Any latest consensus on ND filters?

[kaitlyn]

Before my last trip I wanted to pick up ND filters, but most were out of stock.

Now, it seems that in addition to the polarpro ones I was looking at there is cheaper Taco and Freewell? It also seems DJI released a new version of their own, although the ND strength isn't as much.

Is there a general consensus here about which ones are the best value to go with?

 

[bvsolutions]

Before my last trip I wanted to pick up ND filters, but most were out of stock.

Now, it seems that in addition to the polarpro ones I was looking at there is cheaper Taco and Freewell? It also seems DJI released a new version of their own, although the ND strength isn't as much.

Is there a general consensus here about which ones are the best value to go with?

I use the PolarPro. They are effective. Make a big difference on bright days. I have not used others, as long as they work without blocking the movement of the gimbal. I have not found a use for anything above 8

 

[LeafPeeper]

I went cheap (since I didn't expect to use them often) and bought the Neewer 5 filter set (UV, CPL, ND4, ND8, ND16) and I think they are fine. They go on easy and stay on, and don't interfere with the gimbal. I keep the UV one on most of the time as simple lens protection, but it does add a bit of glare at the right (wrong?) angles.

Frankly, I like taking stills, and don't care about 'cinematic' motion in video - so I don't see any reason to restrict light via NDs. I want as fast a shutter speed as possible to insure clear stills w/ no motion blur.

LP

 

[dacarter]

I also bought the 5 piece Neewer's filter set off Amazon for $29 and used the ND16 during a recent very sunny trip to Roatan (see video link in the "First Trip with Mavic Thread"). It seemed to work great and video quality was greatly improved.

 

[LeafPeeper]

I played with them a bit when I first got them, but I didn't really see much of a difference in the smoothness of video. Technically, assuming you're not reducing the exposure, they should LOOK the same, but motion should be smoother. Is that what you mean by 'greatly improved?

LP

 

[dacarter]

To me, the contrast and color saturation looks better. This agrees with other comparison shots I have seen on YT. The motion smoothness is noticeable too. Nearly all drone video has motion, so this is really important. For example the texture of the trees as they move across the screen looks normal, instead of lots of grainy.... not sure the right word, but without the ND, it just doesn't look natural.

 

[kaitlyn]

To me, the contrast and color saturation looks better. This agrees with other comparison shots I have seen on YT. The motion smoothness is noticeable too. Nearly all drone video has motion, so this is really important. For example the texture of the trees as they move across the screen looks normal, instead of lots of grainy.... not sure the right word, but without the ND, it just doesn't look natural.

I'm a photographer by trade, not videography... but the 2nd part makes sense. I understand the effect of shutter speed combined with FPS. However, the first part just doesn't.

1) You're putting another layer of glass/plastic/whatever in front of your lens. It's not like the mavic's optics are top-notch to start with... you're just adding something to degrade it further
2) Polarizing filters could impact light, but ND filters *should* only affect the *amount* of light coming in at a given shutter speed, so I totally don't understand how "contrast" ad "color saturation" could look better.

Not arguing with you but I too have heard it a bunch and it simply doesn't make sense to me...

 

[LeafPeeper]

I'm a photographer by trade, not videography... but the 2nd part makes sense. I understand the effect of shutter speed combined with FPS. However, the first part just doesn't.

1) You're putting another layer of glass/plastic/whatever in front of your lens. It's not like the mavic's optics are top-notch to start with... you're just adding something to degrade it further
2) Polarizing filters could impact light, but ND filters *should* only affect the *amount* of light coming in at a given shutter speed, so I totally don't understand how "contrast" ad "color saturation" could look better.

Not arguing with you but I too have heard it a bunch and it simply doesn't make sense to me...

My thoughts exactly, unless they aren't exactly ND.....much like speakers differ in freq response, I suspect the light filtering isn't exactly 'flat' for all ND filters.

LP

 

[Hauptmann]

I use Freewell. They come in a soft, protective six-pak for under 100 USD. The six-pak fits in the Mavic case right next to the remote control. They've always stayed on, even during hard crashes which broke propellers and dislodged landing gear. You can calibrate the gimbal with them on. If there's a downside to them I've not seen it.

 

[MesaAZGuy]

I picked up a 6pc set from Best Buy made by Bower for $49. They look well made and come with a leatherette case for storage. Not a bad buy. Having said that, I did not get to try them out yet.

 

[Bruce R]

For those who don't know, this guy does a pretty good job in the first half of the video explaining the desired "blur" that seems natural with the right shutter speed, which on a bright day is only possible with a filter:

In this video, the narrator talks about the lack of an ND filter and how the propellers look very odd due to the fast shutter speed. Fast forward to about 56 seconds:

I think most people would view the more significant benefit to be this above. As far as the color saturation and contrast, I agree that the benefits do not seem as obvious. Maybe bringing down the level of the light entering the lens allows the capture of both dark and light areas more accurately, without the bright areas washing out as quickly when adjusting to capture dark areas. Not sure.

BTW, I am not recommending any particular filter. I don't think there is a significant difference between one and the next, as long as they allow the gimbal to initialize while installed.

 

[4wd]

Although I use them (Taco) I think the supposed benefits are over-rated and there are definite problems such as hard to fix subtle colour tint, risk of increased refraction, general slight loss of definition due to extra layer of glass, and too slow a shutter speed if you want to stop video and take stills.
They are nice to have but by no means essential.

The Mavic can cope with almost any light condition and expose correctly.
You wont see the supposed problems of too high shutter speed in a lot of typical drone footage which is relatively sedate movement and shots of buildings and landscape.

 

[Skymaster]

As a still photographer I don't see a need for them, all can be corrected in PS quickly

 

[geigy]

I bought a set but have never used them. I just love the sharp 4K frames too much!

ND's make no sense for still photographs. For video, stretching the shutter speed reduces the annoying flicker sensation, but the detail that is lost can never be retrieved. A similar effect can be done in post if necessary by blurring alternate frames together.

Something else to consider: going to 60 fps and HD resolution will look better, and yield sharper still images, than staying at a higher resolution at 30fps, and reducing the shutter speed.

 

[Bergumbira]

No filter at all = less trouble, less research, less test, less mounting then disabling, less loss and damage, less gimbal problem. I'm still photographer and also shooting videos and I totally agree with Geigy... 60 fps in 1080 and pictures in raw and play change and corrections all in post. Also adapting the frame to the circonstances, not trying to solve the most difficult conditions by jumping my 2 feet into the extreme limit. Also, many times is like you need two flights instead of one because having to switch from one filter to an other.. That's just madness.
So to reply to the original post my thoughts is that is no consensus... Everyone have to adapt accordingly...

 

[Scarab69]

Long exposure shots (waterfalls)? Mine are too overexposed to see. I'm hoping an ND 32 will help me get long exposure shots I want. ...or is there another way to get them without filters?

 

[tmoerel]

No filter at all = less trouble, less research, less test, less mounting then disabling, less loss and damage, less gimbal problem. I'm still photographer and also shooting videos and I totally agree with Geigy... 60 fps in 1080 and pictures in raw and play change and corrections all in post. Also adapting the frame to the circonstances, not trying to solve the most difficult conditions by jumping my 2 feet into the extreme limit. Also, many times is like you need two flights instead of one because having to switch from one filter to an other.. That's just madness.
So to reply to the original post my thoughts is that is no consensus... Everyone have to adapt accordingly...

It is not this black and white.....if you are filming in Africa for example there is way too much light. You need to use 1/500th of a second exposure without ND filter. At those shutter rates your footage gets very jerky. ND is essential then!