M240 and ND filter users?

[MirekE]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am considering getting a couple of ND filters. I am looking for recommendation for good quality 3 stop and ~7 stop filters that do not cause IR contamination. Any tips? Sample shots are welcome!

[jaapv]

Why should they cause IR contamination?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[250swb]

B+W are the best make imo, but as Jaap says they won't cause IR contamination, with near to normal exposure ranges. An ND8 will give you a 3 stop reduction, but a 7 stopper is dense, you are nearly at welders glass level and it would be an ND128. At that level you may run out of exposure time (and start to get IR interference) at small apertures, and be limited to slow speeds at other times, unless it is only for a wide open Noctilux in very bright sunshine. Either way, not many manufacturers will do one.

 

Steve

[MirekE]

Why should they cause IR contamination?

 

It is about the combined absorptions of the ND filter and the sensor IR filter. When the absorption of the ND filter drops around 700nm, the transmittance of the system may have a bump somewhere around 800nm. This may be pronounced with stronger ND filters and cause color issues.

 

There are filters from Tiffen that combine IR cut and ND filters in one, but they are only made in oddball sizes. So I would like to know how are regular B+W filters doing on the M240...

Edited August 7, 2013 by MirekE

[MirekE]

... but a 7 stopper is dense, you are nearly at welders glass level and it would be an ND128. At that level you may run out of exposure time (and start to get IR interference) at small apertures, and be limited to slow speeds at other times, unless it is only for a wide open Noctilux in very bright sunshine.

 

Steve

 

Yes, that one is meant for tripod and landscape use.

[pedaes]

B+W work, and they do a full range of strengths. Can of course be doubled-up on lens.

[HeinzX]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

B&W are good choice, Heliopan are good choice too. I use B&W with my 5 D III, Heliopan with my Leica M. Both make very good Polarisation filters too.

[jaapv]

Heliopan have a vario one.

[digitalfx]

It is about the combined absorptions of the ND filter and the sensor IR filter. When the absorption of the ND filter drops around 700nm, the transmittance of the system may have a bump somewhere around 800nm. This may be pronounced with stronger ND filters and cause color issues.

 

There are filters from Tiffen that combine IR cut and ND filters in one, but they are only made in oddball sizes. So I would like to know how are regular B+W filters doing on the M240...

 

Well actually the Tiffen NDIR are standard sizes...its Leica that uses "oddball sizes". And yes ND filters generally over ND9 will cause IR contamination...I stick with ND6 for this reason. Its very subtle at ND 9, and much more noticeable above ND9 which I would avoid.

[rickp13]

Heliopan have a vario one.

 

and B & W. expensive at €219 in 58mm, but MRC, nano-coated etc. i'll write something here when the lens and vario ND have arrived.

[sanyasi]

If I am interested in blurred motion, I tend use my Canon 5D, III. However, I have purchased several ND filters for my Leica M cameras because I am inclined to leave the Canon at home when I travel. I have never had a problem, although sometimes I do very long exposures, which is a problem with the M's bulb limits. Here are two photos that I took with the M using ND filters. It was late dusk at the time.

 

The Sanyasi-Aesthetic | Big Sur & San Francisco | The Wind It Takes You Where It Wants To Go

 

The Sanyasi-Aesthetic | Big Sur & San Francisco | Mountains Beyond Mountains

 

I'd like a do-over on Photo 2, the depth of field wasn't right, but that's life. People still seem to like it, but I notice the problem.

 

I use the B+H circular filters, but if something isn't in stock, I will purchase the Heliopan filter.

 

I am reluctant to stack filters due to resulting distortion. I have tried it. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. The wider the angle, the more likely you will run into trouble. But if you are doing landscape type work, you certainly have some time to experiment. The last time I stacked, I combined a neutral density filter with a contrast filter. Seemed to work, but I didn't like the composition so I discarded the photo.

 

Good luck

 

Jack Siegel

 

P.S. On the Canyon, I use the Singh Ray ND filter that allows you to dial in the amount of ND you want. Certainly a lot better than carrying three or four different filters.

[MirekE]

How strong filters do you use Sanyasi and do you have any issues with green (foliage)?

