# Breakthrough Photography Promises The Best Circular Polarizer



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 10, 2015)

```
<p class="p1" style="text-align: center;">A fairly new filter company, called Breakthrough Photography, just launched what they are calling “the world’s sharpest and most color neutral circular polarizer”, and they’re even making a version specifically for Canon’s CINE lens lineup. So far, here’s what we know about it:</p>
<ul class="ul1">
<li class="li1"><span class="s1">American-made CPL film called <i>CrystalVision®</i></span></li>
<li class="li1"><i></i><span class="s1"><i>SCHOTT B270® </i>Optical glass Made in Germany</span></li>
<li class="li1"><span class="s1">16-layers of multi-resistant coatings</span></li>
<li class="li1"><span class="s1">Nano coatings to repel elements</span></li>
<li class="li1"><span class="s1">Ultra-slim Weather-sealed Brass “Traction Frame”</span></li>
<li class="li1"><span class="s1">25 Year Guarantee</span></li>
<li class="li1"><span class="s1">11 sizes from 39mm to 105mm ($129 to $199)</span></li>
</ul>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">For the next 9 days they’re doing a Kickstarter project, offering up to $50 off while supplies last: <a href="https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/breakthrough/x3-circular-polarizer/"><span class="s2">https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/breakthrough/x3-circular-polarizer/</span></a></span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">On a side note, about 5 weeks ago we received a neutral density filter from Breakthrough, and we weren’t given much information other than a note saying “The X3 ND is the worlds sharpest and most color neutral ND filter, check it out.”. After quite a few comparison tests against a bunch of other neutral density filters here at the Canon Rumors international headquarters, we found their claim held true. </span></p>
```


----------



## docsavage123 (Nov 10, 2015)

Anyone ever get any filters from these guys?

I ordered 3 x 77 uv filters and they cancelled. They said they could not get supplies in time from Hong Kong - back in March - was emailed saying there was a delay then had order cancelled and paypal refunded. 

I was hoping to get them but bought hoya pro ones instead when this happened. Had an email from them recently regarding this polarizer regarding 50% off coupon.


----------



## Chaitanya (Nov 10, 2015)

I will keep my B+W Kaesmann filters and dont see a reason to change those.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Nov 10, 2015)

Band Pro claim the best "true" ND are True ND made by a Japanese company for cinematography. Cinematographers dont tend to use screw-in filters they use 100 x 100mm, PV size filters or 6.6" filters and they tend to be around 3mm thick which is 1mm thicker than most stills filters. Transmittance needs to be between 380nm to 750nm as neutral grey as a minimum and this cannot be measured purely checking filters on a camera. 

Expect Breakthrough Photography to have some competition from the likes of Nisi, Schneider & Lee.


----------



## infared (Nov 10, 2015)

I don't do polarizers for my photos..but would be interested in seeing a comparison of Breakthru's ND filters compared to my B+W ND filters. I do not use the variable type... I use straight up one-grade filters for different situations for different lenses. I think that approach give maximum consistency and clarity...
Questions:
1.Does Breakthru's results offer anything that a simple color adjustment tweak in PS or LR can't fix?
2.Do their ND filters allow more sharpness and contrast that is noticeable in the real world?

...and then "Show Me" ...LOL! 

I guess those are the only two questions most photographers would ask.
I spent sooooo much money (to me) on the B+W filters I own (and lots of brass step up rings, etc.!)...that I cannot really see myself changing. How much better could the results be. To be honest I have never done a test with any of my lenses with a filter/no-filter comparison. I also usually shoot in natural daylight and have not been put off by the results, either.


----------



## Click (Nov 10, 2015)

Chaitanya said:


> I will keep my B+W Kaesmann filters and dont see a reason to change those.



+1


----------



## Destin (Nov 10, 2015)

Light transmission?


----------



## RGF (Nov 10, 2015)

Right now I am very happy with my B+W filters. If these are significantly better I'll switch but at the moment all I see is promises, promises, promises.

Show me the money - okay show me the filter.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 10, 2015)

I'm hard pressed for a reason to leave my B+W filters for something else:


Optically, they are right at the top of any reviewer's lists
The are very well built
I have only needed a filter wrench on perhaps two occasions for a stuck CPL (from hundreds if not thousands of installations)
I've never scratched one or held and clingy dust/rocks/sand that didn't come 100% clean with a microfiber.

The only thing that would make them better is a non-threaded (magnetic?) attachment for speed, which is not B+W's problem. I often change out from CPL to UV -- like 4-5 times a day if I'm on walkabout, traveling, etc. and the threading (especially on the CPLs) can get tedious.

Keep in mind a magnetic solution may prevent front weather sealing on some lenses -- depending on the lens, Canon often states that a front filter is required for the lens to be optimally sealed from the elements.

- A


----------



## justawriter (Nov 10, 2015)

But which is best a filtering money out of my bank account?


----------



## mrsfotografie (Nov 10, 2015)

The Best Marketing, haha ;D

Now tell me, is this a polarizing remark?


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 10, 2015)

Also -- the brass looking material on the _inside_ of the ring in this posting seems a questionable call. I'm not an expert on this, but wouldn't you want a black ring to knock down any reflections?

- A


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 10, 2015)

It did not take them long to get the featured on Canon Rumors as well as other popular photography sites up and running, so their PR engine is certainly working well.


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Nov 10, 2015)

docsavage123 said:


> Anyone ever get any filters from these guys?
> 
> I ordered 3 x 77 uv filters and they cancelled. They said they could not get supplies in time from Hong Kong - back in March - was emailed saying there was a delay then had order cancelled and paypal refunded.



Yea, unfortunately during the time you bought we were using Hong Kong as a distribution point, but customs delays into the USA took too long so we canceled that and moved everything to a Seattle warehouse, and with Amazon Prime warehouses.

Graham


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Nov 10, 2015)

infared said:


> I don't do polarizers for my photos..but would be interested in seeing a comparison of Breakthru's ND filters compared to my B+W ND filters. I do not use the variable type... I use straight up one-grade filters for different situations for different lenses. I think that approach give maximum consistency and clarity...
> Questions:
> 1.Does Breakthru's results offer anything that a simple color adjustment tweak in PS or LR can't fix?
> 2.Do their ND filters allow more sharpness and contrast that is noticeable in the real world?
> ...









Click here: http://breakthrough.photography/performance-gallery/

Graham


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Nov 10, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> I'm hard pressed for a reason to leave my B+W filters for something else:
> 
> 
> Optically, they are right at the top of any reviewer's lists
> ...



Yes, B+W filters are good. They use Nitto CPL Film, made in Korea, sometimes China.






As you can see from the transmission charts every other filter company also uses Nitto as well, and we use it on our X1 CPL. It's good but not great, as it's designed for LCD panels.

X1 CPL: http://amzn.to/1MybYKs

We're the first filter maker to make our own CPL film, we manufacture it in California. We use that one on the X3 CPL.

Graham


----------



## mrsfotografie (Nov 10, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Also -- the brass looking material on the _inside_ of the ring in this posting seems a questionable call. I'm not an expert on this, but wouldn't you want a black ring to knock down any reflections?
> 
> - A



+1 but black isn't a smart marketing move because it wouldn't distinguish the product from everyone else's 

Sometimes less is more, ;D


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 10, 2015)

mrsfotografie said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Also -- the brass looking material on the _inside_ of the ring in this posting seems a questionable call. I'm not an expert on this, but wouldn't you want a black ring to knock down any reflections?
> ...



Are the inside of lens hoods also brass colored? 

I'm sure they've tested for this or accounted for it somehow, but I thought I'd ask.

- A


----------



## mrsfotografie (Nov 10, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



You can bet the accountant had something to say about this choice ;D


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Nov 10, 2015)

mrsfotografie said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Also -- the brass looking material on the _inside_ of the ring in this posting seems a questionable call. I'm not an expert on this, but wouldn't you want a black ring to knock down any reflections?
> ...



Like all our other filters the X3 CPL is electroplated matte black to eliminate reflections. It's shown as exposed brass for illustrative purposes.

Graham


----------



## mrsfotografie (Nov 10, 2015)

grahamclarkphoto said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Cool, that makes engineering _and_ marketing sense  However aren't you worried customers aren't getting what they expect (the brass ring).


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Nov 10, 2015)

mrsfotografie said:


> grahamclarkphoto said:
> 
> 
> > mrsfotografie said:
> ...



In our last Kickstarter campaign we did the same thing and with around 5,200 units shipped we never got anyone asking about brass color / black, so I don't think so.

Graham


----------



## PhotographerJim (Nov 10, 2015)

I backed this, I'm really looking forward to giving it a try.


----------



## memoriaphoto (Nov 10, 2015)

"The X3 ND is the worlds sharpest and most color neutral ND filter"

That sounds just like something written by Ken Rockwell ;D


----------



## RolandW (Nov 10, 2015)

I am very happy with the 6 stop solid neutral density filter I have from Breakthrough Photography, and will likely replace my current 10 stop square filter with an X3 Breakthrough round screw on soon. If you look in to their technical information, you will find they are for real with their claims on the solid ND's, and I expect that the X3 polarizers will also be top notch products. Their mechanical construction of the X3 solid ND's is of very high quality, and the demo video of the X3 polarizer gives hope that the polarizers will be very easy to turn with one finger. My existing B+W polarizers often are not as easy to turn as I would like. Breakthrough is a small company, but seems to have responsive customer service, and there products are made in the US. I will be going for two sizes of X3 polarizers for now, and if they perform well, I will likely order more later.


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Nov 10, 2015)

memoriaphoto said:


> "The X3 ND is the worlds sharpest and most color neutral ND filter"
> 
> That sounds just like something written by Ken Rockwell ;D



Haha yea, you're right 

There's no such thing as a completely color ND filter, contrary to what other filter companies say, and what we're actually guaranteeing is that the transmission profile is the flattest of any ND filter, which is an objective claim that makes true "most color neutral".

This is a pretty comprehensive objective overview: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/10-Stop-Neutral-Density-Filter.aspx

















Graham


----------



## Stu_bert (Nov 10, 2015)

Hi Graham

Do you have any intentions to do filters for use with filter holders? I know it's a personal preference thing and I'd be interested in square or rectangular filters, but alas not screw on.

Thank you
Stu


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Nov 10, 2015)

Stu_bert said:


> Hi Graham
> 
> Do you have any intentions to do filters for use with filter holders? I know it's a personal preference thing and I'd be interested in square or rectangular filters, but alas not screw on.
> 
> ...



Hello Stu,

Yes, in fact we're already done with 4x4 square filters, we'll be launching those next.

We're also just finishing a high quality filter holder with adapter rings, and no we won't be selling adapter rings for $64 like the other guys. 

Graham


----------



## Stu_bert (Nov 10, 2015)

grahamclarkphoto said:


> Stu_bert said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Graham
> ...



Sweet, I will keep an eye out for those


----------



## AshtonNekolah (Nov 10, 2015)

B+W For Life Period! Take that back, will check it out for sure anything made here in the USA got my attention, I will check it out.


----------



## Mac Duderson (Nov 10, 2015)

Anyone see these tests? 
http://www.lenstip.com/113.4-article-UV_filters_test_Description_of_the_results_and_summary.html
http://www.lenstip.com/115.4-article-Polarizing_filters_test_Results_and_summary.html

I wished they did a ND test but in the end based off of some of their results I ended up buying the Hoya Pro1 Digital MC NDx8 and NDx32 which honestly I can't stand. I use them full time shooting commercial and weddings and always come home hating the color. It's more then a WB issue. These filters ruin the color look and I can't really repair it in post.
Then based off of the PL results I went with the Marumi DHG Super Circular PLD which I don't use that often but I'm pretty happy with the results and very clear it seems.

However I think I need to give these "Breakthrough's" a try. I remember seeing the ND's a while ago and just thought "just another filter claim." I guess for the price of this PL I should just try them out. I really need to do something about my ND's.


----------



## Destin (Nov 10, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > Light transmission?
> ...


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 10, 2015)

Mac Duderson said:


> Anyone see these tests?
> http://www.lenstip.com/113.4-article-UV_filters_test_Description_of_the_results_and_summary.html
> http://www.lenstip.com/115.4-article-Polarizing_filters_test_Results_and_summary.html
> 
> ...



I've been very happy with all of my B+W products (UV + CPL for all my lenses). My 10 stop ND, however, is from Lee and it has a ferocious color cast. I _generally_ can back it out in post -- sometime I cannot -- but as an amateur who uses it only a few times a year, I'm not hard pressed to replace it.

