Has anyone tried to shoot without the front filter?

[Black Diesel]

With all these image tests being performed, has anyone tried to shoot without the front filter installed? It's just a protective filter correct? If yes, the images should be sharper without it.

You would be risking damage to the actual lens without the filter...but hey, just like DSLR's, anytime you add a filter in front of the lens it affects sharpness, contrast, etc...

Who's willing to give this a shot? We all might reveal some pleasing results without the filter?

 

[Mossiback]

About which filter do you speak? If it is the clear dome, then yes you should remove it. I do not have the M2P but it looks like the M2P dome holds the camera in place so you definitely have to remove it before powering up.

 

[Black Diesel]

No, I'm talking about the filter on the front of the camera. The one you would replace an ND filter with.

 

[Turn11]

Who's willing to give this a shot? We all might reveal some pleasing results without the filter

Not certain it is a filter. Most SLR users use a UV (clear lens cover) to protect the lens. A $6.00 UV filter is a lot less expensive than if you ding the lens.

By removing the cover you expose the Pro camera to potential damage or dirt.

 

[Meta4]

You would be risking damage to the actual lens without the filter...but hey, just like DSLR's

Does your SLR fly through the air at 35 mph?
It's a lot easier to clean dust, grit, bugs and salt spray off the filter than your front lens element.
Would you ride a motorcycle without glasses?

 

[Black Diesel]

Not certain it is a filter. Most SLR users use a UV (clear lens cover) to protect the lens. A $6.00 UV filter is a lot less expensive than if you ding the lens.

By removing the cover you expose the Pro camera to potential damage or dirt.

Yes, this is very obvious. But every photographer I know shoots their 2k-10K DSLR lenses without protective filters. With that said, I would be willing to shoot the M2P "naked" as well if it meant better IQ. If the lens is properly coated and doesn't require the flat filter, it's likely not going to get damaged unless you fly it into a tornado. If the front filter holds any function other than just a protective UV filter, then that's a different story....

 

[Roamer105]

It is a rather good quality UV filter and aside from its protective properties - it should not be removed. It definitively will not impact "sharpness". The only impact might be in the amount and kind of "light ray pollution" when taking shots towards the sunlight.

 

[Black Diesel]

Does your SLR fly through the air at 35 mph?
It's a lot easier to clean dust, grit, bugs and salt spray off the filter than your front lens element.
Would you ride a motorcycle without glasses?

I have been on boats, cars, and planes with my DSLR going a lot faster than 35mph...I'm not asking how risky it is, or how easy it is to clean, I'm asking if anyone knows it functions as anything more than a protective filter, and if not has anyone tried shooting without it?

You can keep your little filter on it to easily wipe it clean if you like. Others like myself would be happy to take it off and risk damage if it improves color, contrast, and sharpness.

 

[Turn11]

2k-10K DSLR lenses without protective filters

I know a couple of pros that only use any UV or filter if it is needed them, the cost of a $2K - $10K is a write off if it gets damaged.

I would wager that 90 - 95% of the folks here aren't pros.

 

[Black Diesel]

It is a rather good quality UV filter and aside from its protective properties - it should not be removed. It definitively will not impact "sharpness". The only impact might be in the amount and kind of "light ray pollution" when taking shots towards the sunlight.

Any glass in front of the lens will affect sharpness to a degree. "light ray pollution" could be a good thing in certain situations if you like flare...

Sounds like it is just a protective filter. Someone will do some testing and if not, I'll test with mine when I have time.

 

[Black Diesel]

I know a couple of pros that only use any UV or filter if it is needed them, the cost of a $2K - $10K is a write off if it gets damaged.

I would wager that 90 - 95% of the folks here aren't pros.

Yes, some photographers do use filters. It's a personal preference. Newbies are scared of scratching the front element when they buy an expensive lens...but they glass is very durable and can handle quite a beating.

 

[parkgt]

I don't ever use a lens on a dslr without a filter in front of it. Many of us have lens costing more than a grand and want them protected at all times. I will take an imperceptible loss of detail rather than risking a lens.

The cost of replacing the lens on my M2P is not worth the risk. I am happy with what it can do.

 

[Meta4]

I don't ever use a lens on a dslr without a filter in front of it. Many of us have lens costing more than a grand and want them protected at all times. I will take an imperceptible loss of detail rather than risking a lens.

The cost of replacing the lens on my M2P is not worth the risk. I am happy with what it can do.

Exactly
Any hypothetical improvement in image quality is unlikely to be detectable.

 

[Trees138]

Please, A/B it for us. We're dying to know @Black Diesel

Please also tell us if you instantly feel less cool without the Hasselblad Logo reflecting on everyone you fly past. I don't think the grass could be greener without all of that envy saturating the landscape.

 

[DanMan32]

If you damage the lens, you're likely going to need to replace the entire gimbal. The lens would be cheap.

 

[RobH2]

I've been a professional photographer for 29-years and have used many, many Hasselblad, Nikon and Canon lenses for decades. Many of those lenses cost more than a Mavic2, and many cost more than and Inspire 2, and I've always been a purist. I use no filters on my lenses, never have, and have never damaged one. I've probably owned 40 lenses. I've never had bug smacks or any other issue besides just a need to do a good dusting before shooting. You can certainly damage a lens if you hit something harder than the glass. But it's kind of difficult to hit your Mavic lens on anything besides maybe a tree branch or some grass. I mean, it's kind of protected up in there.

I'd suggest that the filter on the M2 really isn't going to impact the image quality in a quantifiable way. As excited as we are about the M2 Pro with its larger sensor, the image is still not as sharp or good as a top of the line Nikon or Canon. In one of those cameras, you might be able to discern the difference between UV filter and no UV filter because the image is so much better. But in these drone cameras, even being that it's a Hasselblad lens, any degradation from the filter really is going to be obscured by the less than perfect image quality anyway I believe.

We, professional photographers, do argue from time to time as to whether a UV filter (albeit...another piece of glass between the sensor and the subject) helps or hurts anything. When it comes down to it, usually the difference is so minute that you almost need scientific equipment to detect the difference. Regardless, I have just never used any kind of protective filters.

The only problem I see with flying the M2 without the front filter is that it really wasn't designed to fly without it. It's possible some dust could work its way in and get to the sensor. That would not be a good thing as I'm sure it's impossible to clean the sensor yourself.

 

[Mr. Salty]

But every photographer I know shoots their 2k-10K DSLR lenses without protective filters.

I've been a photographer for 40 years and have worked with a lot of great photographers, including two Pulitzer Prize winners, and every single one of them uses UV filters on their glass. Not some cheap $10 filter, usually B+W. But they all keep their lenses protected.

 

[Turn11]

Well stated @RobH2 Even if you did put the Nikon before the Cannon

 

[RobH2]

Well stated @RobH2 Even if you did put the Nikon before the Cannon

Ha, FYI, all of my personal cameras are Canon or Hasselblad...Sorry Nikon!

 

[RobH2]

I've been a photographer for 40 years and have worked with a lot of great photographers, including two Pulitzer Prize winners, and every single one of them uses UV filters on their glass. Not some cheap $10 filter, usually B+W. But they all keep their lenses protected.

Sure, of course. Those guys are out running around all over the world in hectic and frantic situations frequently. Some UV on a lens is not going to wreck their work. The other 99% of we photographers who do advertising or commercial work have the luxury of not being too rushed or hurried such that we have to worry about our glass too much. It's pretty rare for a photographer to get a Pulitzer Prize unless he was running around in the S**t somewhere. In that case, thankfully there is such a thing as a UV filter...lol...