Camera Labs

Even though there is light loss from the filter, the exposure meter in the camera will still work like normal to get an overall target level. e.g. less light = longer exposure time. So like normal, it usually takes a little less exposure to get more detail out of clouds.

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.

Whats the difference between Hoya CPL Filter HMC and Hoya CPL Filter HMC Super?

What do i get with the "super" version?
Higher quality, ofcourse, but is it noticeable?

_________________
Canon EOS 40D - Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM - Canon EF 50/1,8 II - Canon EF 70-200/4L IS USM - Speedlite 430 EX - Lowerpro Nova 4 AW
My Flickr

Hi Khol, I own a Super HMC from Hoya and I'm very pleased with it.

I don't have any non-super HMC to make a comparison but, according to Hoya's website info about their filters, Super-HMC features more layers of anti-glare coating and they also claim they let 99.7% of light through while their "non-super" counterparts must settle at 97%.

I don't know what the price difference is, but I found a reasonably good deal on my Cir-PL super HMC (about 45US$ for the 52mm version) when I bought it, so unless the difference is big and you're on a tight budget, I'd go for the "super" one, the less glare and the more light going through the filter, the better.

_________________
Nikon D90 | AF-S 18-200 VR II | AF-S 35mm f/1.8 | Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 | SB-600 | Gorillapod + Manfrotto 484RC2

I have been told to be careful using a CPL on an UWA lens such as the Canon 10-22mm. With an UWA lens the sky may come out with unmatching colors towards the edges of the photo.

Should I just go with a UV filter or the CPL as well? If I should get a CPL, how much better are the new Hoya HD CPL's versus the older models? How long do high quality CPL's / UV filters typically last? > I really don't mind spending $200 on a filter if it will give me years of use!

Looking to purchase the lens / filters by tomorrow

Thanks for any help!

If you plan to use the polariser on a ultra wide angle lens, get the slimmest you can find (ie the Super-HMC Pro). That way you'll minimize vignetting problems.

AFAIK, as long as you keep them away from scratches and clean them carefully to avoid damaging their coating, a good quality filter could last you a lifetime.

Frankly, I don't know how good Hoya's HD filter's are, but I guess any improvement is welcome, and if you say you don't mind spending 200 bucks, then definitively buy the best you can find.

_________________
Nikon D90 | AF-S 18-200 VR II | AF-S 35mm f/1.8 | Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 | SB-600 | Gorillapod + Manfrotto 484RC2

Can you have a filter and a lens hood attached to the camera at the same time? I'm thinking about purchasing the Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM lens so was wondering what filter to buy and if I should bother with a lens hood as well..

Yes you can. Although it can make the filter a bit difficult to adjust.

Mark

_________________
Canon EOS 40D / EF-S 17-85mm IS / EF 50mm f/1.8 / My Flickr

Hi Gordon, i have been watching your video reviews in cameralabs and your tips in dsrltips even before i bought my dslr camera. Good job and keep it up.

My question is, in the video on How to use a filter, you said that CPL also reduce or even eliminate reflections from non-metallic subjects. and i have been trying to look for your discussion on this and was unable to find it. Anyway, is it CPL that pro photographers used to make a boat seem like floating? you know, eliminating the reflection on the water or sea thus making the boat seem like floating? Please enlighten the newbie.

_________________
It's not the camera, it's me.

I believe a normal polarizer will work on water...It won't make it disappear though. Can you post an example image?

_________________

It's like when you'r in a lobby or something indoors, and there's a little pool of water, with rocks and stuff on the bottom. The water looks totally transparent.

Example outdoors:


Here is another example, where the polarizer makes it not so harsh.

_________________
Sonyian?

My Flickr - Comments very welcome
Gear: a200, Sony 18-70 3.5-5.6 DT, Minolta 50 1.7 AF, Lowepro TLZ Mini, GorillaPod SLR Zoom
Saving for Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX HSM Macro II (50%)

I think 0eyvind's great sample shots are explicit enough: Polarizers don't make water "disappear", they only eliminate reflections on it's surface, making it appear more transparent and thus allowing us to see deeper into it. There's no such thing as to make a boat appear to be floating though (without Photoshop, that is... ).

The effect of eliminating surface reflections is even more dramatic when the water is a little bit deeper than in 0eyvind's shots. I can't check it up now because I don't have access to youtube at the office, but I think I remember to have seen an example in Gordon's workshop in which you could see two pictures of the same zone of a water pond, one of them shot with a polarizer and the other without; in the later you could see nothing below the surface because of reflections, while in the former you could clearly see into the water and watch the bottom of the pond and some fishes swimming around which you simply couldn't see in the first shot. This is a great effect but still you can easily tell there's water there.

_________________
Nikon D90 | AF-S 18-200 VR II | AF-S 35mm f/1.8 | Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 | SB-600 | Gorillapod + Manfrotto 484RC2

Good point beren23, I think you hit the nail on the head.

_________________

Imagine if polarizers did make water dissapear. You could make people swim in the air, without PP or other cheating

_________________
Sonyian?

My Flickr - Comments very welcome
Gear: a200, Sony 18-70 3.5-5.6 DT, Minolta 50 1.7 AF, Lowepro TLZ Mini, GorillaPod SLR Zoom
Saving for Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX HSM Macro II (50%)

hehehe
hi all, thanks for the reply... I didn't that boat would actually look like flying, but yeah, the water is so clear that you can see the bottom of the boat... So, a regular polarizer would do the trick huh?

_________________
It's not the camera, it's me.

It would still depend on a lot of factors, even if you use a polarizer, there's still things to consider such as:

1) First and most important is, of course, light availability.
2) Cleanness of the water (transparency).
3) How deep goes the boat bottom below the water line. Water blocks light relatively quickly and it may well happen that there's just not enough light reaching the bottom.
4) Etc.

Anyway, the short answer to your question is yes, the polarizer will allow you to get rid of surface reflections and thus reach deeper into the water, how deep however depends in a lot other things.

_________________
Nikon D90 | AF-S 18-200 VR II | AF-S 35mm f/1.8 | Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 | SB-600 | Gorillapod + Manfrotto 484RC2