Has anyone tried to shoot without the front filter?

[Turn11]

Just a little humor beside the complement

 

[Glenn Goodlett]

I am not a professional photographer, but I would be more concerned about balance than IQ. The motors are tiny and experience high G loads at times. Seems like balance would be critical.

 

[Black Diesel]

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.

That's cute....UV filters are really cute. You're probably a hobbyist photographer who worries about scratches on your gear and it looks new as if off the showroom floor. A working photographer's gear is much different, and we don't worry about filters. Try to stick a filter on a 400, 500, or 600mm lens...lol. At least there's one photographer in this thread who knows what he's talking about.

I'll be flying my M2P without the filter as long as it doesn't affect something we're missing here and doesn't somehow affect IQ in a negative way. You guys can continue shooting through the glass window.

I'll put mine on when shooting in the surf over misty saltwater or dusty storms. And of course the ND filters when I need them.

Happy shooting to the UV filter crew professional photographers of the world in this forum!

 

[Mr. Salty]

That's cute....UV filters are really cute. You're probably a hobbyist photographer who worries about scratches on your gear and it looks new as if off the showroom floor. A working photographer's gear is much different, and we don't worry about filters. Try to stick a filter on a 400, 500, or 600mm lens...lol. At least there's one photographer in this thread who knows what he's talking about.

No, I'm not a hobbyist. I have decades of experience shooting professionally, including for The Associated Press, Chicago Tribune, L.A. Times, Sporting News and several regional newspapers. I've forgotten more about photojournalism than you'll ever know.

But go ahead and fall back on childish insults. It's what people do on the internet when they don't have facts to back up their arguments.

The "one photographer in this thread who knows what he's talking about" is a commercial photographer who has the luxury of never having to take his gear out of a studio, or at least into a situation that isn't tightly controlled. A Mavic taking off kicks up more dust than one of his lenses has ever been exposed to. And good luck if you ever fly through a swarm of insects. The props do a good job of spattering bug guts everywhere.

If you actually knew anything about lenses, you'd know the concern isn't about scratching the glass itself, it's the very thin diffraction coating.

As far as putting a UV filter on a bigger piece of glass, obviously they're too big to take a traditional filter. That's probably why Nikon's 600mm f/4 comes with a protective front piece of glass built into it.

 

[DronerGene]

Something that’s crossed my mind is airflow. With the lens cover on, air is diverted around the front of the camera which is very sensitive to its relationship to the drones position. It has to maintain a position set by you or programming. Without the lens cover, it could create a cupping situation while flying, depending on your speed and any wind gusts that you encounter. This could make it much harder for the camera to constantly stabilize and might produce a jitter in the video.

 

[Meta4]

In forums some of the most common questions are about what's "best"?
What's the "best" aperture to use, whats the "best" setting, the "best" SD card, the "best" this or that.
And some users with limited knowledge and experience latch onto something they read about what is "best" and gain cvonfidence from knowing they are doing the "right" thing.
The good news gets spread through forums and becomes accepted wisdom in forums.
And a lot of the time, there is no real best or no meaningful difference between alternatives.
The most important rule in photography is that there are no rules (but it's important to know and understand all the other rules so you know when you can break them).
Often there is no one best solution and the what-is-best question might be invalid.
But there may be several solutions that could be right in certain circumstances.
Try them all and work out what works for you and what gives the effect you want.

 

[Paul2660]

It's interesting to see what folks can argue about. Most if not all landscape photographers will carry filters, most commonly a CL-PL and a series of ND filters. Do they stay on the front of the lens all the time, it depends on the shooting situation. How many times have you seen a shot with blurred water or clouds or waves, etc. All of this is done with filters.

For the Mavic Pro 2, personally I would not want to fly without the front filter mainly due to the change in the aero dynamics. Once the filter is off, you have created a depression which will catch the wind and more than likely effect the flying qualities of the camera, not to mention the possibility of something flying in and hitting the lens, which is now exposed.