- A


----------



## RobertG. (Nov 10, 2015)

docsavage123 said:


> Anyone ever get any filters from these guys?
> 
> I ordered 3 x 77 uv filters and they cancelled. They said they could not get supplies in time from Hong Kong - back in March - was emailed saying there was a delay then had order cancelled and paypal refunded.
> 
> I was hoping to get them but bought hoya pro ones instead when this happened. Had an email from them recently regarding this polarizer regarding 50% off coupon.



Hi, I ordered a 6-stop nd filter from them in October 2015. For a week it didn't leave Austin, Texas, where their warehouse is located. When the issue was solved, it arrived here in Berlin, Germany, within 5 days. The customer service, Graham, replied to all questions very fast. I would order from them again. 

The price of the 105mm CPL filter is pretty good, at least in the kickstarter campaign. But I already have an old 105mm Sigma CPL filter, which still does a pretty good job and offers pleasing colors. So why should I spend more than US$ 150 for a new filter? I also have B+W and Hoya CPLs. I really don't like the colors of the Hoya pro 1 digital CPL but I hardly ever use it at all because I mainly shoot with the 105mm attached to the LEE filter holder, if I use a CPL.


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Nov 10, 2015)

RobertG. said:


> docsavage123 said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone ever get any filters from these guys?
> ...



Hello Robert,

For professional setups at 36MP or higher, you can't use CPLs in front of slot-loading filters. It kills sharpness.

The optical thickness must be thin, and the distance to front lens element needs to be close for resolving power to be high.

The correct order to easily achieve critical sharpness:

LENS > CPL > ADAPTER RING > HOLDER > GND

Graham


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Nov 10, 2015)

Mac Duderson said:


> Anyone see these tests?
> http://www.lenstip.com/113.4-article-UV_filters_test_Description_of_the_results_and_summary.html
> http://www.lenstip.com/115.4-article-Polarizing_filters_test_Results_and_summary.html
> 
> ...



Yea, i've emailed them asking them to test the X3 ND filters compared to others, but no response yet...

This is an excellent objective and technical review: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/10-Stop-Neutral-Density-Filter.aspx

Graham


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 10, 2015)

grahamclarkphoto said:


> For professional setups at 36MP or higher, you can't use CPLs in front of slot-loading filters. It kills sharpness.
> 
> The optical thickness must be thin, and the distance to front lens element needs to be close for resolving power to be high.
> 
> ...



So Joe Cornish has been doing it wrong all these years? 

He uses the Lee 100mm and SW150 setups with CPLs in front of his slot loaders: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QN1Q31jSfQ8

There are two vital reasons to do it this way: 


It principally de-couples CPL rotation from ND grad rotation. This is super handy you don't want to have to reposition your ND grad every time you change your polarization (or vice versa).


Stacking the CPL behind the adapter ring effectively makes the filter ring nearest the front element 'taller', which will cause you to (mechanically) vignette 'sooner' on UWA focal lengths. That's why most folks I've seen (myself included) tend to get the CPL out of that thickness stack by puttting a massive (105mm or greater) CPL in front of the filter stack.

But sharpness is obviously important so I find your claim fascinating. Has anyone published anything on this, run a head to head comparison, etc.? I'd like to read more about that, thx.

- A


----------



## HighLowISO (Nov 10, 2015)

No idea how this remotely qualifies as a Canon Rumor, but beside the early problems with availability of their ND filters their reputation is still intact. Tests I've seen so far do show the ND filters meet their claims which means they perform better than the competition. Long term tests are not really available, but not expecting any issues with the ND filters. 

I had hopped they would be more price breakthrough oriented rather than just competitive with the rest of the industry which are price gougers. With them being a small company maybe they are less guilty than the big players, but they get their financing for free From Kickstarter so it's hard to say. Still the bottom line seems to be they make great filters and of course we all want those which is why we pay the price.

The 77mm ones for $50 off are sold out according to Kickstarter, but there is still a $40 off deal. They way exceeded their funding goal so that may affect the delivery schedule like the last time, but with more experience now this time should be smoother.


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Nov 11, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> grahamclarkphoto said:
> 
> 
> > For professional setups at 36MP or higher, you can't use CPLs in front of slot-loading filters. It kills sharpness.
> ...



If he shot on 36MP+ sensors with the best glass, then yes, but he hasn't because the advent of ultra-high resolution sensors is a recent advance.

36MP+ with best glass, never use thick filters that sit far away from front lens element, otherwise images will suck.

For an example of this click the below link and view the Lee Big Stopper vs X3 ND, look for sharpness, ignore blue color cast and 2-3 stops darker exposure:

http://breakthrough.photography/performance-gallery

Graham


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Nov 11, 2015)

HighLowISO said:


> No idea how this remotely qualifies as a Canon Rumor, but beside the early problems with availability of their ND filters their reputation is still intact. Tests I've seen so far do show the ND filters meet their claims which means they perform better than the competition. Long term tests are not really available, but not expecting any issues with the ND filters.
> 
> I had hopped they would be more price breakthrough oriented rather than just competitive with the rest of the industry which are price gougers. With them being a small company maybe they are less guilty than the big players, but they get their financing for free From Kickstarter so it's hard to say. Still the bottom line seems to be they make great filters and of course we all want those which is why we pay the price.
> 
> The 77mm ones for $50 off are sold out according to Kickstarter, but there is still a $40 off deal. They way exceeded their funding goal so that may affect the delivery schedule like the last time, but with more experience now this time should be smoother.



Actually we only consider Singh-Ray to be competition for our X3 ND, and they sell theirs for $380. We had hoped photographers would also think that $179 was a breakthrough as well 

We'd love to make them less expensive, but our manufacturing costs are at least 5x or greater compared to our competitors cost.

Graham


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Nov 11, 2015)

dilbert said:


> grahamclarkphoto said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



That's incorrect

Graham


----------



## jeffa4444 (Nov 11, 2015)

Other companies make specialist polarising films like Polatechno in Japan or inorganic like Moxtex Inc in the US. Prescriptive polarising materials can be made it comes down to cost the film types generally available are for LCDs and thus cheaper because they are mass produced.


----------



## Ladislav (Nov 11, 2015)

There are real world images and very positive reviews for X3 ND filters but nothing to show benefit of X3 UV and X3 CPL  I seriously don't consider graphs as much of a prove because I don't know how to transfer their values into a real world images. I already have 67mm B+W XSPro and 82mm Hoya HD. What I would like to see is some direct comparison which would convince me to upgrade.

I also wonder if these guys try to make graduated ND filters?


----------



## Hector1970 (Nov 11, 2015)

What does the 25 year guarantee cover?
I assume it doesn't cover the main risk which is dropping it.
I've seen this a few times on Kickstarter where people are offering long guarantees from companies which are barely start ups. They are unlikely to be there is 25 years time to honour the guarantees.

It looks a good product and best of luck to it. Colour cast isn't the end of the world (its often an attractive feature) and can be removed (by comparing the difference between a white page with and without the filter in lightroom with the Temp and Tint settings.
It is good to see a company new into the field which drives the competition on and hopefully reduces the prices. They should move into 100 x 150 filters. LEE just keep taking all my money.

I find Kickstarter increasingly annoying.
I've back many projects but there are certain number of trends 
a) Companies already selling products using it as a way to sell more (there is nothing new about the product or the company
b) Companies using it as a source of R&D money and its totally at risk of the crowdfunders and no risk to investors in the companies
c) Some projects have become complete frauds, some have no intention of producing a product, others use it soley to develop the R&D and then collapse the project but a similiar product comes out for the main company
d) Postage costs are a killer (to Europe - most projects are US based), I don't blame the projects too much for this but Kickstarter should help. Prices are without VAT. Thats a big sting in the tail 6 months later. It's often not too clear with country the project is based out of (or will be sent from)
e) Kickstarter wash their hands of problem projects with no come back

Having said all that there are a number of very good projects with very creative ideas that are well worth supporting. 
I wish it was easier to find Photographic related projects in Kickstarter. They have a photography section but its the books. Camera related gear tends to be in Design or Technical / Engineer (I can't remember the category). It's not easy to find the projects at their earliest stages when the prices are at their best.


----------



## wsmith96 (Nov 11, 2015)

I went out on a limb and supported these guys. I'll let you know what I think of the product if it is actually produced.


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Nov 11, 2015)

Hector1970 said:


> What does the 25 year guarantee cover?
> I assume it doesn't cover the main risk which is dropping it.
> I've seen this a few times on Kickstarter where people are offering long guarantees from companies which are barely start ups. They are unlikely to be there is 25 years time to honour the guarantees.
> 
> ...



We designed our warranty after Apple's warranty, except instead of 1-3 years it's 25:

1. Examples: Defects in craftsmanship, Weather-sealing failing, MRC cracking
2. We've already finished 100x100mm and 100x150mm
3. 9% of Kickstarter projects get funded, of those that get funded something like 84% don't ship.
4. We shipped on-time last year
5. We do all the R&D before we go to to Kickstarter, we then use Kickstarter as a means to prove or deny demand, for market research to eliminate risk
6. We charge $4.82 USD to ship anywhere in the USA, and $10.28 to anywhere in the world, including North Korea

Graham


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Nov 11, 2015)

wsmith96 said:


> I went out on a limb and supported these guys. I'll let you know what I think of the product if it is actually produced.



We've already said in the updates that we're finished manufacturing them and that we're now working on packaging, why wouldn't you think that we would actually ship? 

Graham


----------



## wsmith96 (Nov 11, 2015)

grahamclarkphoto said:


> wsmith96 said:
> 
> 
> > I went out on a limb and supported these guys. I'll let you know what I think of the product if it is actually produced.
> ...



I miss understood the kickstarter, sorry about that. I read it as all of the pledges must be filled before shipment starts. Not knocking your company, just the amount of pledges required and if people will put forth the money.


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Nov 11, 2015)

wsmith96 said:


> grahamclarkphoto said:
> 
> 
> > wsmith96 said:
> ...



The goal was $30,000, so if we hit $30,000 we would start manufacturing. We hit the $30,000 goal in two days, and everything is nearly finished now. 

Graham


----------



## jeffa4444 (Nov 11, 2015)

To a point raised by Graham Clark about adding the CPL first, this has been the norm in cinematography for the thirty five plus years Ive been in the industry. No one is more particular than mainstream film crews in making sure images are sharp in the camera given the screen sizes images will be seen at. ALL filters will degrade an image and can provoke image shift but I dont completely agree about the thickness of the glass as much is down to the clarity of the glass type chosen and if they are optically flat, a difference of 1, 2 or 3mm will have little real world difference. We collumate lens on-camera including the filters in critical testing especially if were trying to eleminate softness. Secondly widely in cinematography filters are tilted to offset glare its only a slight degree change but this shows very little if any affect on projected images. 
Heavier NDs will affect sharpness regardless of the manufacturer its a factor of the dyes used whether dipped resin or sandwiched film in glass, more expensive metal deposit NDs are better but still affect the image. Only when we have sensors capable of 20 stops will we negate the need for NDs especially grads. Critical sharpness on 36MP camera or higher will likely be more affected by technique (mirror lock-up, tripod, cable release, point of focus etc) than the filters and most colour shifts are correctable in Lightroom as long as they are not severe but its always better to get in right in-camera. As for polarizers they are here to stay regardless of MP. 

The best polarizer? is the one you have in your bag I dont know of anyone who blamed a shot on their polarizer.


----------



## xseven (Nov 11, 2015)

What is the light loss you measured when using the polarizer?


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Nov 11, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> To a point raised by Graham Clark about adding the CPL first, this has been the norm in cinematography for the thirty five plus years Ive been in the industry. No one is more particular than mainstream film crews in making sure images are sharp in the camera given the screen sizes images will be seen at. ALL filters will degrade an image and can provoke image shift but I dont completely agree about the thickness of the glass as much is down to the clarity of the glass type chosen and if they are optically flat, a difference of 1, 2 or 3mm will have little real world difference. We collumate lens on-camera including the filters in critical testing especially if were trying to eleminate softness. Secondly widely in cinematography filters are tilted to offset glare its only a slight degree change but this shows very little if any affect on projected images.
> Heavier NDs will affect sharpness regardless of the manufacturer its a factor of the dyes used whether dipped resin or sandwiched film in glass, more expensive metal deposit NDs are better but still affect the image. Only when we have sensors capable of 20 stops will we negate the need for NDs especially grads. Critical sharpness on 36MP camera or higher will likely be more affected by technique (mirror lock-up, tripod, cable release, point of focus etc) than the filters and most colour shifts are correctable in Lightroom as long as they are not severe but its always better to get in right in-camera. As for polarizers they are here to stay regardless of MP.
> 
> The best polarizer? is the one you have in your bag I dont know of anyone who blamed a shot on their polarizer.



