The brass/aluminum question is just that--a question. Aluminum wiring is banned in many electrical codes because of the tendency of aluminum wiring to "creep" under pressure, and loosen. However, some grades of aluminum creep far worse than others. This said, I've never had a filter get stuck. The "sacrificial metal" argument may or may not be valid. Both sides of this argument have good points.
Now, not all of us are shooting spreads for GQ or Architectual Digest. If you are doing these, congrats. Your prices surely reflect the cost of your highend filters and other equipment. Not all of us are able to pass such costs on ot others.
I'm not doing these things, and never will. I'm shooting only for personal enjoyment and competition in a camera club. I sell some of my work, but I don't push it.
I have in my arsenal several brands of filters. B+W, Hoya, Quantaray and even a Kodak Gear filter. So far, I have been totally unable to identify which brand filter was used on a particular photo.
Not all of us have the same needs, abilities, and budgets. We all try to do the best wecan with what we have and can afford.
This evening I purchased some denatured alcohol to test its ability to clean the Hoya filter. I made a solution of 2:1 water to denatured alcohol. I placed several finger prints on the Hoya. Using a microfiber cloth a wetted a corner and applied it to the Hoya. The finger prints came off easily. I dried the filter with the remaining sections of the microfiber cloth. Quick, simple and easy to do. I then repeated the process on a B+W Kaeseman MRC CPL. Also, quick, simple and easy to do. Was the cleaning the Hoya noticably more difficult to clean? Nope, not if you have the right tools.
The one thing I will probably change is the dilution of the denatured alcohol solution. It will be more volatile if I use a 1:1 mixture or even straight up. I think a different dilution will facilitate cleaning even more. The person I spoke with at THK uses and recommended a solution of 30% denatured alcohol diluted and 70% ether. He liked the volatility of his solution. For most consumers, Ether is a bit more difficult to get than water.
But why even deal with special cleaning solvents, mixtures, and processes? Not to mention the time and added expense factor. I recently spent nine days in Utah and Arizona...even with the occasional fingerprint, cleaning the B+W MRC filters (CPL and UV) consisted of using a rocket blower, a little warm breath, and a microfiber cloth. Very easy, very little time, and definitely no additional expense of 'volatile' chemical mixtures, to use your words.
Not saying you must own B+W filters...but to each his own. I'm not a pro by any means, but I do value my time. I just can't see myself driving to some supplier, buying cleaning solvents (alcohol and ether), and then driving back home to mix up a batch when a simple little exhale and wipe with a cloth will do the job. If a filter needs much more than that to clean, then something's amiss. I just don't see a need to overcomplicate things. Your cost savings are probably getting eaten up in chemical costs, driving time, and 'lab' time. But if that's your preference, no one can argue with it. There's no real answer to the filter questions...
Mike Ganz wrote:
Perceived quality? I'll have to remember that after reading the next thread about a Hoya CPL that has self-destructed in its owner's hands.
There is an answer as there's a pecking order in the case of filters and quality. Some delight in making things difficult as opposed to just going with the flow, acknowledging these facts and moving forward, accordingly. Nothing wrong with saving a few bucks but in doing so there are real issues in regard to quality. To project that it's all a manufacture's based marketing shame, being foisted on the ignorant consumer is to be foolish at best.
My take on the thread and what it reveals; a personal philosophical (reality check) evaluation.
Life, in real terms is simple, maybe that's why some insist on making it complicated.
My migration; junk filters > HOYA S-HMC > B+W MRC. And when the need arises, I'll bump my MRC CirPl to Kaesemann. A thought; it now costs over a hundred bucks to fill the truck with gas; thanks to the shenanigans of futures speculators with their disingenuous comments of adding liquidity to the marketplace in order to hide the truth of their behavior; greed for their sake. The world's population being damned in the process. In the meantime, for the wife and I to do a movie, popcorn, soda and a hot dog (a cheap night out for a few hours) costs fifty bucks and yet some here are going quibble over quality and fifty bucks like it's the end of their wallet and they're some sort of fiscally conservative genius. Go ahead, save the money, nothing wrong with that but call it what it is; an effort to save some bread as it's okay to not find the minute differences worth the increased entry fee.
Siiiiigh!
As the world turns, so do we all but for some, the world spins and they don't cause the ground around them ain't moving.
An aside, here's what HOYA has to say about filter cleaning and chemicals:
CLEANING YOUR FILTERS:
Due to their high precision, filters should always be handled with care and kept clean whenever possible. Filters should be cleaned gently with just a lens tissue or soft cotton cloth, such as Hoya's Hi-Tech Microfibre cleaning cloth.