As for the installed UV filter effecting sharpness, I feel diffraction is a bigger issue, i.e. use of F stops greater than F 5.6 and softness.

Paul C

 

[GringoLoco]

I always laugh when the UV filter debate gets fired up. The photographer community is very much split on the importance of their use, it's hardly something that "real pros" should be on one side or the other. I'm not a pro photographer, but I have a better scientific grasp on photography equipment than most of my pro photog friends. I'm the mechanic and they're the racecar driver.

That said, lens coatings haven't been soft for years. Decades. Half a century. Also, you'd have to really mess your front lens element up bad before you noticed reduced contrast in your photos. Protect the rear element with your life, but the front element doesn't need to be pampered. UNLESS we're talking about one of my classics, anything pre-80s, those get babied. Running a UV filter is a great idea for harsh conditions, anywhere you might drop your camera (photojournalism), etc. It's fine to use every other time, but hardly necessary. I'd never denigrate anyone for using them but I don't unless there's going to be saltwater spray or something.

As for the M2P, I would assume the quality of the clear lens it comes with is optically good, but I wouldn't know. I would think any improvement in removing it would come in the form of less loss of contrast from light scatter when the light is coming from the side. That would be easy to test. My only concern would be if they bothered to use a hardened coating on the M2P lens if it was meant to remain covered.

 

[MyMateDave]

Mine will be firmly staying put, there are differences in use regarding the camera on the Mavic and the camera equipment in my camera bag. I don't care much for filters on my camera just for protection of the front element and coating, i just don't feel the need for them. The only time i use filters is for when i need to either balance an image out using ND grads, or when i use a C-Pol or ND filters for long exposure shots etc etc..

The difference being in the case of the Mavic, for me, is that flying through the air you have much less control over the environment you are exposing the lens to.

Everyone has their own preferences, i just think in this case (and its only my opinion) that its better to have the protection.

Dan

 

[Trees138]

I fly over fracking sites all the time. Not because I'm trying to or I'm monitoring them like some do, but because they are everywhere. I have no clue what kind of vaporized solvents I could be flying through. I'm probably fine, but I'd rather have the stock filter on for a variety of reasons. I could hit a nice big juicy fly out here filming trout streams. I'd much rather clean the UV filter than the recessed front optic. My camera gear, as a hobbyist, I don't have the $$$ dedicated to the hobby for UV filters, it was hard enough buying all the primes I wanted, I only use filters when I need them, more because I'm cheap than because I feel like I'm getting something out of it.

Also, insults and denigration are a really poor way to make your point, it reflects more on you than the person you are attacking.

As I said earlier, properly A/B it and post the results, otherwise just do whatever you want and makes you feel better.

 

[HoozierDroneDaddy]

The question is not about ND, PL or other filters, only the glass protective lens the camera is shipped with. It is there for protection of the lens. You may have traveled intensely on boats and other vehicles with your SLR or DSLR. However, in those cases you were still close to the ground and the camera was close to you. I suspect the lens was not subject to flying bugs and debris. The drone however, is flying at speeds up to 40+mph out in the open, over rivers, in the country, and in environments subjecting the camera lens to many things, bugs, etc, that can ding or damage the lens, not to mention rough landings, or landing in sandy or dusty areas. As mentioned above, replacing the lens with or without the gimbal can be very costly depending on the unit. As for your answer on the sharpness, there are others here that said they would test for the effect on the sharpness if removed. With the quality of the images we get from drones currently on the market, personally, I would not risk damage to my lens. If you need that little bit of extra sharpness, add it in post.

 

[baddog]

I brought my mavic pro back from a quick 5 minute flight, that was only about 300 to 500 ft away. I was flying with a friend who was piloting a phantom, right near me, kinda of a chase and follow. We both came back and landed fine. His pure white phantom was clean as a whistle. My poor Mavic look like it went though a blood bath, I mean covered with bug guts. The body, the props and yes the camera lens was a zombie apocalypse. So I would be way more comfortable cleaning a UV cove than actual lens glass.