Again, 36MP+ is the resolution at which point resolving power reduction becomes noticeable. 

What's the resolution of 1080P and 4K? There's the answer.

Graham


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Nov 11, 2015)

xseven said:


> What is the light loss you measured when using the polarizer?



There are two types of CPL film:

1. 99.3% polarization efficiency 
2. 81.7% polarization efficiency 

The latter increases light transmission slightly, and filter makers pass it off as "High Transmission", which is just a dirt-ball marketing tactic. 

All our CPLs are 99% polarization efficiency.

Graham


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 11, 2015)

Based on Graham's statement in this thread, I need to rethink my backing for a 105mm X3 CPL. Had planned to use it on a Lee 100x150 filter holder - sometimes in front of an ND grad - to get independent rotation on both filters. Don't have a 36+ MP sensor camera yet, but want this to be somewhat future proof. 

Maybe Breakthrough can figure out a filter holder with 2 slots that can be rotated independently and a 100x100 CPL. Then we could stick the CPL into the slot closer to the lens front element. I'll back that kickstarter project.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Nov 11, 2015)

Actually pixel pitch plays into this, for instance the Canon 5DS is 4.1um, the Olympus OM-D E-M1 is 3.74um both will produce more noise in the shadows than say a Nikon D610 at 5.95um. This is obviously simplistic because the circuitry plays a big part in managing noise but noise will contribute to the detrimental affects of filters. More importantly if we follow your logic then we should be matching lenses frequency to the pixel pitch but that is never going to happen given the different pixel pitches across the different cameras in each manufacturers ranges but that will maximise resolution far more than a filter alone.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 11, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> To a point raised by Graham Clark about adding the CPL first...
> 
> [truncated]
> 
> ...Critical sharpness on 36MP camera or higher will likely be more affected by technique (mirror lock-up, tripod, cable release, point of focus etc) than the filters and most colour shifts are correctable in Lightroom as long as they are not severe but its always better to get in right in-camera. As for polarizers they are here to stay regardless of MP.



Thanks, Jeffa. So this opens up a few questions:

1) Why is Lee Filters -- one of (if not _the_) biggest names in professional landscape work -- not espousing a similar Lens > CPL > Adaptor Ring > Holder > Slot-in Filter setup? 36MP is not a recent development, and Lee continue to market a system which places the CPL _beyond_ the slot-in filters (i.e. as the furthest forward piece of glass). Do they think vignetting is a bigger deal than sharpness, or is the threat to sharpness not that great? 

2) Have any stills shooters run a head to head with the two different ways we've discussed? I looked at Graham's samples, but I didn't see any full res shots to compare.

Again, I don't mean to doubt Graham's posting -- I find it noteworthy and want to learn more. I just need to see the kind of sharpness hit we're talking about _just from the order of stacking everything_. Does anyone have that?

- A


----------



## jeffa4444 (Nov 11, 2015)

Should have added defraction will become the biggest enemy the higher we climb the MP ladder.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 11, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> Should have added defraction will become the biggest enemy the higher we climb the MP ladder.



Or we could just becomes obsessives and focus stack everything: f/5.6 is the new f/14 if you take enough exposures. 

- A


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Nov 11, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> Actually pixel pitch plays into this, for instance the Canon 5DS is 4.1um, the Olympus OM-D E-M1 is 3.74um both will produce more noise in the shadows than say a Nikon D610 at 5.95um. This is obviously simplistic because the circuitry plays a big part in managing noise but noise will contribute to the detrimental affects of filters. More importantly if we follow your logic then we should be matching lenses frequency to the pixel pitch but that is never going to happen given the different pixel pitches across the different cameras in each manufacturers ranges but that will maximise resolution far more than a filter alone.



You're right, pixel pitch is becoming much more important, and noise performance is actually going down as a result of denser pixels, however filter performance is not directly affected by this.

Personally I've noticed much more noise in shadow detail on my Canon 5Ds R than my A7R2 or other cameras with lower MPs, which is why they probably limited the ISO to 12k.

But limiting the Live View to ISO 12k... now Canon just shot themselves 

Graham


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Nov 11, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > To a point raised by Graham Clark about adding the CPL first...
> ...



Talking about results is a lot less effective than viewing results, click here: http://breakthrough.photography/performance-gallery

Go down to the Lee vs. X3 ND comparison. Notice how the sharpness sucks?

The reason for this is not that the glass has no MRC coatings, or that the glass is bad, both of which could be true, but rather the glass is thick and it sits much further away from the front lens element.












Graham


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Nov 11, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> Should have added defraction will become the biggest enemy the higher we climb the MP ladder.



Yes, but not for the lenses that are being designed for high resolution sensors, like the Canon 16-35 F4 IS.

This lens was designed for 50.2MP+, and the results are shockingly impressive in the CA department.

Graham


----------



## jeffa4444 (Nov 11, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > To a point raised by Graham Clark about adding the CPL first...
> ...



I used the Lee system with the Canon 5DS on Dartmoor shooting waterfalls three weeks ago with a polarizer, warming filter (to enhance autumn leaves) and a little stopper. Shot everything on a tripod, with mirror lock-up release. All the shots were sharp and I got a good number of keepers. Cinematography matte boxes (filter holders) are mounted on bars not on the lens so its easy to rear mount polarizers. The old maxim of filters is only use them when you have to and try and limit yourself to stacking two the more you stack the bigger the chance of image shift and softness.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Nov 11, 2015)

grahamclarkphoto said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > Should have added defraction will become the biggest enemy the higher we climb the MP ladder.
> ...


Nyquist pure & simple. I have the lens.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 11, 2015)

grahamclarkphoto said:


> Go down to the Lee vs. X3 ND comparison. Notice how the sharpness sucks?
> 
> The reason for this is not that the glass has no MRC coatings, or that the glass is bad, both of which could be true, but rather the glass is thick and it sits much further away from the front lens element.



Doh. I missed the crops, Graham -- apologies. That's a clear sharpness difference, but again, we've changed two variables -- the filters and the order of setup of those filters. 

Again -- does anyone have head to head shots where only the order of stacking has changed? I don't have a perfect comparison setup or I'd do it myself.

- A


----------



## jeffa4444 (Nov 11, 2015)

grahamclarkphoto said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > jeffa4444 said:
> ...


----------



## jeffa4444 (Nov 11, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> grahamclarkphoto said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...


As far as Im aware all Lee Filters filters are 2mm regardless of filter. In cinematography they are 3mm and as long as the glass has a high clarity value and is optically flat the difference between 1mm, 2mm & 3mm is almost zero in terms of sharpness. I for one would not like to use 1mm glass in a 4x4 (10cm x 10cm) or 6x4 (10cm x 150cm) holders your just asking for trouble Ive broken 2mm Big Stoppers. 
Their resin filters use optical grade ADC polymers of the type Zeiss use for high end specticles


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 11, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> grahamclarkphoto said:
> 
> 
> > jeffa4444 said:
> ...



Diffraction is exactly the same for a 20MP sensor as it is for a 120MP sensor. If you enlarge the images the same the diffraction is the same.

MP have nothing to do with diffraction.


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Nov 11, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > grahamclarkphoto said:
> ...



No one ever said diffraction becomes worse with higher MP, we only said that if you enlarge already inherent diffraction it magnifies the detail.

Graham


----------



## RobertG. (Nov 11, 2015)

grahamclarkphoto said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > grahamclarkphoto said:
> ...



Hi Graham,

I shoot not only with the 5D II but also with the 5Ds R. "images will suck" is a pretty bold statement. I did just that recently: I shot with my 5Ds R + TS-E 24mm with a grad ND and my old Sigma CPL in front of it. The sharpness is OK and more than sufficient for my landscape and nature shots. In a 100% view of the CR2 file I can see that the picture is a tiny bit softer than without the filters. But this advantage of filterless taken photos is lost in post processing and on print-outs you could not see it. With my TS-E 17mm & 24mm and also the EF 24-70mm L II sharpness is no concern for me. These 3 lenses are used for more than 80% of my pictures at the moment. I own another 15 lenses.... but just a handful of CPL filters.

Sharpness won't be the reason for me to buy a new CPL filter. Accurate colors are much more important for me. That is the reason why I bought a Canon 5Ds R instead of a Sony camera.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 11, 2015)

grahamclarkphoto said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > jeffa4444 said:
> ...



Where does anybody point that out in this thread? I don't see the word 'magnification' used anywhere.

The implication in comment after comment entirely sidesteps the fact that diffraction is a constant related to aperture and magnification only. Not lens, not sensor, and not MP.


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Nov 11, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> grahamclarkphoto said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



It's implied.

Don't feed the trolls.

Graham


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Nov 11, 2015)

RobertG. said:


> grahamclarkphoto said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Did you not click the link I sent you? Seems we're going around in circles on this one...

Yea, Canon 5Ds R is great, but it's utterly useless for landscape photography with it's ISO 12k limitation, unfortunately. 

But the A7R2 is great, and although the color doesn't seem as natural out of camera, Sony seems to have nailed a number of other things.

Graham


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 12, 2015)

grahamclarkphoto said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > grahamclarkphoto said:
> ...


Hmm, So we have gone from 'nobody said', to 'it is implied'. Sorry, you guys are talking self indulgent crap.



grahamclarkphoto said:


> Yea, Canon 5Ds R is great, but it's utterly useless for landscape photography with it's ISO 12k limitation, unfortunately.
> 
> Graham



As for trolling, that has to be one of the best here for a while. How many landscape shooters are there? How many of them shoot at 12,000 iso for serious images?


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Nov 12, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> grahamclarkphoto said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



ISO 12k for Live View, not shooting. lol.

Graham


----------



## Stu_bert (Nov 12, 2015)

grahamclarkphoto said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > grahamclarkphoto said:
> ...



Sorry for going off thread, but what's the problem with ISO & live view on the 5Ds please ?


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Nov 12, 2015)

Stu_bert said:


> grahamclarkphoto said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



The Canon 5Ds R uses dual DIGIC 6 processors, with a hardware capability of going to ISO 200k+.

Understandably, due to high shadow detail ISO noise, in the software Canon limited the shooting ISO to ISO 12k. Check out the images below and you'll see that this is actually may be perceived by some as a reasonable move.

However for Live View they messed up and by accident, also in the software, limited the Live View to ISO 12k as well.

That means the Canon 5D2 with a Live View of ISO 25k, released in 2008, outperforms the 5Ds R by a factor of two when composing images with Exposure Simulation turned off (as it should be) with say ND filters, or during sunset where light is low.

For noise performance of the 5Ds R vs. A7R2 vs. 6D check out my in-progress review: http://www.grahamclarkphoto.com/canon-5ds-r-review-by-a-landscape-photographer/

Graham


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 12, 2015)

I still don't understand the 12k ISO problem. You mean, that in low light there is more visible noise on the small 3" rear LCD of the 5Ds R compared to a 5D II? And is this really a (serious) problem? ???


----------



## HighLowISO (Nov 12, 2015)

Sounds like the 5Ds live view could be improved easy enough with software update. 

Just a little closer to on topic; now that you are working with polarizers, does than mean we can expect a variable ND filter in the not to distant future? If so, would that still give up most of the quality gains of the X3 fixed ND filters?


----------



## lholmes549 (Nov 12, 2015)

Great to see the interaction from Graham!

I have question before purchasing the 105mm filter. What is the thickness of the filter and how is the vignetting at wide angles e.g. 16mm FF?
This is important to me in order to reduce chances of vignetting and have been looking at the Formatt Hitech 105mm UltraSlim CPL for this reason. 

Thanks


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 12, 2015)

lholmes549 said:


> I have question before purchasing the 105mm filter. What is the thickness of the filter and how is the vignetting at wide angles e.g. 16mm FF?



Graham can make some more or less vignetting statements comparatively to other filters he may have measured. But you can't state a hard 'it will vignette at Xmm' without more information:


He'll need to know the lens in question. Every lens has its own filter thread to front element distance that is slightly different.


If you are putting this polarizer in front of a slot-in filter holder with the 105 ring*, he'll need to know more about that Lee setup -- are you using a standard or UWA adaptor ring, how many slots are between the lens and the CPL, etc.

* You _have_ to be, don't you? Not aware of any UWA lenses with a 105mm filter ring.

To truly know your vignetting situation, there are enough variables that it's often best to just build that apparatus and test it, tell everyone how it went, and let the interwebs absorb that information for _future_ people who need that answer. 

Here's my hyperspecific offering on that front: 
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21554.msg409701#msg409701

- A


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Nov 12, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> I still don't understand the 12k ISO problem. You mean, that in low light there is more visible noise on the small 3" rear LCD of the 5Ds R compared to a 5D II? And is this really a (serious) problem? ???



