Accident but camera saved

realspeed

realspeed

Suspended / Banned
Messages
8,827
Name
Bazza
Edit My Images
No
While on holiday I tripped on a curb and fell heavily with my Nikon D800 and 24-70mm lens around my neck. the inside of the Nikon HB-40 lens hood which was on it at the time got damaged so was not usable. I also had a UV filter which was also on the lens but only got a couple of light nicks on it

See photo Chipped on the lower part of the filter rim




There has been a lot of discussions on if it is better to use a filter or not, All I can say is that the lens hood took most of the impact and the filter saved the lens. I know which I am going to keep on the lens in future.

Just hope my wrist gets better soon as it is still very sore
 
Last edited:
Ouch, hope your wrist is okay and there is no other lasting damage to your camera / lens than the obvious. I know from previous experience, there can be nothing to see, but the wrist can be so painful if you've jarred it...

It's very easy to trip and things could have been a lot worse, so hopefully apart from the pain and the damage shown, you've come out relatively okay - well, much better than the lens hood and filter anyway :)
 
GreenNinja67 said:
Who wants the hassles with insurance when a cheap optically invisible (if you get the right one) filter can save a grand's worth of lens?
What an odd thing to say.
Click to expand...

Not really. This argument has been done to death, but why would I want to put a cheap bit of glass on the front of my grands worth of lens. The lens is a grand because of the optical quality.
 
Lens glass is a lot tougher than a filter. Hood protected the lens. Filter is a complete waste of money and could actually damage your lens in these situations!
 
snap-happy said:
Lens glass is a lot tougher than a filter. Hood protected the lens. Filter is a complete waste of money and could actually damage your lens in these situations!
Click to expand...

It depends on the situation. Sometime a filter can inhance a photo and other times doesn't. Like everything if you don't try it you can't be sure if it works or not, I fully undersand the thinking about not using a filter, as in deteriorates the picture buy having extra glass. This may well have been the case in the past say with film cameras, but now digital cameras have come on such a way that this idea of picture loss through using a filter does not really hold up any more.
Using say a polerising filter on water shots does allow the camera to see past the water surface reflection, this is just one example .
Maybe the use of the wrong filter at the wrong time can easily put photographers off using them, getting to know which filter to use and when is a subject all on its own
 
realspeed said:
It depends on the situation. Sometime a filter can inhance a photo and other times doesn't. Like everything if you don't try it you can't be sure if it works or not, I fully undersand the thinking about not using a filter, as in deteriorates the picture buy having extra glass. This may well have been the case in the past say with film cameras, but now digital cameras have come on such a way that this idea of picture loss through using a filter does not really hold up any more.
Using say a polerising filter on water shots does allow the camera to see past the water surface reflection, this is just one example .
Maybe the use of the wrong filter at the wrong time can easily put photographers off using them, getting to know which filter to use and when is a subject all on its own
Click to expand...

I doubt many people would argue against the use of filters for creative effects when required. It's just whether or not one should keep a filter on for protection, i.e. a UV filter or similar. For me its a no.
 
realspeed said:
While on holiday I tripped on a curb and fell heavily with my Nikon D800 and 24-70mm lens around my neck. the inside of the Nikon HB-40 lens hood which was on it at the time got damaged so was not usable. I also had a UV filter which was also on the lens but only got a couple of light nicks on it

See photo Chipped on the lower part of the filter rim




There has been a lot of discussions on if it is better to use a filter or not, All I can say is that the lens hood took most of the impact and the filter saved the lens. I know which I am going to keep on the lens in future.

Just hope my wrist gets better soon as it is still very sore
Click to expand...
How did the filter 'save' the lens when the hood took most of the brunt?

Filter 'glass' is very flimsy (some tests have shown paper to offer stronger capabilities!), I doubt it helped much. You were lucky the filter didn't jam on TBH, that can cause serious issues.

Glad no serious damage was done.
 
Last edited:
realspeed said:
It depends on the situation. Sometime a filter can inhance a photo and other times doesn't. Like everything if you don't try it you can't be sure if it works or not, I fully undersand the thinking about not using a filter, as in deteriorates the picture buy having extra glass. This may well have been the case in the past say with film cameras, but now digital cameras have come on such a way that this idea of picture loss through using a filter does not really hold up any more.
Using say a polerising filter on water shots does allow the camera to see past the water surface reflection, this is just one example .
Maybe the use of the wrong filter at the wrong time can easily put photographers off using them, getting to know which filter to use and when is a subject all on its own
Click to expand...
A UV filter will never enhance a photo from a digital camera.

Why do you say with digital the 'quality loss' argument doesnt hold up anymore - of course it does! More now than ever.

Polariasing filters and grads are fine, while they may reduce the quality if you use a poor one (or use them incorrectly) the specific effects of the filter make it worthwhile and there's a good reason for using them. Putting a UV filter on a lens for 'protection' then suffering iq degradation (which WILL happen, the longer the lens the worse it is) is pointless when a) they offer no protective qualities and b) you can protect with a hood, which does have a positive effect on the image as it also increases contrast by preventing stray light striking the side of the front element.
 
Last edited:
GreenNinja67 said:
Who wants the hassles with insurance when a cheap optically invisible (if you get the right one) filter can save a grand's worth of lens?
What an odd thing to say.
Click to expand...
But why buy a grands worth of lens then reduce its output to that of the £30 filter, may as well stick with the kit lens :)
 
I would say that the filter *ring* did in fact protect the lens' filter threads/ring.
IMO, the loss of IQ due to a cheap filter is *generally* negligible... but I don't use them except for specific situations (blowing sand).
 
everyone decries 'cheap' filter - prob correctly so

but Hoya, and others, made some fine filters
i use a Hoya Pro1 Digital MC Protector on all my lenses - hopefully to prevent this (not my image)
.
600 -s-l1600.jpg
 
Glad your camera and lens is ok hope the wrist gets better
I used to use a uv filter for protection but don't now except for on my macro lens and that's because I'm usually using it in wet and boggy places and always seem to get water drops on it
I can wipe the water off with my sleeve and not be worried if I scratch the filter
I should be using a lens cloth I guess :D
 
Yardbent said:
everyone decries 'cheap' filter - prob correctly so

but Hoya, and others, made some fine filters
i use a Hoya Pro1 Digital MC Protector on all my lenses - hopefully to prevent this (not my image)
.
View attachment 71234
Click to expand...
Even 'good' ones have a negative effect on the image, and dont offer any protection...
 
Last edited:
Yardbent said:
everyone decries 'cheap' filter - prob correctly so

but Hoya, and others, made some fine filters
i use a Hoya Pro1 Digital MC Protector on all my lenses - hopefully to prevent this (not my image)
.
View attachment 71234
Click to expand...

Its extremely hard to scratch a front element (and that's more than likely just a transfer mark and not a scratch).

Watch this video to see how hard it is to damage a front element (you'll most likely need a diamond cutter :)) and how useless UV / Protection filters actually are at protection... As I say, some are less effective than a sheet of paper :/

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0CLPTd6Bds
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top