Keith (M) Posted August 7, 2011 Share #1 Â Posted August 7, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) On the basis that I would like to have the opportunity to use my new C-Sonnar 50mm f1.5 at it's max aperture whilst outdoors, I am looking for a ND filter (46mm size). Given that the M7's max shutter speed is 1/1000sec, the least I need is a 0.9. Â Searching on-line UK sources I came across a Tiffen 46ND9 @ GBP27.99 on Amazon, was considering ordering it when I noticed they listed an alternative - a Polaroid Optics (same size and strength) at GBP7.99! Now normally I work on the basis that 'if it seems to good to be true etc....' but the Polaroid website product description makes all the right noises. Has anybody any experience of their filters? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 7, 2011 Posted August 7, 2011 Hi Keith (M), Take a look here ND Filters - Quality?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
richfx Posted August 7, 2011 Share #2 Â Posted August 7, 2011 Your mileage may vary, but I think there's a consensus among Leica shooters that B+W filters, particularly those with multi resistant coatings (MRCs), are of extremely high quality and workmanship. I just bought a B+W 58mm MRC ND .9 ND filter for my CV 50mm Nokton 1.1 lens and it works quite well. Rich. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
christer Posted August 7, 2011 Share #3 Â Posted August 7, 2011 I did some testing a few days ago to see if negatives exposed using the M7 meter would yield the same negative densities with and without a B+W ND 1,8 filter. The answer is "no". The "with filter negatives" were noticeably thinner than the "no filter negatives". I used three common but unsimilar motives for the test and also a large grey card. I shall measure the negatives next week and if somebody is interested, I shall come back with quantified results. Â Looking at the negatives with a loupe, I found the "with filter negatives" less sharp than the "no filter negatives". These were handheld photos, and the longer exposure times with the filter may have played an important role. Next time I have some spare frames I shall do some more testing using a tripod. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith (M) Posted August 7, 2011 Author Share #4 Â Posted August 7, 2011 Crister - thanks for the post. Presumably a 1,8 ND filter equates to six stops? If so, definitely tripod-territory. Â As to B+W filters, almost all my other filters are B+W but I am finding it difficult to source a B+W 46mm ND 0.9 filter in the UK for delivery before I depart on an extended trip. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
richfx Posted August 7, 2011 Share #5 Â Posted August 7, 2011 As to B+W filters, almost all my other filters are B+W but I am finding it difficult to source a B+W 46mm ND 0.9 filter in the UK for delivery before I depart on an extended trip. Â Agreed - I waited six months for a B+W MRC 58mm ND .9 in the States. Could have gotten one without the coating, but I chose to wait. Rich Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted August 8, 2011 Share #6 Â Posted August 8, 2011 Keith, Â I use Heliopan filters, which seem to have an excellent name and I've found to be very good although I haven't done the density test. They're available in the UK from TeamWorkPhoto who deliver the next day and will ring you if what you've ordered is out of stock or they can't supply for some other reason. Â Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted August 8, 2011 Share #7 Â Posted August 8, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have bought some filters from a company called Foto-Huppert (Willkommen bei Foto Huppert) which has a multilingual website and a large inventory of b+w filters. They deliver promptly and reliably by mail within the EU. Try them. Â The old man from the Age of the Y Filter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
willemr Posted August 8, 2011 Share #8 Â Posted August 8, 2011 Hi Lars, Â thanks for the link. Just ordered a 46mm B+W ND 102 MRC filter (credit card payment and international shipping is available). Couldn't find any in the Netherlands. I guess the 46mm filters are kinda exotic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
photoart Posted August 9, 2011 Share #9 Â Posted August 9, 2011 I suggest also the filter from B+W with MRC coating or Heliopan with SH-PMC coating (attractive prices but more difficult to get one) have both of them and they works fine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
christer Posted August 9, 2011 Share #10 Â Posted August 9, 2011 I did some testing a few days ago to see if negatives exposed using the M7 meter would yield the same negative densities with and without a B+W ND 1,8 filter. The answer is "no". The "with filter negatives" were noticeably thinner than the "no filter negatives". I used three common but unsimilar motives for the test and also a large grey card. I shall measure the negatives next week and if somebody is interested, I shall come back with quantified results..... Â I have now measured the test negatives (a grey door, non glossy paint, not a true 18% reflective grey card). The "with filter negatives" were two-thirds stop thinner than the "no filter negatives". Â Two-thirds stop is also the adjustment I use with my B+W 041 orange-red filter, this just based on experience rather than testing as I am unsure how to test with a color filter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith (M) Posted August 9, 2011 Author Share #11  Posted August 9, 2011 I have now measured the test negatives (a grey door, non glossy paint, not a true 18% reflective grey card). The "with filter negatives" were two-thirds stop thinner than the "no filter negatives". Two-thirds stop is also the adjustment I use with my B+W 041 orange-red filter, this just based on experience rather than testing as I am unsure how to test with a color filter.  Thank you for the information. I may be being a bit dim but are you saying that the M7 was under-exposing by two-thirds of a stop, so the ND 1,8 was in effect six and two-thirds stops rather than just six stops? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
christer Posted August 9, 2011 Share #12  Posted August 9, 2011 .... ....... are you saying that the M7 was under-exposing by two-thirds of a stop, so the ND 1,8 was in effect six and two-thirds stops rather than just six stops?   Yes, indeed. Or to be quite careful with the wording: "My M7 thought it was a 5 and one third factor filter, while it in effect it was a 6 stop adjustment filter".  No, not even that must be correct. I am now curious to see if my M7 changed the exposure by six stops (the filter being in effect six and two-thirds stops filter) or by 5 and 1/3 ---- or something else. I'll let you know. Not that it will make my pictures any better ;-)   I would not over exaggerate the two-thirds stop underexposure, but I generally tend to expose "sparingly", and in those circumstances the additional underexposure is undesirable.  BTW, I used TMX and Xtol 1+1 for my test. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
christer Posted August 9, 2011 Share #13 Â Posted August 9, 2011 Actually, my M7 adjusted the exposure by exactly 6 stops when I attached the ND 1,8 filter to the lens, but this was insufficient by two-thirds stop. At least for my film/developer combination. Â With the orange/red filter it was a different story. A two-stop adjustment should be needed, the adjustment was only from 1/500 to 1/180 whereas 1/125 would be required. Â Yes, I am aware that the display is not continuous, but a two-thirds stop adjustment seems to work fine for me for both filters. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.