1. You have two cameras next to eachother, the Canon 5D2 and Canon 5Ds R, they both have a nearly identical sunset composition and exposure values.

2. The 5D2 is displaying the sunset on the LCD through Live View at a moderate brightness - you can compose - at ISO 25k.

3. The 5Ds R displays a black LCD through live view - you cannot compose - due to ISO 12k.

Graham


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Nov 12, 2015)

HighLowISO said:


> Sounds like the 5Ds live view could be improved easy enough with software update.
> 
> Just a little closer to on topic; now that you are working with polarizers, does than mean we can expect a variable ND filter in the not to distant future? If so, would that still give up most of the quality gains of the X3 fixed ND filters?



Yes, you're quite right due to this being a software limitation, but this indicates a bigger problem - Canon doesn't see this stuff.

Regarding variable ND - never. They're useless for outdoor photography for three reasons:

1. Can't shoot at 30mm or wider
2. Yellow color
3. Sharpness sucks

So it's a dead-end product.

Graham


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Nov 12, 2015)

lholmes549 said:


> Great to see the interaction from Graham!
> 
> I have question before purchasing the 105mm filter. What is the thickness of the filter and how is the vignetting at wide angles e.g. 16mm FF?
> This is important to me in order to reduce chances of vignetting and have been looking at the Formatt Hitech 105mm UltraSlim CPL for this reason.
> ...



What lens are you shooting with?

The X3 CPL is the worlds slimmest CPL with front threads, around 4.6mm.

Graham


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Nov 12, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> lholmes549 said:
> 
> 
> > I have question before purchasing the 105mm filter. What is the thickness of the filter and how is the vignetting at wide angles e.g. 16mm FF?
> ...



Nice article! 

But why wouldn't you simply mount the CPL on the lens, behind the adapter ring like this:

LENS > CPL > ADAPTER RING > HOLDER > GND

As opposed to:

LENS > ADAPTER RING > HOLDER > GND > CPL ?

A CPL has three optical planes, and the further from the front lens element the more resolving power is reduced, which becomes discernible on 36MP, so in theory it's best to put quantities of flat optical planes closer to the front lens element, ideally behind the rear lens element, if possible.

Graham


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 12, 2015)

grahamclarkphoto said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > I still don't understand the 12k ISO problem. You mean, that in low light there is more visible noise on the small 3" rear LCD of the 5Ds R compared to a 5D II? And is this really a (serious) problem? ???
> ...



Oh goodness, I think the lightbulb finally went on about the high ISO comment. Graham, _are you framing a shot with in LiveView with a high stop ND filter already in place?_ That would explain it if so; you'd need explosive high ISO values to see anything through that for framing.

Why not nail everything -- polarization, framing, focus, etc. -- _without_ the big stopper in place, and then just drop it in with a corresponding shutter speed change? (I thought that was how everyone used those kind of filters.)

- A


----------



## jeffa4444 (Nov 12, 2015)

Couple of points according to various testers the Canon 5DS optimal f stop is between f5.6 & f8, on my 6D its been f11 to f16 that means the 5DS is defraction limited. 

Graham I know your mainly a landscape shooter but Ive never been limited so far by the live view on the 5DS I always compose with the filter holder off the camera, and add it after manually focusing. I dont like shooting anything over 200 ISO and will only ever go to 400 ISO. In two months of using the 5DS I now understand its limitations but equally understand its strenghs and will always have another lower MP camera or one with wider dynamic range. When you get it right the images from this camera blow me away including using "faulty" filters. When Lee brought out the 10 stop filter no one else was doing one, the blue cast is much improved on the new filters they produce now I have one for my Olympus OM-D so your example must be older.


----------



## lholmes549 (Nov 12, 2015)

grahamclarkphoto said:


> lholmes549 said:
> 
> 
> > Great to see the interaction from Graham!
> ...



Sorry I should have given more info!
I'm planning to use this on the Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS in conjunction with the Lee Filter holder and 105mm adapter ring. 

I didn't mean to give the impression that I expected an answer based on an exact set up as ahsanford mentioned, but just wanted an answer in relation to the other offerings from different manufacturers e.g. Formatt, Lee etc. 

Your answer of 4.6mm with front threads is all I needed to know, so thank you for your answer  but if you have any more info in regards to vignetting on the 16-35 I'd be interested to hear!

I also see you've been advocating using the LENS > CPL > FILTER HOLDER arrangement rather than LENS > FILTER HOLDER > 105MM CPL and have seen your arguments for sharpness and am very interested, but how does this configuration affect vignetting on say the 16-35 f/4?

Cheers


----------



## jeffa4444 (Nov 12, 2015)

lholmes549 said:


> grahamclarkphoto said:
> 
> 
> > lholmes549 said:
> ...


Ive got the 5DS with the EF16-35mm F4L IS USM fitted Ive used the Lee system with the Landscape pola etc. not had vignetting issues. The original pola does vignette. Keep in mind that at 16mm your get limted polarising effect against blue skies etc.


----------



## lholmes549 (Nov 12, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> lholmes549 said:
> 
> 
> > grahamclarkphoto said:
> ...



Thanks for the input!
If I was using the CPL at 16mm it'd be for around rivers/waterfalls etc to remove reflections but cheers


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 12, 2015)

lholmes549 said:


> Sorry I should have given more info!
> I'm planning to use this on the Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS in conjunction with the Lee Filter holder and 105mm adapter ring.
> 
> I didn't mean to give the impression that I expected an answer based on an exact set up as ahsanford mentioned, but just wanted an answer in relation to the other offerings from different manufacturers e.g. Formatt, Lee etc.
> ...



LHolmes, you are in luck. I could very well have that identical setup -- if you have two slots on that Lee setup and are using the Lee wide angle adaptor ring on your 16-35 (which you absolutely should!).

If that is the case, again, go here: 
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21554.msg409701#msg409701

You get 16mm without vignetting + two slots + NO CPL in that 105 ring.
You get 20mm without vignetting + two slots + CPL in place in that 105 ring.

My particular 105mm CPL was the B+W Kaesemann. Like most of the 105s I've seen, it is chunky. I just measured it, and it is a total thickness of 11.5mm or so. About 3.0-3.5mm of that is below the non-rotating ring of the CPL that you turn to thread it on to the Lee Adaptor ring, so the rest is a stouter chunk of glass and a very tall ring. So anything thinner than that could possibly get you some of that 16-20mm space back. There are 'slim' 105 CPLs, but not from B+W so I didn't pursue them. There also is a beastly stepped version (105 threads on the back, way bigger on the front) that completely gets out of the 16mm optical path, but I believe that it is discontinued.

That is, *if* you choose to keep that setup. Tear down the holder to just one slot and you should be fine down to 16mm. 

I can't speak for Graham's method -- I've never run that test, but that's an easy test you can run at home (see the link for my rough method). I'd just slap any old 77 filter (UV or CPL) on your 16-35, _then_ mount your Lee ring, then mount your holder and shoot an in-focus white wall. Then compare the thickness of your 77mm filter against Graham's reported 4.6mm and you should be in business.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 12, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> Ive got the 5DS with the EF16-35mm F4L IS USM fitted Ive used the Lee system with the Landscape pola etc. not had vignetting issues. The original pola does vignette. Keep in mind that at 16mm your get limted polarising effect against blue skies etc.



You must only have one slot in your holder, then. If you mean Lee's 105mm when you say 'the original pola', it's even thicker than the B+W one, I believe.

My experience is that the 105 mounting ring itself doesn't block the 16-35 f/4L IS's optical path at 16mm, but any 105mm ringed construct that pushes _past_ that ring (like the rotatey bits of a 105 CPL) _*will*_. You will vignette there a small amount depending on how tall the CPL's turnable ring is.

So if you really need 16mm, either pull a slot out of your holder or buy a 'slim' 105 CPL. I believe that Hitech and Heliopan make them (and possibly these new Breakthrough ones, Graham?).

- A


----------



## jeffa4444 (Nov 12, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > Ive got the 5DS with the EF16-35mm F4L IS USM fitted Ive used the Lee system with the Landscape pola etc. not had vignetting issues. The original pola does vignette. Keep in mind that at 16mm your get limted polarising effect against blue skies etc.
> ...


Thats what I meant I never talked about the mounting ring.


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Nov 12, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> grahamclarkphoto said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



No, the difference here has nothing to do with ND filters, even in Olympic National Park under tree cover the ISO failed to produce a workable image on the LCD, and in order to achieve critical sharpness on the 5Ds R manual focusing on live view is pretty much a requirement.

Shooting ISO 12k software limitation = makes sense
Live View ISO 12k software limitation = Canon shot themselves

Graham


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Nov 12, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> Couple of points according to various testers the Canon 5DS optimal f stop is between f5.6 & f8, on my 6D its been f11 to f16 that means the 5DS is defraction limited.
> 
> Graham I know your mainly a landscape shooter but Ive never been limited so far by the live view on the 5DS I always compose with the filter holder off the camera, and add it after manually focusing. I dont like shooting anything over 200 ISO and will only ever go to 400 ISO. In two months of using the 5DS I now understand its limitations but equally understand its strenghs and will always have another lower MP camera or one with wider dynamic range. When you get it right the images from this camera blow me away including using "faulty" filters. When Lee brought out the 10 stop filter no one else was doing one, the blue cast is much improved on the new filters they produce now I have one for my Olympus OM-D so your example must be older.



No, again this has nothing to do with shooting ISO. I've never shot on anything above 50 / 100.

Separate shooting ISO from Live View ISO (with exposure simulation turned off).

That's the problem here. 

Graham


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Nov 12, 2015)

lholmes549 said:


> grahamclarkphoto said:
> 
> 
> > lholmes549 said:
> ...



Good news, we use the Canon 16-35 F4 IS for all our research and development, considering it's the sharpest and best performing ultra wide we've ever used.

No vignetting down to 16mm on that lens.

As for putting tons of filters far away from front lens element - bad idea, especially for that lens being such a good performer. 

Graham


----------



## jeffa4444 (Nov 12, 2015)

Graham 
So what is the thickness of your glass? circular filters can live with thinner glass but not slot-in 2mm is about as thin as you can get.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 12, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> Couple of points according to various testers the Canon 5DS optimal f stop is between f5.6 & f8, on my 6D its been f11 to f16 that means the 5DS is defraction limited.



Optimal for what?

Optimal for resolution, sharpness, depth of field..........

The point I tried to make is that any impact diffraction has is the same on a a 6D or a 5DS. If you are happy with your prints from a 6D at 20" x 30" at f11, you will be more than pleased with 5DS prints at the same size and aperture, if you are able to open a suitable lens up a bit more on the 5DS it will give you even more detail if that detail falls in the smaller depth of field. Enlarge your 5DS print to twice the size of the 6D and view it from the same distance and it has less dof anyway even when shot at the same aperture.

There is no free lunch, remember, aperture and magnification alone (and viewer acuity) determine dof.


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Nov 12, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > Couple of points according to various testers the Canon 5DS optimal f stop is between f5.6 & f8, on my 6D its been f11 to f16 that means the 5DS is defraction limited.
> ...



Yes of course, at the same print size, say 20x30, you'd be hardpressed to find a difference between the two where diffraction is concerned, but I think the assumption here is that the files are viewed at 100% their native resolution, not both at the same print size.

If viewed at their respective 100% native resolutions on a retina display, inherent diffraction is simply magnified on a large MP file, whereas before it was minimized.

Graham


----------



## RobertG. (Nov 12, 2015)

grahamclarkphoto said:


> ...
> 
> Yea, Canon 5Ds R is great, but it's utterly useless for landscape photography with it's ISO 12k limitation, unfortunately. ...
> 
> Graham



Statements like this discredit you as a photographer. If you need more than ISO 12,000 for "landscape photography", you probably aim for fancy post processing and visual effects rather than a landscape shot. Maybe you should focus on graphic dsign. ISO 400 should do for most landscapes, except for astro photography.


----------



## RobertG. (Nov 12, 2015)

grahamclarkphoto said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > I still don't understand the 12k ISO problem. You mean, that in low light there is more visible noise on the small 3" rear LCD of the 5Ds R compared to a 5D II? And is this really a (serious) problem? ???
> ...



You should take the lens cap off when shooting with the 5Ds R.


----------



## SloPhoto (Nov 12, 2015)

I use their X1 and X3 UV filters and enjoy them. The knurled rim is great, and the low profile doesn't noticeably vignette at wide angle. I don't know if it's worth replacing existing good filters, but definitely worth considering for new.


