The biggest is that i film on snow every day, summer camp, it gets slashed with snow sometimes and it's nice knowing Its not hitting the actual lens.

I think it has a nice purpose and personally don't see an issue with image quality. But everyone is different. I think it's better than nothing for my situations.

For dust and dirty grim you can use them, but using them to protect against damage from impacts is humbug.

(Slightly poor in science but significant enough results)

 

[CheddarJack]

A UV FILTER DOESN'T PROTECT THE LENS FROM IMPACTS

You are being overly protective.

tl'dr: If a lens gets hit hard enough to break it, a UV-filter will do very little to stop it.

I think we're kinda on two different pages here (you - large impacts, me - light, scratch-worthy "impacts"), but I'll respond anyway.

I have to respectfully disagree with you here, for the most part. I wouldn't deny that it's anal to use one for protection but who's to draw that line anyway? Besides, anal protection is definitely better than no anal protection, at least in my book...

I fully agree that it won't do shit in the case of a strong or head on impact, as your video proved. But that's not what I'm worried about. It's not every day you have a lag bolt falling directly on your lens. For more awkward, lighter, reasonable impacts that could, for example, dent the outer rim/threads or scratch the front element, I still think a filter has its place in protecting the lens. Like I said, it also makes cleaning easier - especially if I don't have a nice cloth handy. I don't mind using my t-shirt to clean a filter but would be hesitant to do so on an element.

It's also worth noting that I simply like the look of a filter over most bare lenses.

So at the end of the day: no, a filter certainly doesn't offer a condom level of protection - maybe more like just pulling out? But since putting a condom on a lens would definitely affect image quality, I'll stick with a filter.

 

[Laurent.]

Besides, anal protection is definitely better than no anal protection, at least in my book...

A small mark (dirt, smudge or scratch) on a lens will usually not much affect the image.

This is because such small lens marks are nowhere near the object plane and don't get focused on the image plane. Such lens marks may cause some diffraction issues, but unless the dirt or scratches are huge, this would not be noticeable.

On the other hand, small marks (dirt,smudge or scratch) on a filter can be close enough to the object plane to matter. Yes 0,5cm matter, and in some closer focusing circumstances this could allow those filter marks to partially focus onto the image plane and appear as blurry lines and blobs in the final image.

For dents and impacts use a hood, preferably a cheap Chinese metal one from eBay, those will act as a mini crumple zone in a big impact.

In the end people may have different opinions, but using filters for protection is really not necessary. There are two camps here and they never change their minds, this is quite possibly worse then PS4 vs XBONE.

 

[TWoods]

A UV FILTER DOESN'T PROTECT THE LENS FROM IMPACTS

A tiny 1mm thick little sheet of glass isn't going to protect a front element which is amongst the thickest pieces of glass in a lens assembly. In an impact great enough to properly scratch a front element the UV-filter will give and break without issues. And if the impact was weak enough for the UV-filter to withstand it would have done jack shit against the front element.

Hell the front element on zooms (not primes) isn't even the thing that breaks 50% of the times, it's the zoom/focus mechanism or an internal element tat shatters. Nothing a UV-filter would do against that.

And UV filters definitely degrade image quality, I'm no pixel seeker and I can clearly see the difference, besides UV-filters usually have issues with ghosting and glare.

I do think they have their uses for dusty environments (deserts) or to seal up a camera with a plastic bag for torrential downpour shoots, but definitely don't leave it on permanently.

You are being overly protective.

tl'dr: If a lens gets hit hard enough to break it, a UV-filter will do very little to stop it.

I put a UV filter on all the lens, this post is a little old, and I think it was a very smart move on a couple reasons. The biggest is that i film on snow every day, summer camp, it gets slashed with snow sometimes and it's nice knowing Its not hitting the actual lens.

I think it has a nice purpose and personally don't see an issue with image quality. But everyone is different. I think it's better than nothing for my situations.

Yea, I disagree, based on experience.

I have trashed several UV filters - mud, dust, lots of water. Done the best that I can do to ensure that when I clean them I don't scratch them, but I do anyways. I've also had a battery get loose in my camera bag while skiing and smash one on the front of a 1200$ lens, another time a rock bounced down a hill above me and hit the same lens and the front element was protected by a UV - UV was trashed but didn't break thankfully. I shoot with a d800, and besides some ghosting / flare that's rare, I have never noticed an issue with sharpness.

I'm firmly in the "buy a UV filter to protect your lens" camp. Even for the sake of dust getting in the lens housing - if your lens has a front element that moves when you zoom or focus (useless if the joint is on the barrel though) they keep SO much dust out. Especially while summer skiing, if you get snow on your lens that snow is full of salt. you don't want that in your lens.

I realize that a filter might not always protect your front element from impact, but there's a myriad of reasons other than specifically hard impacts to use them. Even if you think of them like a helmet - they are meant to crack and therefore absorb impact - that is worth it to me and they've saved my front element more than once from impact that would have at least scratched.