Jump to content
🇩🇪 Neu: Leica SL3 Reporter ×
🇺🇸🇬🇧 New: Leica SL3 Reporter ×

Heliopan vs B+W IR cut filters

hammam

By hammam
in Digital Forum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply
hammam

hammam

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thanks for the suggestion, Albert and Pascal. In fact, I've been considering subscribing to Sean's site for a while. I agree with you that he is a fantastic contributor here, and I've said so before, and he deserves to be supported. So, I just subscribed to his reviews. Good deed. And surely very useful.

 

Now, as much as I appreciate your wanting to help Sean, I'm a bit taken aback by your replies.There are so many threads started here and questions asked that could be answered by subscribing to Sean's site that I wonder why you singled out MY question about the filters to basically tell me to go and spend $32 US to find the answer. It kind of almost defeats the purpose of this forum, or any photo forum, don't you think? Do you suggest I check Sean's site every time I might have a question before asking here?

 

I just hope that my future questions won't be answered the same way. Surely, there must be some other way to promote Sean's work. All this said in a friendly manner :)

 

Now, since I just couldn't find the article on the filters on Sean's site, hard as I tried, and since I DID subscribe, can either of you now tell me what are the differences between the Heliopan and the B+W filters? Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
carstenw

carstenw

Posted
Posted

No, certainly not, but when one's *only* source of information is a pay site, just posting it here isn't fair either. I will certainly post freely what I have experienced myself, even if I saw it first on a pay site, but when I have not experienced it myself and can only quote the pay site, I draw the line.

Link to post
Share on other sites
stunsworth

stunsworth

Posted
Posted

Olivier, no idea about the comparison, but I've just received my first B+W 486 filer and it works!

 

The idea of telling people to subscribe to Sean's site is a bit of a concern. Suppose someone asks what is the best 28mm or 24mm lens, would people offer the same advice?

 

I'm sure Sean would be embarrassed if that was the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
lct

lct

Posted
Posted

Don't quite catch this story of pay site.

Is this something specific to US law or civilization?

What's the difference with a book, a record or a magazine?

If one read something interesting in any source of information, why couldn't he or she come and share it with us here?

Link to post
Share on other sites
hammam

hammam

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Don't quite catch this story of pay site.

Is this something specific to US law or civilization?

What's the difference with a book, a record or a magazine?

If one read something interesting in any source of information, why couldn't he or she come and share it with us here?

 

You are missing the point. There is no issue with the fact that Sean has a pay site and that someone recommends reading it. Sean works hard, he is a very valuable source of information and technical and artistic knowledge, he is a professional who makes a living out of photography and, as you say yourself, there's no difference between having to pay for a magazine or a book and his very useful site. There is nothing wrong with Sean asking readers to pay for what is basically a constantly evolving book on photography matters.

 

The problem is elsewhere: I'm worried, as are others, that replies like Albert's - well intentioned as it may be - amount to soon having to establish a list of subjects which will have been treated in depth by Sean on his site, and a list of other subjects. The latter being permitted on this forum, the former being "verbotten". This, like I said, not only defeats the purpose of the forum, but will also quickly become absurd.

 

If a fellow photographer asks me a question for which I learned the answer in, say, a photo magazine, I'm not going to say to my friend: "Sorry, buddy, I know the answer, but why don't you go and buy yourself the magazine?" What I might say would probably be something like: "The answer is this and that and, BTW, I learned it in (name of the magazine)."

 

If I know something which might help a fellow forum member, am I going to refuse to share it for fear of causing harm to Sean's site?

 

Here is what I would expect from a forum like this one: "Here is a quick answer, but if you want to learn more, I suggest you read Sean's review or article on the subject." Now, THAT would be helpful to me, to forum members AND to Sean.

Link to post
Share on other sites
sean_reid

sean_reid

Posted
Posted
Thanks for the suggestion, Albert and Pascal. In fact, I've been considering subscribing to Sean's site for a while. I agree with you that he is a fantastic contributor here, and I've said so before, and he deserves to be supported. So, I just subscribed to his reviews. Good deed. And surely very useful.