----------



## HighLowISO (Nov 13, 2015)

RobertG. said:


> grahamclarkphoto said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


I guess you forgot to read the thread, and thus understand the problem.

While his comment reflects his own view, they are backed up with a description of some of his applications. It's obviously a serious issue for him and I think most people can see that and can adjust the inclusivity or exclusivity of his remark based on their own usage. In any case an unnessesary restriction is just that, "unnecessary" and should be corrected so the creative can use the tools as they see fit. 

He has brought a lot of good information to this thread so I give him a lot of credit for that even if we don't see eye to eye on everything; I find that's the way with most people and is a good thing.


----------



## meywd (Nov 13, 2015)

HighLowISO said:


> RobertG. said:
> 
> 
> > grahamclarkphoto said:
> ...



+1


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Nov 13, 2015)

RobertG. said:


> grahamclarkphoto said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



"No, again this has nothing to do with shooting ISO. I've never shot on anything above 50 / 100.

Separate shooting ISO from Live View ISO (with exposure simulation turned off).

That's the problem here. "

I'm just an amateur photographer so I have not much depth to discredit.

Graham


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 13, 2015)

RobertG. said:


> grahamclarkphoto said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Gang, he's clearly doing something in low light with LiveView that we don't understand. (Perhaps nailing critical focus on something dark in the foreground before the sun comes up? I'm speculating here.)

Graham, we just can't figure out what the heck you're doing -- _in specifics_ -- where you need such crazy high ISO to set up a landscape shot. Do explain or the skeptics will keep reloading their pop guns. 

But in all my readings about Canon gear, I've never heard someone decry limited LiveView high ISO levels as a reason to not use a rig for landscapes. 

- A


----------



## LostBoyNZ (Nov 13, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Gang, he's clearly doing something in low light with LiveView that we don't understand. (Perhaps nailing critical focus on something dark in the foreground before the sun comes up? I'm speculating here.)
> 
> Graham, we just can't figure out what the heck you're doing -- _in specifics_ -- where you need such crazy high ISO to set up a landscape shot. Do explain or the skeptics will keep reloading their pop guns.
> 
> ...



If I had to guess, I'd say he's using live view after putting strong ND filters on. That way the ND filter can stay there between photos of different scenes, instead of having to take it off between each new scene.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 13, 2015)

LostBoyNZ said:


> If I had to guess, I'd say he's using live view after putting strong ND filters on. That way the ND filter can stay there between photos of different scenes, instead of having to take it off between each new scene.



Nope. I already asked that on page 6. Graham said that wasn't it. 

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 13, 2015)

grahamclarkphoto said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > jeffa4444 said:
> ...



To you and I that might seem obvious. To the myriad of people who keep banging on about how "diffraction limited" the 5DS/R cameras are, I think, not so much.

Most people can't get there heads around the concept that as you print bigger your dof gets smaller for the same image, or as you move further from an actual print the dof gets deeper. I'd venture most people, after looking at their images from their new camera at 100% just for the hell of it, look at the images at full screen, or as a favourite print size, and at this point the diffraction 'issue' becomes a complete red herring.





ahsanford said:


> RobertG. said:
> 
> 
> > grahamclarkphoto said:
> ...



Graham has explained in simple steps what he is doing. Indeed you lay out one scenario. I understand excty what he is doing and why the 'limitation' doesn't work for him.

However I often shoot in the dark with a camera that maxes out at 1600iso and rely on the workarounds that have been used since photography started and not higher tech. I can understand the frustration if you are used to something more capable, but I have used a flashlight/torch effectively for dawn and dusk shots (and even in daylight if the subject is dark) since 1978 and don't feel particularly disadvantaged. I would certainly never say a camera that's display 'only' worked to 12,000 iso _"utterly useless for landscape photography"_ but maybe I am not up to date enough.


----------



## risc32 (Nov 13, 2015)

well i guess i need it layed out in even simpler terms, as i have no clue what he's doing. You seem to be saying you've used a flashlight/torch to handle this issue? Or was that just an example of the sort of workaround that sometimes needs to be done. like when i use a flashlight for AFing my cameras on dimly lit subjects...
actually, don't bother laying it out, i don't care. what am i doing here anyway....


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Nov 13, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> RobertG. said:
> 
> 
> > grahamclarkphoto said:
> ...



Anytime you're shooting a sunset.

Or using ND filters.

Which is pretty much 90% of the time for landscape photography.

Graham


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Nov 13, 2015)

LostBoyNZ said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Gang, he's clearly doing something in low light with LiveView that we don't understand. (Perhaps nailing critical focus on something dark in the foreground before the sun comes up? I'm speculating here.)
> ...



Or no ND filter at all in a place with cloudcover.

The point is that the Canon 5D Mark II outperforms the 5Ds R for purposes of composition and manually focusing at 100%, and that's simply an "oops, we fucked that up" on Canon's part, not a conscious design decision.

Graham


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 13, 2015)

grahamclarkphoto said:


> Or no ND filter at all in a place with cloudcover.



@Graham - that's were I cannot follow you. 
As long as there is no ND filter in front of the lens LiveView ISO 3200 or maybe 6400 should be sufficient compose image and manually focus on desired spot using 5x or 10x magnification feature - even in situations with cloud cover or in a forest ot sunset/sunrise. And 12k LiveView ISO should really cover any reasonably imaginable capture situation ... as long as there is no ND filter in front of lens. No?


----------



## jeffa4444 (Nov 13, 2015)

grahamclarkphoto said:


> LostBoyNZ said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...


I guess we all have our own way of working cannot say I feel restricted by the live view on the 5DS so far. I tend to focus without the filter holder in place and clip it back on & check the grad line after.


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Nov 13, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> grahamclarkphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Or no ND filter at all in a place with cloudcover.
> ...



Just a few weeks ago I was with Art Wolfe on one of his workshops in Olympic National Park, at 3PM the 5Ds R was useless for everyone using one.

Even if light is low, not with ND, it's a huge issue.

If you go back to the 5D Mark II and use it for a while, you'll get a feeling again for how much a low ISO Live View sucks. Then make that problem twice as bad = 5Ds R.

Graham


----------



## lholmes549 (Nov 13, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> lholmes549 said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry I should have given more info!
> ...



Thanks ahsanford! You've been a great help, and have held your patience well with me, I really appreciate it!

I do indeed use the Lee wide angle adapter and I have previously tested with a cheapo CPL that was very thin attached directly to the lens and there wasn't much vignetting even with 2 slots, so just wondered how the X3 CPL would compare.

As it turns out I've decided to back them for a 77mm CPL so we'll see how it goes and hopefully I'll be able to post some test shots of vignetting for others! 

I had been aiming to get a 105mm CPL for a while but I was holding off because of the price, the added bulk and because it wasn't essential for me, so I'm glad I didn't drop £200 on one. Hopefully these filters live up to the hyper, and I've seen no reason to believe they won't!


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 13, 2015)

Mining the past posts in this thread, Graham, you make a few mentions of turning off Exposure Simulation in LiveView. I've heard of this done with studio strobe work and for astro, but I've not heard of this for landscapes.

Again, I don't get what you're saying as you're not being explicit when/how this happens, so I'll try to guess that specific scenario again:

1) You are setting up for landscape shot in low light, sunrise/sunset, etc.
2) Your LiveView exposure simulation is OFF.
3) It's so dark on the LCD you need to crank the ISO to frame the shot, perhaps perform 10x manual focus, etc.
4) Once the shot is framed / focused, you _then_ go back to 100 ISO, apply filters, etc.

Is that about right? Is #2 forcing #3 to happen for you, possibly? 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 13, 2015)

lholmes549 said:


> Thanks ahsanford! You've been a great help, and have held your patience well with me, I really appreciate it!
> 
> I do indeed use the Lee wide angle adapter and I have previously tested with a cheapo CPL that was very thin attached directly to the lens and there wasn't much vignetting even with 2 slots, so just wondered how the X3 CPL would compare.
> 
> ...



Then you should be all set -- that's Graham's stacking method (putting the CPL directly on the lens). If that doesn't vignette, you're good to go.

The biggest downside of that approach is if you are using ND Grads with that CPL. 

With the 105 CPL in front, you can 100% independently dial-in level of polarization and the orientation of the ND Grad. This is the lowest fuss setup to use, and it's the most common I've seen. 

With the 77 CPL on the lens, rotating the ND grad on the holder can turn the adaptor ring, which in turn can rotate your CPL. So it can be a small hassle (not a dealbreaker) to orient everything correctly. But according to Graham, you will get sharper shots this way.

- A


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Nov 13, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Mining the past posts in this thread, Graham, you make a few mentions of turning off Exposure Simulation in LiveView. I've heard of this done with studio strobe work and for astro, but I've not heard of this for landscapes.
> 
> Again, I don't get what you're saying as you're not being explicit when/how this happens, so I'll try to guess that specific scenario again:
> 
> ...



No:

Exposure simulation turned ON shows you on Live View what your exposure parameters are
Exposure simulation turned OFF shows you on Live View the scene before the camera with the lowest F-number and ISO moves throughout the range to show you the composition. This is where it should always be so just set it and forget it. 

10 photographers all have cameras made in the past 5 years, they are all shooting a sunset, for example, one person is shooting with the 5Ds R.

If you go up behind each one, you can see their composition very clearly on Live View. It's easy to compose and focus (manually at 100%), except the 5Ds R Live View is black. 

Graham


----------



## scottkinfw (Nov 14, 2015)

I ordered one (82 mm) when this first appeared on CR. Went to site and had a "chat" with one of the developers. Should get it by mid December. I am getting this as an additional filter, not a replacement. Price was right, it looks great, and hopefully, it will perform well. It is the holiday season, my camera has been good to me, so I got her a gift.

My input anyway.

sek



Canon Rumors said:


> <p class="p1"><span class="s1">A fairly new filter company, called Breakthrough Photography, just launched what they are calling “the world’s sharpest and most color neutral circular polarizer”, and they’re even making a version specifically for Canon’s CINE lens lineup. So far, here’s what we know about it:</span></p>
> <ul class="ul1">
> <li class="li1"><span class="s1">American-made CPL film called <i>CrystalVision®</i></span></li>
> <li class="li1"><i></i><span class="s1"><i>SCHOTT B270® </i>Optical glass Made in Germany</span></li>
> ...


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Nov 14, 2015)

dilbert said:


> grahamclarkphoto said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Every CPL ever made since 1990 uses Nitto CPL film, made in China. We use it on our X1 CPL, it's good stuff, but at 600nm transmission increases giving images a yellow cast. 

B+W, Hoya, Tiffen, Formatt, Singh-Ray, whoever - they all use the same.

And then at 700nm it spikes a bit in IR.

Ours declines from 600nm going forward, which eliminates the typical cast you see on all the Nitto CPLs.

Graham


----------



## RobertG. (Nov 15, 2015)

grahamclarkphoto said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Mining the past posts in this thread, Graham, you make a few mentions of turning off Exposure Simulation in LiveView. I've heard of this done with studio strobe work and for astro, but I've not heard of this for landscapes.
> ...



You know, when you shoot a sunset, you shoot the setting sun. So there is light. Plenty of light - from the sun. If your Live View is black, you do something wrong. Even at night with just the street lights on, I can see and focus in Live View with my 5Ds R. I had no problems yet with sunsets and Live View. I shot about 1/5 sec f11 ISO 100 at sunsets, which is more than enough light for the Live View.


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Nov 15, 2015)

RobertG. said:


> grahamclarkphoto said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



This issue certainly does not affect all photographers, in fact it probably doesn't affect 95% or more of photographers.

But it does affect the 5% of landscape photographers, arguably the most important niche for this camera. 

Graham


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 15, 2015)

grahamclarkphoto said:


> This issue certainly does not affect all photographers, in fact it probably doesn't affect 95% or more of photographers.
> But it does affect the 5% of landscape photographers, arguably the most important niche for this camera.



There are lots of cameras with an upper (expanded) ISO limit of 12800 like the 5DSR, and lots with just one extra stop. With respect, your suggestion that viewing/composing a sunset in Live View with such a limit is impossible because 'the 5Ds R Live View is black' is simply ludicrous. Admittedly, I have not used a 5DsR to shoot sunsets, but I've Live View-composed plenty of very dark scenes that ended up at 30 s exposures at ISO 400 or 800 with an f/2.8 or f/4 lens on cameras with an upper limit of ISO 12800 (T1i, 7D) and have not had any issues. I suppose it's possible that there's a firmware issue with the model (although that seems unlikely given statements by others), or possibly your 5DsR is defective, or the problem in your case is user error.