Never use any chemicals, such as lens cleaning fluid, on your filters, as these can damage the coatings. If any stubborn stains occur, these can usually be washed off with some clean water and a soft cotton cloth.
One might want to make note in regard to the part about not using "any" chemicals. Doesn't sound encouraging in regard to the use of alcohol and the longevity of coatings.
I appreciate the comments of my fellow FMers on this topic. However, I would like to remind some of the posters of the original question. I am looking for evidence (preferably objective) demonstrating filter quality. I began with the question of IQ, then moved on to other filter features.
So far, I have not found, through my limited internet searches, what I consider appropriate evidence to justify many of the claims that have been perpetuated in various threads. I appreciated those who have listed links that I have missed in my search. However, I'm still searching. I am hoping that the answer is still out there.
What I have found so far are many personal testimonials for one brand versus another. While this is informative, it is subjective. I have not found a contemporary review of filters similar to those offered when a new camera body is introduced. The questions still remains unanswered.
For many B+W considered the best or even a "gold standard?" Then, why aren't Heliopan or Lecia filters the best or gold standards? What are the bases for such claims? In the biomedical field, there are specific ways of establishing the gold standard. So far, I have yet to be shown published evidence of criterion tests for this benchmark.
There's a reason you're not stepping up and doing the tests yourself.
"In the biomedical field, there are specific ways..."
Nobody is stopping you from running and posting your own optical lab, peer reviewed, published tests.
"I may be asking too much of a hobby."
Me thinks you're asking (expecting) too much of the participants of this forum as sometimes our personal experiences are going be both our guide and reference.
jhom wrote:
I appreciate the comments of my fellow FMers on this topic. However, I would like to remind some of the posters of the original question. I am looking for evidence (preferably objective) demonstrating filter quality. I began with the question of IQ, then moved on to other filter features.
So far, I have not found, through my limited internet searches, what I consider appropriate evidence to justify many of the claims that have been perpetuated in various threads. I appreciated those who have listed links that I have missed in my search. However, I'm still searching. I am hoping that the answer is still out there.
What I have found so far are many personal testimonials for one brand versus another. While this is informative, it is subjective. I have not found a contemporary review of filters similar to those offered when a new camera body is introduced. The questions still remains unanswered.
For many B+W considered the best or even a "gold standard?" Then, why aren't Heliopan or Lecia filters the best or gold standards? What are the bases for such claims? In the biomedical field, there are specific ways of establishing the gold standard. So far, I have yet to be shown published evidence of criterion tests for this benchmark.
Personally, I think you're consumed with something that, in the long run, probably doesn't even matter to us mere hobbyists. If you cannot detect any degradation in image quality with what you are using, why even worry about it? On one hand, you're concerned about filter 'quality', but on the other hand you mention that higher-end filters only offer "perceived quality". Which is it, and how did you arrive at that conclusion? If you think that the quality of "higher end" filters is only perceived, then the entire thread is pretty meaningless IMO. Keep using what you're using, and I'll continue to waste my money on my perceived higher-quality B+W filters, albeit minus all the nasty chemicals. Sorry if that sounds a bit harsh, but sometimes we as hobbyists (or just plain old gearheads) get too hung up on things that really will have no effect on what we are doing. As I stated earlier, having to concoct a chemical soup to remove fingerprints from a filter means that something is amiss...there's no perception about a higher-quality MRC coating that only requires a little warm breath and soft cloth to come clean. Life's too short to fret over the minutiae. Just my final two cents.
I was in Borders last night and picked up a magazine from England called Digital Photographer Black and White. It was actually two magazines glued to each other back to back. The other side was something about portraits. It was $30.
It contained an article comparing the B+W, Hoya, and Cokin polarizing filters. It wasn't the scientific article that you were looking for, but more of a user review comparison. They did rate the optical (and build) quality of the B+W as the best of the three noting that none of the others could match a photo of blue sky with clouds. They felt the B+W had the best color rendition of the three. They also mentioned how if you look at a reflected lamp on the filter surface while holding the filter, there was much less reflected light from the B+W due to the MRC coating. A side bar also listed some other filters including Nikon, Canon, etc. but it didn't appear that these were as rigorously tested.
Barry, thanks for the lead. I will see if I can get a copy of the article. It would be interesting to evaluate the parameters used by the reviewer for his comparison and the specific results.