 

Now, as much as I appreciate your wanting to help Sean, I'm a bit taken aback by your replies.There are so many threads started here and questions asked that could be answered by subscribing to Sean's site that I wonder why you singled out MY question about the filters to basically tell me to go and spend $32 US to find the answer. It kind of almost defeats the purpose of this forum, or any photo forum, don't you think? Do you suggest I check Sean's site every time I might have a question before asking here?

 

I just hope that my future questions won't be answered the same way. Surely, there must be some other way to promote Sean's work. All this said in a friendly manner :)

 

Now, since I just couldn't find the article on the filters on Sean's site, hard as I tried, and since I DID subscribe, can either of you now tell me what are the differences between the Heliopan and the B+W filters? Thank you.

 

I can't speak for anyone else but I think that the comment were just meant to send you to a resource that might answer your questions. I don't think anyone was trying to blow you off, per se. I do appreciate that people are trying to respect the IP of Reid Reviews. The fact is that many questions on this forum have been addressed in my articles. But I certainly can't mention that every time someone posts a question. I sometimes read posts and quietlyshake my head because I know that the information the person needs has already been covered extensively on my site. So, when possible, I post a quick precis of some of the key points.

 

Cyan drift is more pronounced with the Heliopan filters and the color rendering is not quite the same as the 486 filters. So the corrections in 1.10 that are designed for the 486 filters are likely to not completely match the Heliopans. Examples, etc. are of course in the articles.

 

My advice is this: If one already owns a Heliopan digital filter, try it with 1.10 (when that is available) and see how it does. It may be just fine or "close enough". If one is buying filters, I'd recommend the 486 models because the Leica corrections will be designed to match them.

 

Some have suggested that the Heliopan filters are more resistant to flare and reflections than the 486s. I suspect that's not really the case but my last remaining set of filters tests will deal with that issue specifically.

 

I hope that you enjoy the site and that it is useful to you.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Link to post
Share on other sites
sean_reid

sean_reid

Posted
Posted
Olivier, no idea about the comparison, but I've just received my first B+W 486 filer and it works!

 

The idea of telling people to subscribe to Sean's site is a bit of a concern. Suppose someone asks what is the best 28mm or 24mm lens, would people offer the same advice?

 

I'm sure Sean would be embarrassed if that was the case.

 

I think people are trying to strike a balance, which is a reasonable thing to do. The reply to your theoretical question could run something along the lines of:

 

"My experience of the 28s and 24s is.......... I think........and recommend.... You may also want to consider Sean Reid's reviews at XYZ for more information".

 

I don't think anyone is holding back on sharing information from their own experience, etc. because of RR. That's very important to emphasize. I think RR should just be seen as an additional resource. It isn't taking away from the other knowledge people contribute to this forum, it just adds another, albeit optional, source. And, as I posted below, a lot of my work for RR gets to this forum and forum members (even those who don't subscribe to the site) benefit from the testing, etc. that I am able to do because I am a professional reviewer. For example, generally, if research for an article leads me to get new information from Leica, I post it here directly in addition to including it in my article. I'm sure you noticed many examples of that, including Leica's recent responses to the questions raised by my controversial survey.

 

Sean

Link to post
Share on other sites
sean_reid

sean_reid

Posted
Posted
So it is necessary to subscribe a review, a book or a magazine to discuss some matters here?

Is that the spirit of the Leica forum now?

 

LCT,

 

You know very well that it isn't necessary to read Reid Reviews to discuss a topic here. People will contribute opinions from their own experience, etc. but many are trying to respect my IP and not reproducing my results here. You and I have known each other since the Digilux 1 days and you've explained that you don't want to subscribe to the site because you don't have enough time to read it. That's fine and I respect that.

 

There are many sources people can draw upon for discussions here. RR is just one of them. What people who don't read the site may not realize is that a lot of responses on this forum (not only from me) are based in part on information that people have learned about from reading RR. I see it all the time. A lot of what I write about on RR eventually becomes common knowledge and its as if we've always known it. So, information from RR ends up coming into the forum in one way or another and I hope that people who prefer not to read the site can appreciate that. Whether you realize it or not, you've gained a lot of (hopefully useful) information from RR even though you choose not to read the site.

 

So RR isn't stunting discussion on the forum at all and it feeds a general level of knowledge that works its way into the forum regularly. Otherwise, people are just trying to respect my IP and I appreciate that.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...