----------



## bholliman (Nov 15, 2015)

grahamclarkphoto said:


> RobertG. said:
> 
> 
> > grahamclarkphoto said:
> ...





neuroanatomist said:


> grahamclarkphoto said:
> 
> 
> > This issue certainly does not affect all photographers, in fact it probably doesn't affect 95% or more of photographers.
> ...



I am an amateur landscape photographer. I've had my 5DsR for about 6 weeks and have been using it several times per week to shoot sunrise and sunsets with no live view issues. On a couple of occasions I've had my 5DsR and 6D set-up on different tripods in the same area using both in live view at the same time and found both easy to work with and focus, no noticeable difference in the LV experience between the two cameras. 

A normal situation for me is to be on site one hour to 45 minutes before sunrise, so I'm usually using a flashlight and set-up my equipment. I shoot in manual, ISO 100 and aperture of f/8 to f/22 depending on if I am planning to focus stack or am going for a sunstar effect. I shoot in live view and vary exposure by changing the shutter speed, bracketing exposures to capture everything. The process has been working well for me. Occasionally, I've used a flashlight to help achieve focus when its really dark, but only once or twice, normally I can focus fine in live view at 10x. 

I typically don't use ND filters unless I'm trying to really smooth flowing water. When I am using a ND, I focus without the filter and lock it then attach the filter and shoot, making the necessary adjustments to the shutter speed for proper exposure. Overall, I'm very pleased with the 5DsR as a landscape camera.


----------



## RGF (Nov 15, 2015)

besides from this being an advertising discussion, that difference does a small color shift make. Can't that be corrected in PS? Perhaps not perfectly but adequately?

I do NOT photograph for product catalogs - my colors are seldom accurate, rather I aim for artistically pleasing.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 15, 2015)

if I can gear that gives me more neutral captures requiring less work in post compared to other gear, I'll definitely get it. Some of those color shifts can be pretty hard to eliminate in post, and it it is not without side-effects / not "lossless". If the (future) Breakthrough X3 CPL we are discussing here does deliver the advantages as promised without introducing disadvantages, it should be a no brainer - since it is substantially less expensive than decent competitive products.


----------



## RGF (Nov 15, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> if I can gear that gives me more neutral captures requiring less work in post compared to other gear, I'll definitely get it. Some of those color shifts can be pretty hard to eliminate in post, and it it is not without side-effects / not "lossless". If the (future) Breakthrough X3 CPL we are discussing here does deliver the advantages as promised without introducing disadvantages, it should be a no brainer - since it is substantially less expensive than decent competitive products.



except that most of us have already have filters so a new set, even if significantly better than we would buy it. For only a slight improvement, not sure it is worth the money. If I need to replace a filter, then perhaps I would get it.


----------



## xseven (Nov 15, 2015)

Sorry if the info was covered so far ... but how effective is the filter on blue skies at 24mm?


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 16, 2015)

xseven said:


> Sorry if the info was covered so far ... but how effective is the filter on blue skies at 24mm?



what do you mean? It will be effective depending on circumstances at capture ... angle of sunlight you're shooting at and probably about 100 other factors, as with any CPL. And yes, with 24mm FL [on FF sensor] you'll very likely get some uneven brighness in the sky, using (any) CPL. At least I have not seen any claims to the contrary by the makers. Since this specific filter is not out in the wild yet - but only on kickstarter as a project - there are also no user reports available either.


----------



## LostBoyNZ (Nov 16, 2015)

xseven said:


> Sorry if the info was covered so far ... but how effective is the filter on blue skies at 24mm?



Hi  At 24mm (assuming a full frame camera) there will be quite an uneven color in the sky. This picture (24mm) should give you a rough idea what to expect in some cases, but as the person above posted it does vary quite a bit.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Nov 16, 2015)

Alternative view put forwards on "Photography" blog:- 

Putting the ND filter last, or closest to the lens, will cut down on reflections which result in lens flare.

Where-ever there is a surface in front of the lens (such as a filter), there is the potential for any small unwanted reflections bouncing from the lens to be reflected back into the lens and form lens flare. Here is an example of the type of lens flare you get from a UV filter. And this filter has an anti-reflective coating (from the green tinge, you may recognise it as a single-coated filter).

All glass surfaces will cause this, including the elements in the lens itself, but the elements inside the lens typically have very good anti-reflective coatings. You will get lens flare from the lens itself if there are strong light points in the picture, but you'll get more, and in some cases much more noticeable ones, if you have a filter in front of the lens.

An ND filter, especially one that's 3 stops or more, naturally reduces reflections simply because it reduces all light. Any reflections that pass through the ND filter will be reduced by 3 stops on the way out of the filter, then if there are further reflections from the outer surface of the ND filter or from subsequent filters, these will again be reduced by a further 3 stops as they travel back inwards. This reduces reflections by 64 times, for those reflections which pass through the ND filter twice.

If you have other filters between the ND filter and the lens, there is potential for reflections from the lens to bounce off these filters and back into the lens immediately without passing through the ND filter.

(This is the same reason why a lot of ND filters with 3 stops or more (8x or more) attenuation are not coated; they don't need it so much as the light attenuation of the filter itself is as good at reducing reflections.)

So to summarise, in so far as you get lens flare by having multiple filters, you'll get less lens flare by having the ND filter the closest one to the lens.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 16, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> xseven said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry if the info was covered so far ... but how effective is the filter on blue skies at 24mm?
> ...



+1. Using a CPL at 24mm FF (or 15mm crop) will give you that nasty field of view 'pseudovignetting' look in which parts of the sky at 90 degrees to the sun are dark blue and the sides that aren't will be much brighter. A new CPL product isn't going to address that -- that's a reality of CPLs.

For taming a bright sky, I try not to use CPLs under 35mm (FF) or so. 

For taming reflections on glass, water, etc. go nuts using a CPL on wider angles, but keep an eye on the sky.

- A


----------



## Famateur (Nov 16, 2015)

Side-discussion about the 5DS(R) for landscape photography in Live View notwithstanding, I appreciate Graham's on-topic information about filter comparisons, manufacturing and availability. 

It's nice to have interaction from gear companies on the forum. Let's not spoil it with an argument about how a camera is used in certain situations, eh?


----------



## Stu_bert (Nov 16, 2015)

grahamclarkphoto said:


> HighLowISO said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds like the 5Ds live view could be improved easy enough with software update.
> ...



Thanks for the explanation, sorry to all for the diversion.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Nov 17, 2015)

Part of what Graham claimed did not sit comfortably with me so I ran it past a good friend who is one the the most eminate lens designers in the world based in Switzerland and he works with some pretty major players. He verified what I suspected in that the order of the filters at the distance they are away from the focal plane is not material to the resolution. Thickness, numbers of filters and the surface or bonded substances are and these would affect contrast. The presumption is they are all made from high grade optical glass or high grade optical resins and in the case of companies like B&W, Hoya, Formatt, Nisi, Lee Filters, Singh Ray etc they are.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 26, 2015)

Back to the original topic about the new CPL (now renamed to X4):

They seem to start shipping now so people can share their impressions soon.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 26, 2015)

that sudden re-naming to X4 was really weird. They could have thought iof it before launching the kickstarter campaign. On the other hand, name of a product is largely irrelevant to me, as long as it performs well.


----------



## tpatana (Dec 26, 2015)

Interesting, need to keep my eye on this. Also the ND, as a recent owner of the TS-E 24. Which one people usually use, 6 or 10?


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 27, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> eminate



eminent


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 27, 2015)

tpatana said:


> Interesting, need to keep my eye on this. Also the ND, as a recent owner of the TS-E 24. Which one people usually use, 6 or 10?


Hey tpatana! Take a look at their HP. They have a quite good nd buying guide:
http://breakthrough.photography/2015-nd-buying-guide/
Maybe this will help you to decide.


By the way: 
They told me lately they would start shipping probably around Dec. 30th. 
Hope they manage to do so...


----------



## tpatana (Dec 27, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting, need to keep my eye on this. Also the ND, as a recent owner of the TS-E 24. Which one people usually use, 6 or 10?
> ...



Interesting link, thanks. But they have one mistake on the guide when they tell to go ISO50 for longer exposures. Almost all cameras ISO50 is artificial, hence no point using it over ISO100. But sounds like ND6 would be good then anyway?


----------



## wsmith96 (Dec 30, 2015)

wsmith96 said:


> grahamclarkphoto said:
> 
> 
> > wsmith96 said:
> ...





For those who supported this kickstarter, have you received the product yet? I'm still waiting on mine. I was under the impression it was to ship in early December.


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 30, 2015)

wsmith96 said:


> For those who supported this kickstarter, have you received the product yet? I'm still waiting on mine. I was under the impression it was to ship in early December.


Ther was a kickstarter update yesterday (29th) that they'll start shiping right now:
"... The first wave will ship within the next 24 hours, primarily 77mm and 82mm. We'll ship in the order of backer order. ..."

So expect the first deliveries soon after	New Year's Day. 

Mine has to travel over the Atlantic and I added one of their NDs, so I suppose I'll have to wait a little bit longer.
But I'm going to report as soon as I have it in my hands.


----------



## wsmith96 (Dec 30, 2015)

Thanks - I got a 77mm so sounds like I should have it shortly. I'll be comparing against my Nikon CPL and will report back once I have it in my hands


----------



## DeafByDrumming (Dec 31, 2015)

I've had their X3 ND3 & 10 but never got the Limited Edition X2 CPL from their first kickstarter. Got an email this morning that stated that they shipped me the newer CPL version X4. It should get here on Monday Jan 4, going by USPS tracking information. I only have a Kenko CPL to compare it with atm.


----------



## RGF (Jan 1, 2016)

DeafByDrumming said:


> I've had their X3 ND3 & 10 but never got the Limited Edition X2 CPL from their first kickstarter. Got an email this morning that stated that they shipped me the newer CPL version X4. It should get here on Monday Jan 4, going by USPS tracking information. I only have a Kenko CPL to compare it with atm.



Let us know once you had a chance to use the CP.


----------



## tpatana (Jan 1, 2016)

Tried their ND6 quickly. It makes the pictures much darker.


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Jan 19, 2016)

There's been a few people here wondering when the X4 CPL will ship:

1. We shipped 1,000 on December 21st
2. We're shipping 2,500 more on Friday or Saturday

We got nearly 6,000 X4 CPLs ordered in less than 30 days which blew away our expectations. But all said and done we're on-schedule to have them manufactured and shipped in less than two months after the Kickstarter ended.

Most Kickstarter projects never ship, but we do our best to ship as soon as possible, which means no time off for Christmas, New Years and the rest, so your patience is appreciated.

We've spent a lot of time engineering the CrystalVision CPL film, the new frame design and more to make this the best CPL on the market. Looking forward to delivering it and hearing your thoughts after you've had a chance to put yours to the test. 

Check out our FB page to see updates from photographers who have received theirs:

https://facebook.com/breakthroughphotographyfilters/

Graham


----------



## lholmes549 (Jan 20, 2016)

Hi Graham, you said through a kickstarter update you began shipping on the 28th December, but said above you began on 21st. Which one was it? 

Also, not to drag on about it but I took time out to type out a fairly lengthy comment on kickstarter asking about the B+W transmission chart linked in the comments and all you responded with was that the B+W chart was incorrect. I appreciate you are busy, and want everyone including myself to get the filter as quickly as possible, but if you are going to make claims like that in response to a very honest question I think you should back it up with why the chart is incorrect or else it seems like you're calling B+W out on false charts.

Luke


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Jan 20, 2016)

lholmes549 said:


> Hi Graham, you said through a kickstarter update you began shipping on the 28th December, but said above you began on 21st. Which one was it?
> 
> Also, not to drag on about it but I took time out to type out a fairly lengthy comment on kickstarter asking about the B+W transmission chart linked in the comments and all you responded with was that the B+W chart was incorrect. I appreciate you are busy, and want everyone including myself to get the filter as quickly as possible, but if you are going to make claims like that in response to a very honest question I think you should back it up with why the chart is incorrect or else it seems like you're calling B+W out on false charts.
> 
> Luke



Hello Luke, we said we would be shipping on December 25 but we started shipping on December 21. 

We have tested the B+W transmission polarizer and the transmission chart is on our website. 

Notice how the transmission charts look different. 

Graham


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 20, 2016)

Running a test and getting a result different from that of another does not necessarily mean they're the one who is incorrect.


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Jan 20, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Running a test and getting a result different from that of another does not necessarily mean they're the one who is incorrect.



Have you seen how different the results are or are you just speculating?

Graham


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 20, 2016)

grahamclarkphoto said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Running a test and getting a result different from that of another does not necessarily mean they're the one who is incorrect.
> ...



