Member of the Month

X_MEMESWERVE_XX
March, 2025

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Really worth it to buy ND filter?

profile picture
Teeps
Posts: 308 - Karma: 2,590

I have recently been looking into buying a ND filter. When skiing on those really bright days, is it really worth having a ND filter? Or is it just easier to lower the aperture? Also, do ND filters make for a better image? Does anyone have experience with using them and can say they have noticed a big difference in image quality?

Just general thoughts on them and what they can do is appreciated as well.

Thanks

12 years ago
42 22
profile picture
CliffyByro
Posts: 5678 - Karma: 3,904
there are literally hundreds of blogs/ websites that could tell you this information and more on the internet.

the main point to make though is putting an ND filter on =/= decreasing the aperture size
12 years ago
2 1
profile picture
.qzyxya
Posts: 1479 - Karma: -26
Nd filters are only meant to decrease the amount of light coming through the lens, so the effect is the same as closing down the aperture (making it a bigger number). If its a bad quality one it might degrade the image a bit, but it doesn't make it better or worse usually. Basically it just lets you use a lower shutter speed/aperture (lower numerical value that is) when its bright out.
I have one for my 50mm which is nice for shooting at low aperture when its sunny out, but I haven't gotten one for my other lenses yet. Someone else can probably comment on wide angles and stuff
12 years ago
2 2
profile picture
CliffyByro
Posts: 5678 - Karma: 3,904
it doesn't affect the depth of field though, so other than that, this^
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
CBROOKS
Posts: 4979 - Karma: 10,708
NO.


ND's are great for filming skiing during the day. I find that without one I'm shooting up in the f22 range all day (assuming you're on a DSLR here..) If you throw an ND on you can come down to f9 and you will get significantly better DOF, which tends to make for a better looking image. That's not always a good thing though, you need to be on point hitting focus and paying more attention to keeping the same distance from your rider if you are following them.

I suggest getting a variable ND, but don't spend less than $200 or you may well find yourself with an inconsistent / degraded image.

12 years ago
3 0
profile picture
jkauffman22
Posts: 2592 - Karma: 1,150
^ Less than 200? Do you mean 20?
12 years ago
1 3
profile picture
CliffyByro
Posts: 5678 - Karma: 3,904
no, that shits expensive
12 years ago
1 0
profile picture
.qzyxya
Posts: 1479 - Karma: -26
My bad meant to say that obviously the aperture controls the depth of field and such. I meant like on a sunny day when you're already shooting wide aperture (say f8) its basically the same. Basically they just reduce light so you can use lower shutter speed or faster aperture.
12 years ago
1 2
profile picture
.qzyxya
Posts: 1479 - Karma: -26
double post derp, but couldn't you just google it instead of making a thread about this...

12 years ago
1 2
profile picture
jkauffman22
Posts: 2592 - Karma: 1,150
I know it's expensive but I'm pretty sure you can get a goo one for around 50ish and up
12 years ago
1 2
profile picture
steezysteeze
Posts: 1739 - Karma: 1,012
They're really not that good in that price range though. I bought a $100 fader ND for my 17-50 and at the filter's darker settings there is not consistent exposure across the frame. It's only really somewhat usable when at it's max setting when the lens is at 50mm.
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
CliffyByro
Posts: 5678 - Karma: 3,904
dude it's specialist equipment, you get what you pay for
12 years ago
2 0
profile picture
CrotchKiller
Posts: 9037 - Karma: 6,943
lold
12 years ago
3 0
profile picture
RockNRollNghtClb
Posts: 2013 - Karma: 2,509
why does every piece of video equipment have to be so god damn expensive
12 years ago
7 0
profile picture
SSteezle
Posts: 9457 - Karma: 2,362
in my opinion no. I don't notice enough of a difference between shooting at 1/60 or 1/2000 shutter, just crank that shit
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61862 - Karma: 125,748
After about 1/250 for 60fps there really isn't any difference, a ton of people shoot like that.


In the past i've shot 1/180 for 60fps but recently ive been shooting with other people who shoot 1/125 for 60fps so ive done that for my past few shoots and for some situations i really like it.
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
SSteezle
Posts: 9457 - Karma: 2,362
i also prefer to shoot 2x the frame rate, but just haven't convinced myself to buy another ND filter. I have one on my 35mm at the moment and it's almost more of a hassle having it, it kind of adds another step to the process of exposure and has actually made me miss shots in the past
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
Bloc_chain
Posts: 26051 - Karma: 4,431
no you can't, my b&w 3 stop fixed ND was $130

My nd saved my life on a shoot today
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
jkauffman22
Posts: 2592 - Karma: 1,150
Well that's crazy then. I didn't realize ND's were so expensive. Heed no attention to my previous comment
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
CliffyByro
Posts: 5678 - Karma: 3,904
story time
12 years ago
2 0
profile picture
Daski
Posts: 659 - Karma: 2,365
I don't have any experience with ND filters; having said that, if your lens has an infinity focus thing (yeah, thats definitely the technical term for it), then making the aperture a bigger number would be fine as long as you use the infinity focus thing. If everythings in focus, than depth of field doesn't make a noticeable difference, except in how light/dark the image is.
12 years ago
1 0
profile picture
Bloc_chain
Posts: 26051 - Karma: 4,431
No...lenses have peak sharpness, so say you are forced to stop down to f16 instead of f8, ya more would be in focus but it would be less sharp.

Cliffy, I was doing a shoot with this very attractive young women and needed that nd so I could shoot my rz wide open in bright light
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
CliffyByro
Posts: 5678 - Karma: 3,904
Haha ohhh i thought you meant it literally saved your life, like stopped a bullet or something
12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
SSteezle
Posts: 9457 - Karma: 2,362
ND filters aren't bullet proof
12 years ago
1 2
profile picture
CliffyByro
Posts: 5678 - Karma: 3,904
Click for larger image
12 years ago
4 1
profile picture
SSteezle
Posts: 9457 - Karma: 2,362
i hope you're face palming yourself. How the fuck would a ND filter literally save someone's life?
12 years ago
1 3
profile picture
Teeps
Posts: 308 - Karma: 2,590

Haha thanks for the info everyone, I appreciate the responses, they where all very helpful.

12 years ago
0 0
profile picture
CliffyByro
Posts: 5678 - Karma: 3,904
next time you're shopping, you should go get yourself a Sarcasm Meter in the You're A Retard store. i think it would suit you great
12 years ago
4 1
profile picture
CrotchKiller
Posts: 9037 - Karma: 6,943
gud 1 dude!!1!
12 years ago
1 1
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31074 - Karma: 29,630
yes it is worth buying an ND because #Art is made by shooting with narrow DOF
12 years ago
1 1
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
Photo gear is expensive for two reasons:

1) The R&D needed to produce them is huge, setting the profit bar relatively high.

2) We encourage those prices by buying it. Because we are brainwashed into thinking that we actually need half the shit they market in order to produce great work.
12 years ago
0 1
All times are Eastern (-4); Currently it's 7:05PM