Circular polarizer for Q3?

[Tjazz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I often use a circular polarizer filter on my SL2-S with good effect. Should I consider one for my Q3 for my outdoor shots in angled sunshine, water subjects, or when trying to cut glare in general? Clearly the screw-on hood will have to come off. Anyone else using this filter on their Q?

[David Wien]

I have generally given up using a polarizer with wide angle lenses on shots with large expanses of sky because the effect often varies across the wide expanse of the shot.

But dont let that stop you from experimenting. Compared with the cost of the camera, that of a Hoya polarizer is trivial!

David

[Tjazz]

56 minutes ago, David Wien said:

I have generally given up using a polarizer with wide angle lenses on shots with large expanses of sky because the effect often varies across the wide expanse of the shot.

But dont let that stop you from experimenting. Compared with the cost of the camera, that of a Hoya polarizer is trivial!

David

Interesting point. Thanks.

[Denebola]

I use a Hoya HD (the best available from Hoya when I bought it), and never noticed effects of non-uniformity given by the filter. Not only with the Q3, but on oter similar focal length of other brands (I suppose this could happen with shorter focal, but it's my guess only). BTW, I have no problems using other filters too (ND and black mist).

Yes, you need to unscrew the hood to mount it (as well as any other filter, of course), but I think that this little annoyance is positively compensated by the final image result.

Den

 

Edited December 1, 2023 by Denebola

[bobtodrick]

Use one often on my Q to bring out clouds…seems to work fine.

[Aram Langhans]

I use one quite frequently on the Q2 and now the Q3.  Works great in the situations where it is designed to work.  Of course, if you have vast sky you could get uneven darkening, but that will be on all cameras.  Works great for foliage and water.  True, you have to remove the hood and use the provided ring to use the lens cap (or get a 49mm cap), but I rarely use a hood anyway on my other cameras and lenses.  I think they are pretty poor at doing what they were designed to do, reduce glare.  Usually if you are going to get some glare, the hood is too small anyway, and I use my hand instead.  

So, go ahead and buy a good one (I use a B+W) and use it when needed. Just be aware of when it is not beneficial. 

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just note that on Q a linear pol filter is just as effective as a circular one. 

[M11 for me]

vor 8 Stunden schrieb bobtodrick:

Use one often on my Q to bring out clouds…seems to work fine.

Can you not do this very easily in post processing? I use LR Classic and I see no need for a filter for that purpose. Do I miss something?

[Patrick NL]

9 hours ago, jaapv said:

Just note that on Q a linear pol filter is just as effective as a circular one. 

Why would that be? What makes the Q different from other digital cameras in this respect?

[jaapv]

Nothing The only thing is that circular polarizers are made for cameras with a mirror in the light path. But many people think that they are better, which not. No need to spend extra money. 

[David Wien]

It used to be that one could buy linear polarisers easily, but now you have to search for them, as most assume that the circular variety, which cost more, must be better!

David

[bobtodrick]

6 hours ago, M11 for me said:

Can you not do this very easily in post processing? I use LR Classic and I see no need for a filter for that purpose. Do I miss something?

Always been of the mindset…take 5 seconds doing something incamera rather than 10 minutes on the computer.

[Denebola]

7 hours ago, M11 for me said:

Can you not do this very easily in post processing? I use LR Classic and I see no need for a filter for that purpose. Do I miss something?

Increasing the color intensity is of course feasible in post processing, but the reflex elimination or change in transparency of water (just to name few) is something than no post processing can do, only polarizers.

[hdmesa]

23 hours ago, David Wien said:

I have generally given up using a polarizer with wide angle lenses on shots with large expanses of sky because the effect often varies across the wide expanse of the shot.

But dont let that stop you from experimenting. Compared with the cost of the camera, that of a Hoya polarizer is trivial!

David

Using a linear polarizer as @jaapv suggested below might work better for you. A linear polarizer varies only the strength as you turn it; it does not change the angle of effect across the sky, which is what can make circular polarizers problematic.

6 hours ago, jaapv said:

Nothing The only thing is that circular polarizers are made for cameras with a mirror in the light path. But many people think that they are better, which not. No need to spend extra money. 

 

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, hdmesa said:

Using a linear polarizer as @jaapv suggested below might work better for you. A linear polarizer varies only the strength as you turn it; it does not change the angle of effect across the sky, which is what can make circular polarizers problematic.

 

This is not correct. Linear or circular have the same polarizer effect but a circular one has a second depolarizer filter behind the linear layer in front, the quarter wave plate  

Thr polarization of the sky is determined by the incidence angle of the light on the front filter. The depolarizer handles reflection problems behind the filter. 
https://www.lindseyoptics.com/blog/linear-polarizer-vs-circular-polarizer-whats-the-difference/

[Aram Langhans]

11 hours ago, jaapv said:

Nothing The only thing is that circular polarizers are made for cameras with a mirror in the light path. But many people think that they are better, which not. No need to spend extra money. 

Well, they might be better but not because of any difference in polarizing.  I don't know if anyone makes a linear polarizer anymore, so any you would find will be older and not have the modern coatings of a new circular filter.  

[jaapv]

Well, there are so many different applications apart from the narrow field of photography for different polarizers that the claim that "they will be older" is hard to substantiate.

https://www.edmundoptics.com/knowledge-center/application-notes/optics/polarizer-selection-guide/

[hdmesa]

4 hours ago, jaapv said:

This is not correct. Linear or circular have the same polarizer effect but a circular one has a second depolarizer filter behind the linear layer in front, the quarter wave plate  

Thr polarization of the sky is determined by the incidence angle of the light on the front filter. The depolarizer handles reflection problems behind the filter. 
https://www.lindseyoptics.com/blog/linear-polarizer-vs-circular-polarizer-whats-the-difference/

I just meant to communicate that when I rotate the ring on the linear polarizer, all I see is the sky getting darker or lighter evenly across the frame. I never see the weird effects in the sky with wide angles that I do with a circular polarizer.

[Aram Langhans]

3 hours ago, jaapv said:

Well, there are so many different applications apart from the narrow field of photography for different polarizers that the claim that "they will be older" is hard to substantiate.

https://www.edmundoptics.com/knowledge-center/application-notes/optics/polarizer-selection-guide/

In 49mm filter rotating mounts?  A few on B&H but not with any of the new coatings, or at least they do not say so.  Most are Tiffen, and probably not coated at all.  Personally I think the Q lens deserves a filter that will allow it to shine.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[jaapv]

OK, coating is a consideration.