I've seen the difference. I'm also familiar with 'tests' performed to support marketing claims. Auto makers (don't we just love car analogies here?) can all claim to make the safest cars, which is why data from an independent party like the IIHS is useful.


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Jan 20, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> grahamclarkphoto said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Yes, I'm completely with you there in your observations on marketing.

But the results that came out of our industry standard spectrometer are completely objective, and I guarantee you we didn't mess with the numbers.

Graham


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 20, 2016)

grahamclarkphoto said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > grahamclarkphoto said:
> ...



...and therefore B+W is incorrect...or lying?

FWIW, I've empirically tested B+W UV and ND filters in my prior lab, and found their published spectra to be accurate.


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Jan 20, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> grahamclarkphoto said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Either that or the stuff they put out isn't consistent with the transmission chart they have.

The transmission charts we have are objective and correct, guaranteed. The B+W HTC transmission profile is consistent with Nitto CPL film, which makes sense, with a polarization efficiency of 63% rather than 99.98%.

Graham


----------



## lholmes549 (Jan 21, 2016)

grahamclarkphoto said:


> lholmes549 said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Graham, you said through a kickstarter update you began shipping on the 28th December, but said above you began on 21st. Which one was it?
> ...



Thanks. That was all I wanted to know. 

The filters are starting to get into hands around the world so I look forward to receiving mine and taking it for a spin.


----------



## Maui5150 (Jan 21, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Running a test and getting a result different from that of another does not necessarily mean they're the one who is incorrect.



This x10000


----------



## mnclayshooter (Aug 1, 2016)

Hi all - sorry to revive an old discussion but this one seems pretty close to what I'm trying to get a little better understanding of. 

I am heading out to Yellowstone soon and would like to replace a really clunky old CPL I have (w/dented ring and all... dented in the bag/loose, not on a lens, thankfully). 

I likely will have the EF 16-35 f4 on abut 90% of the time and will swap it out for the 100-400 for wildlife. 
I've ordered the ND filters from breakthrough but held off on the CPL for two reasons: 

1) on my 17-35 lens I used to use the CPL or a fader occasionally, but I didn't like the weird "X" with the fader if I pushed it just a little too far, and I didn't like the weird blue blobs in the sky on the wide end. With the flatter front element on the 16-35 f4, is there a recommended best CPL, or should I just rely on the ND's to tame down the bright sky? Anyone have any example photos with a CPL (B&W kasseman, Breakthrough Photography or other) on the 16-35 f4? 

2) 100-400 is notorious for having issues with filters and degrading the image - any experience with the breakthrough photography filters on the mk I lens?


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 1, 2016)

mnclayshooter said:


> Hi all - sorry to revive an old discussion but this one seems pretty close to what I'm trying to get a little better understanding of.
> 
> I am heading out to Yellowstone soon and would like to replace a really clunky old CPL I have (w/dented ring and all... dented in the bag/loose, not on a lens, thankfully).
> 
> ...



I don't use CPLs on UWA lenses when sky is involved due to the uneven polarization effect with such a wide angle of view. For water/snow, it's a different story, so that is when I tend to use CPLs with UWA lenses. Graduated NDs would work especially if you're referring to something like the Cokin/Lee systems where you can place the line where you want it. Otherwise you're stuck exposing for the skies and pushing the exposure for the ground in post or blending multiple exposures.

I've never had problems using filters with either version of the 100-400 (previously I and now II). All my filters are B&W, but I wouldn't mind trying Breakthrough. Some of complained of Breakthrough's support and uneven quality, but if get a good one, then they're very good.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 1, 2016)

mnclayshooter said:


> 1) on my 17-35 lens I used to use the CPL or a fader occasionally, but I didn't like the weird "X" with the fader if I pushed it just a little too far, and I didn't like the weird blue blobs in the sky on the wide end. With the flatter front element on the 16-35 f4, is there a recommended best CPL, or should I just rely on the ND's to tame down the bright sky? Anyone have any example photos with a CPL (B&W kasseman, Breakthrough Photography or other) on the 16-35 f4?



The Maltese cross artifact (aka weird 'X') isn't brand specific, it's optical. With a CPL, you get uneven polarization of the sky, etc., at focal lengths wider than ~28mm on FF (17mm on APS-C). A variable ND filter is just a linear polarizer stacked on a CPL, and that same uneven polarization manifests as the Maltese cross. So, with the 16-35/4L IS, you'll get uneven polarization at the wider end – see this recent thread for an example with the 16-35/4.

Having said that, I find the B+W Käsemann CPL's deliver excellent optical quality.


----------



## mnclayshooter (Aug 1, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> The Maltese cross artifact (aka weird 'X') isn't brand specific, it's optical. With a CPL, you get uneven polarization of the sky, etc., at focal lengths wider than ~28mm on FF (17mm on APS-C). A variable ND filter is just a linear polarizer stacked on a CPL, and that same uneven polarization manifests as the Maltese cross. So, with the 16-35/4L IS, you'll get uneven polarization at the wider end – see this recent thread for an example with the 16-35/4.
> 
> Having said that, I find the B+W Käsemann CPL's deliver excellent optical quality.



Thanks. That confirmed what I believed to be true. I had gotten a little confused as I had asked someone at B&H sales for a recommended filter for the 16-35f4 and they led me to a tiffen filter which claims to work great on wide angle lenses. It raised enough doubt that I though I would ask. 

I will stick with the ND's and call it good on the 16-35. 

I missed out, by what feels like minutes on the B&W Kasemann deal yesterday. I put it in my cart, looked at a couple other items, and it was sold out by the time I clicked on the complete purchase button. It led me to reading up a little on other filters etc. Thus the post. 

Thanks again.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 1, 2016)

mnclayshooter said:


> I will stick with the ND's and call it good on the 16-35.



My most-used filter is the 10-stop ND (I have them in 77mm, 82mm and 145mm). Sometimes, I'll stack a CPL on top of that, as in this shot:

_"Kapellbrücke"_



EOS 1D X, TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II, 30 s, f/5.6, ISO 100 (10-stop ND + CPL)


----------



## mnclayshooter (Aug 1, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> mnclayshooter said:
> 
> 
> > I will stick with the ND's and call it good on the 16-35.
> ...



Very nice. The chapel bridge photo brings back very good memories of my trip to Lucerne in 1994. I would love to take another trip there soon! 

I think my most-used ND is the 6-stop that's almost permanently affixed to my 24-105 for hiking. Followed closely by the 3 stop that I use on the old tamron 17-35 I have been using. I'm excited to get out and put the 16-35 to the real test as it is just so much better than either of those two lenses. I've had it for a couple months.. it's very sharp on the few small tests I've done here and there with it. I just have been too busy to really go out and use it. 

Here's to hoping the toothy wildlife stay at telephoto distances, and the geysers/volcanos stay quietly safe at UWA distances!


----------



## mnclayshooter (Aug 1, 2016)

Random Orbits said:


> mnclayshooter said:
> 
> 
> > Hi all - sorry to revive an old discussion but this one seems pretty close to what I'm trying to get a little better understanding of.
> ...



Thanks - sorry I just noticed your reply. I have always had the same experience with the WA and UWA's with CPL's... just got a little surprised/confused by some notations and a few reviews about a couple specific CPL's claiming improved or greatly improved performance on those types of lenses. I thought it might be time to try it again. The CPL I have available in my kit got damaged sometime last year, and I just haven't replaced it. ND's and grads have worked. Although grads in a threaded filter aren't the most appealing. 

I've wondered a little bit about using a blender filter (one that takes a ND gradient smoothly across the filter vs a "hard" or soft" line at the mid point)... the thought being that it might be a little easier to recover a few of the shadows on the lower half in post than to recover the skies... I've never used one, so I don't know for sure. It's possible that it's worth the $80 experiment. 

To be fair, I've never really attempted to use any filters other than a 2-stop ND (cheap) on the 100-400... it didn't seem to like that. I've never had any real need for anything more as I almost exclusively use it with the hood attached for protection and with the tele, I can control the scene enough to get the exposure more even. - not fighting a bright sky vs a dark mountain for example.


----------



## scottkinfw (Aug 1, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> mnclayshooter said:
> 
> 
> > I will stick with the ND's and call it good on the 16-35.
> ...



Beautiful shot.


----------



## scottkinfw (Aug 1, 2016)

I would caution anyone to NOT get this brand. The service was snarky, rude, condescending. I wouldn't own one if it was the only one. Caveot Emptor- buyer beware on this one.

I am not a troll either.
Sek


----------



## Maximilian (Aug 2, 2016)

scottkinfw said:


> I would caution anyone to NOT get this brand. The service was snarky, rude, condescending. I wouldn't own one if it was the only one. Caveot Emptor- buyer beware on this one.
> 
> I am not a troll either.
> Sek


And I've experienced the absolute opposite:
nice, friendly people, good service information, good products.
Absolutely no complains.

I can understand you, but I don't know how many had similar bad experiences with this and other companies like Canon, Nikon, Sony, LG, Mercedes, Ford, etc...
I don't know how high the percentage here is.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 2, 2016)

Maximilian said:


> scottkinfw said:
> 
> 
> > I would caution anyone to NOT get this brand. The service was snarky, rude, condescending. I wouldn't own one if it was the only one. Caveot Emptor- buyer beware on this one.
> ...



It's tough facing these decisions but nice to have the feedback to factor in. It only takes one bad apple and companies should be more diligent to get rid of bad apples. However, on any given day any one of us can be a bad apple so ...... :-\

Jack


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 2, 2016)

I'm afraid I have had a similar experience. Two issues, really, both related. 

The first issue is the fact that the X1 77mm polarizer they sent me was non-operational. Two replacements (very speedy, nice service initially) were also problematic. Two of the three didn't rotate the two layers of glass, and one I believe didn't even have a second layer of glass. 

I understand that there might be a bad batch or something and appreciated their swift replacements. 

The second issue however... Upon asking for the last (fourth) replacement, I got a response from Graham himself indicating that he'd send me a return box/refund but that I should buy someone else's filter. He stated that the others were personally inspected by the person at the warehouse, and he seemed convinced that I must be some troll/bad actor. 

I replied that he is likely putting more trust in that warehouse person than is deserved, as anyone who knows how a CPL works would have been able to see that any of these three filters, and suggested that he inspect the ones I returned and the one I was about to return. 

Unfortunately, I never did get that last return box or a refund, and am now sitting here staring at an incomplete or broken X1 77mm filter. My (polite) enquiries to the company over the last few weeks have gone unanswered. 

My sense is that BP feels beleaguered and that it might misplace blame on its customers.

I will say that the ND filters I have from them have been great, and a good deal, but the experience I had with them doesn't seem to be unique. -tig

PS: My Marumi CP filters have been excellent, with very low transmission degradation versus polarizing effect (almost half that of my Hoya version). I plan on getting another of them if/when Breakthrough follows through with refund. Just came back from 10 day trip on wild birds without a second 77mm CP, which was a shame at times.


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Aug 2, 2016)

[email protected] said:


> I'm afraid I have had a similar experience. Two issues, really, both related.
> 
> The first issue is the fact that the X1 77mm polarizer they sent me was non-operational. Two replacements (very speedy, nice service initially) were also problematic. Two of the three didn't rotate the two layers of glass, and one I believe didn't even have a second layer of glass.
> 
> ...



Hello Tig Tillinghast,

Don't assume the worst on us, in fact it's more simple then that.

I inspected each one of your X1 CPLs after we received them in our warehouse, and I didn't find the same issues that you did.

If I'm not able to find the problem then I'm not sure what to say, and if the third time isn't the charm, and I haven't found the same issues with your X1 CPLs that you did upon inspecting them myself personally, that's why I recommend trying another one. 

We just want all our customers to be happy with our products, and if they're not we do our best to make it right, or give a refund, or both.

A pre-paid return label has been emailed to you again.

Graham


----------



## JPAZ (Aug 3, 2016)

Very interesting thread. Most interesting to me is the variety of experiences folks have had, some wonderful and some not so wonderful. Any one of us is just one anectdotal encounter with Breakthrough.

In summary, I have both some B&W and some Breakthrough products. The latter filters, at least, seem to be everything claimed by the company. At least in my limited experience, things like the color cast are a little better. Some were purchased directly from Breakthrough and some from B&H / Adorama.

If you are unsure, I'd recommend the Breakthrough products but would buy them through one of our "old friends" in NYC. That way, I'd never be concerned about after-the-sale returns or exchanges. If you personally don't want to buy a Breakthrough product, then B&W is an excellent product as well.