[MirekE]

Well actually the Tiffen NDIR are standard sizes...its Leica that uses "oddball sizes". And yes ND filters generally over ND9 will cause IR contamination...I stick with ND6 for this reason. Its very subtle at ND 9, and much more noticeable above ND9 which I would avoid.

 

ND9 meaning 9 stops or 3 stops?

[01af]

ND9 meaning 9 stops or 3 stops?

Filters like "ND6" or "ND9" don't exist—except maybe in digitalfx's imagination. So it could mean just about anything ...

[digitalfx]

Filters like "ND6" or "ND9" don't exist—except maybe in digitalfx's imagination. So it could mean just about anything ...

 

wow...

 

ND3 = 1 stop

ND6 = 2 stops

ND9= 3 stops

 

ND3 generally refers to .3 and so on.

[sanyasi]

How strong filters do you use Sanyasi and do you have any issues with green (foliage)?

 

First, I tend to do urban landscapes and water, so my experience may not be representative. I haven't had a problem, but I don't think I've been in a situation where there is a lot of green foliage--and as I said--I most often use my Canon when I am interested in slowing things down.

 

Unless you go with the Lee filters or equivalent (the square or rectangular ones that fit into a holder), outfitting prime lenses gets expensive Looking at the filter case where I keep the filters I carry with me, I see that I have a 39 ND .6; a 39 1.8; a 46 .6; a 46 1.8; a 49 .9; and a 49 1.8. I also believe I have a 39 3.0, but it is not in my pouch. Given my purposes, I tended to go on the dark side. The 1.8 gives you 6 stops reduction and the 3.0 gives you 10.

The 39 is for my 35mm lens, which is what I am most likely to use when thinking about ND issues. I don't have any for my 90mm lens, which is a 55 thread.

 

Hope that helps

 

Jack Siegel

 

P.S. Here is a chart on ND intensity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_density_filter.

[01af]

ND3 generally refers to .3 and so on.

In fact, "ND3" refers to nothing. It could be a typo and could mean ND .3 or ND 3× ND +3 or ND 3.0 which would mean one stop or 1.6 stops or three stops or ten stops, respectively.

 

So if you want to say, ND 0.3, then don't write ND3, okay?

[digitalfx]

In fact, "ND3" refers to nothing. It could be a typo and could mean ND .3 or ND 3× ND +3 or ND 3.0 which would mean one stop or 1.6 stops or three stops or ten stops, respectively.

 

So if you want to say, ND 0.3, then don't write ND3, okay?

 

 

Actually you are incorrect. ND3 has always referred to ND 0.3

Its an industry definition...so take a pill and relax. Im a filmmaker and ND3, ND6 ND9 has been the way we refer to these filters for 50+ years.

http://www.filmtools.com/ndfilters.html

ND 0.9(aka ND9)

Edited August 7, 2013 by digitalfx

[250swb]

Different manufacturers use slightly different conventions, so while B+W may put ND 0.4 on the filter, Hoya put NDx4. Hoya also put ND4 and NDx4 on the case the filter lives in. I think with all these clues it is fairly easy to sort out what the designations mean without being pedantic, communication usually requires some sort of shorthand and shouldn't need a book writing about a subject just to make a simple point.

 

Steve

Edited August 8, 2013 by 250swb

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[01af]

ND3 has always referred to ND 0.3. Its an industry definition ...

Sigh ...

 

Tiffen brand's product names are no "industry definition." You could just as well say, ND3 always referred to ND 3× because that is what the English-language Wikipedia article on neutral density filters currently (and falsely) is suggesting. Or 101 referred to ND 0.3 because that's the B+W brand's product name.

 

Industry definitions usually make sense. But "ND3 = ND 0.3" doesn't. So it isn't. Instead, ND 0.3 refers to ND 0.3. As simple and straightforward as that.

 

 

... so while B+W may put ND 0.4 on the filter, Hoya put NDx4.

So this little digression into neutral-density filter naming conventions (or lack thereof) has eventually led you into thinking that "ND 0.4" was another way to say "NDx4" (which, in turn, probably is supposed to mean "ND 4×")?

Edited August 8, 2013 by 01af