----------



## scottkinfw (Aug 3, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Running a test and getting a result different from that of another does not necessarily mean they're the one who is incorrect.


Graham is one cocky guy, don't expect him to admit he is wrong.


----------



## scottkinfw (Aug 3, 2016)

Maximilian said:


> scottkinfw said:
> 
> 
> > I would caution anyone to NOT get this brand. The service was snarky, rude, condescending. I wouldn't own one if it was the only one. Caveot Emptor- buyer beware on this one.
> ...


S

Sincerely, I am glad you didn't get the abuse I experienced, and i hope you got an excellent copy of the filter.

sek


----------



## scottkinfw (Aug 3, 2016)

[email protected] said:


> I'm afraid I have had a similar experience. Two issues, really, both related.
> 
> The first issue is the fact that the X1 77mm polarizer they sent me was non-operational. Two replacements (very speedy, nice service initially) were also problematic. Two of the three didn't rotate the two layers of glass, and one I believe didn't even have a second layer of glass.
> 
> ...



Troll- that is what he called me, and cancelled my order for me. Seems to be his M.O. in solving problems on his end. Blame the loyal customer. He is narcissistic and immature. Shame.

sek


----------



## scottkinfw (Aug 3, 2016)

grahamclarkphoto said:


> [email protected] said:
> 
> 
> > I'm afraid I have had a similar experience. Two issues, really, both related.
> ...



Very sweet sentiment Graham. What about the troll comment? You trash people who support you and you don't think it will come back to you? Karma is a b***h, especially when there are great alternatives from companies who treat customers well.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 4, 2016)

I just wish I could afford on. Need one on my 135L real bad. B+W is out of the question right now. This thread has over 28,000 views. Amazing!


----------



## Pookie (Aug 4, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I just wish I could afford on. Need one on my 135L real bad. B+W is out of the question right now. This thread has over 28,000 views. Amazing!



CFB... I have now heard first hand 3 similar issues from people at my studio. I had warned them about this thread when they first came out and they decided to buy anyway. One took almost 4 months to arrive with no response from the CR there. The other two had what looked like a issue with coatings and more issues even getting a replacement. The response from them is very odd for a company trying to get more business in a field that simply has too many good offerings to deal with BS. 

Buy B+W or another well known company and buy with confidence. Graham and his company isn't worth it.


----------



## mnclayshooter (Aug 4, 2016)

Yikes, I Really didn't mean to poke the bear. But thanks to all for the continued responses. Mine should arrive today from one of our favorite NY addiction enablers. I will try to report back if I have success with them or not. Wish me luck.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 4, 2016)

Pookie said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > I just wish I could afford on. Need one on my 135L real bad. B+W is out of the question right now. This thread has over 28,000 views. Amazing!
> ...



You are probably right. I've had no trouble with the B+W products I have.


----------



## LordofTackle (Aug 4, 2016)

Maximilian said:


> And I've experienced the absolute opposite:
> nice, friendly people, good service information, good products.
> Absolutely no complains.
> 
> ...



Hi Maximilian,

you are from Germany too, if memory serves right? May I ask where you purchased the filter? Did you buy it directly from the manufacturer? And what about customs? So far I could not find a german retailer..

Also, do you have experience with their X4 ND filters?

Thanks
Sebastian


----------



## Maximilian (Aug 4, 2016)

LordofTackle said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > And I've experienced the absolute opposite:
> ...


Correct! 



> May I ask where you purchased the filter? Did you buy it directly from the manufacturer? And what about customs? So far I could not find a german retailer..
> 
> Also, do you have experience with their X4 ND filters?


There is no German retailer yet! So I purchased from them directly.
I bought a CPL and a X3 ND filter (AFAIK the X4 it is just a renamed X3, but please ask them directly).
Both were well packed and without any flaw or fault. I had to wait some time as I was one of the first buyers of the CPL. But I was well informed about the delay. And every time I asked nicely I got a friendly answer.
About IQ:
I cannot tell you if they are better or worse than other high quality filters as I have no optical equipment to measure and not that much filters to compare. But I am fine with the results and the mechanical built is really good. 

If you have questions about p&p and customs please ask them directly. As I took part in the kickstarter founding and had some special conditions. 
You only have to go to their homepage at normal daytimes and open the chat (remember time lag).



> Thanks
> Sebastian


You're welcome! If you have further questions, just PM me, dann gerne auch auf Deutsch


----------



## mnclayshooter (Aug 5, 2016)

Update: the ND 3 and 6 arrived last night. 

Upon opening (very well packaged, I will add): The ND 3's coatings seem not as consistent as the ND6 on visual inspection... there's not obvious blotches/gaps or anything like that... it just "seems" to be not as densely coated, at least visually - which may make sense given that it is a lighter ND filter to begin with. I have absolutely no way to test this... just making the comment that within the same product line (X4) it seems that the ND3 coatings look different than the ND6. The ND6 looks like something I've seen attached to astronaut's helmets - very well built and looks to be capable of withstanding outer-space. I'll report back on any real-world issues encountered, but based on just visual inspection, I doubt there will be any. 

This is the first high-end ND3 I've ever purchased so I'll ask - those of you who own other brands, do you notice a big difference in visual appearance of the filters (beyond the obvious density of the filter's color)? from within the same product line?


----------



## JPAZ (Aug 5, 2016)

FWIW, I have Breakthrough 3 and 6 stop ND's and B&W 3 and 6 stop ND's (as well as CPl's and UV's). The coatings are darker with the 6 versus the 3 and, depending on the light and angle, do look a little different than one another. But, each is absolutely uniform.

JPAZ


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 9, 2016)

*Visual evidence of a filter problem*

On the ND filters, my Breakthrough filters are the better ones I own. Good value, it seems. 

On the circular polarizer saga, I have one last bit of information to add. Before sending in the filter for the last time, I took some pictures. If I've learned anything on this forum, it's that if you don't include a jpeg, it didn't happen.

The Images (Notes identifying the filter used can be found at bottom left, below each image):
http://adobe.ly/2aGo4Ba

The Test:
I placed my 3-year-old's green tractor toy in a window with indirect sunlight. I then shot the tractor with my Canon 1DX and the 100-400 Mark II. Later, I did the same test with the 7D Mark II with the Sigma 50mm Art, as well as with the Canon 70-200 IS L II, but since the results were pretty much the same, I didn't bother including those later images. I'd just been verifying that it wasn't some odd body or lens issue.

I stress that I doubt that the results you're about to see are representative of Breakthrough's CP filters' performance. It really couldn't be, as these results are genuinely unusable. My presumption is that there is a bad batch, but I post it because the firm has told me that ones similar to this that I sent back were totally fine when they plainly were not. It's my hope that someone will be able to see this and diagnose what is wrong with it, and to perhaps assure anyone else who'd been told the same thing that they're neither alone nor insane. 

The first four images are taken with the Breakthrough X1. Both maximum and minimum polarizing effect are shown in the first two images, and then I tried to manually focus unsuccessfully, and then I narrowed the aperture to f/22 (which worked, but for the crazy ISO that it caused). 

The next two images are of a $44 Hoya cheapy polarizer, both maximum and minimum effect, which look quite nice. The last two are of my pricey Marumi Exus CP, both max and min again, which I found disappointing in that I know how much more than the Hoya it cost. 

Outside of these tests, I can report that the Breakthrough filter allows the camera to focus my 70-200 decently after f/8, but not anything more open. 

Discussion:
- The oddest thing I found was that the poor image quality seems to be only in the more open apertures. 
- I thought perhaps it was a linear polarizer, rather than a circular one, as linear polarizers have a reputation for goofing up metering, if not AF, on DSLRs. But I conducted a test (the mirror test, where viewing through the filter against a mirror makes for a opaque view) and it does appear to be a circular polarizer, or at least have a quarter wave plate, which causes that opacity. 
- I wonder if it could be a goofy coating issue, although I guess I would expect a coatings issue to have a very negative effect on the image quality regardless of the aperture. Perhaps someone can enlighten me on that. 

I suspect there are readers who will have seen this sort of thing before and may know what it is. -tig

PS:
I like the Marumi specifically because it only loses just shy of 1 stop of light. But comparing it to the Hoya, which is closer to 1.75 stops, it doesn't filter out nearly as much glare. I guess it's nice to have both for different situations.


----------



## mnclayshooter (Aug 9, 2016)

I appreciate the inputs. 

The ND's 3 and 6 are pretty darn nice to use... smooth as butter to thread on and off, and virtually no color cast and zero vignette on the 16-35 (which I assumed to be true as there's about 4mm of clearance before vignetting occurs with that lens from what I've read (not personally tested, although my empirical results suggest that others' tests are accurate). I can force them to flare a tiny bit, but I will say, it is just a tiny bit when shooting nearly directly into the sun (sun just slightly off-angle). 

I was digging in one of my totes to find a spare rocket blower and found one of my older (very cheap - I think sold originally by Best Buy under their inhouse brand... I'd bet made by tiffen or others) CPL's. 

For the sake of wrapping up my question about CPL's and the 16-35 f4 - I tried it out... I'm not seeing any vignetting, even with the thick cheap CPL. If I push to maximum polarization, I start to see the uneven polarization blobs... I don't think any filter will fix that though. I'll give it a go, especially if I'm near water, which I will be and the primary use for the CPL. I'll give it a go, and see if dropping the extra coins on a high end CPL for the UWA is worth it or not. Unless someone wants to send me one to test out!


----------



## AvTvM (Aug 9, 2016)

*Re: Visual evidence of a filter problem*



[email protected] said:


> The Images (Notes identifying the filter used can be found at bottom left, below each image):
> http://adobe.ly/2aGo4Ba
> ...
> 
> ...



Tiggy, you sure it's filter fault? Was Camera on tripod or handheld? Cannot see EXIF data/shutter speeds, but first 4 images appear like shake induced blur to me? Also: 100-400 indoors - maybe very close / too close to MHD? That would also explain why you could not manually focus on subject. Other captures where maybe just a few inches further back, within MFD. 

Just asking.


----------



## jaimin21 (Nov 7, 2016)

scottkinfw said:


> I would caution anyone to NOT get this brand. The service was snarky, rude, condescending. I wouldn't own one if it was the only one. Caveot Emptor- buyer beware on this one.
> 
> I am not a troll either.
> Sek



Professional Photographer....please see my communication with customer service:

4:30 PM (7 hours ago)
Kathy

i had purchased a X4 10 stop 82 mm ND Filter from Adorama a while ago and then i find out it its back ordered with no timeline on when the item will be available. i have reached out to Adorama at least 3-4 times with the same answer. i am a photographer and i was looking to have this filter in the last week of July.

You could have the best product in market, but if you cannot keep up the supplies then unfortunately we will be forced to give out business to other vendors.

Regards

-Jaimin
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kathy (Breakthrough Photography)

Jul 8, 13:34 PDT

Hi Jaimin,

We have informed Adorama of the production/shipment date, but they have chosen not to share that information with you.

Please feel free to purchase any filter you like from any vendor....that is the American way, vote with your dollars.

Yours,

Kathy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jul 8, 13:30 PDT

And when is that date?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kathy (Breakthrough Photography)

Jul 8, 20:19 PDT

We will ship to Adorama the week of July 18th.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jul 8, 20:42 PDT

Kathy,

Would i get it faster if i order it directly from your website?

-Jaimin
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kathy (Breakthrough Photography)

Jul 8, 20:44 PDT

Yes

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kathy (Breakthrough Photography)

Jul 8, 20:45 PDT

"You could have the best product in market, but if you cannot keep up the supplies then unfortunately we will be forced to give out business to other vendors."

This type of communication is very negative, and we prefer not to have customers that are negative and difficult.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul 8, 20:50 PDT

ok, so you are trying to tell me you have never made negative comment about a product/service? where was i being difficult? i was stating the fact....a fact of business ! especially in the field where accessories are part of someones livelihood....you cannot wait for 20-30 (in my case no timelines was given) days to receive a product


-Jaimin
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kathy (Breakthrough Photography)

Jul 8, 20:55 PDT

We would recommend that you go with one of our competitors products.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 7, 2016)

hehe and ouch! that's what i call great CUSTOMER SERVICE!
fabulous attitude towards clients ... soinds like Cathy was trained by the business owner himself. ;-)

here's their service policy:
1. customers are from hell!
2. we are in business to not sell our products
3. we prefer to be 'vendor from hell'

fully confirms my impressions of this non-business venture. AVOID!


----------



## JPAZ (Nov 7, 2016)

Seems they also threw one of their vendors (Adorama) under a bus........

As a satisfied customer of both Adorama and Breakthough, this makes me very likely to never do business with Breakthrough again. Too bad.


----------

