Photographers! This is kind of crazy

[UnixFreak]

This is kind of crazy. Getting back into photography lately, and I bought a polarizer(moose's) that had some decent reviews. 20 Bucks isn't too bad I figured, for what I'm doing.

I bought another 3-pack of polarizers, because they had a fluorescent light filter I wanted to try, and it came with a UV blocker and polarizer also.

As you can see here there is quite a difference in the two, and the polarizer that cost me $4 is considerably better than the $20 one. While both are pretty low end, its still kind of crazy to see that much of a difference for the two. I guess you don't always get what you pay for!

 

[DainBramaged]

Fascinating.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: UnixFreak
This is kind of crazy. Getting back into photography lately, and I bought a polarizer(moose's) that had some decent reviews. 20 Bucks isn't too bad I figured, for what I'm doing.

I bought another 3-pack of polarizers, because they had a fluorescent light filter I wanted to try, and it came with a UV blocker and polarizer also.

As you can see here there is quite a difference in the two, and the polarizer that cost me $4 is considerably better than the $20 one. While both are pretty low end, its still kind of crazy to see that much of a difference for the two. I guess you don't always get what you pay for!

Polarizers rotate. Unless he can offer proof that both polarizers were oriented in precisely the same way, then the comparison is worthless. Also, for those prices, he is dealing with linear polarizers and not circular polarizers. Linear polarizers, in certain orientations, can affect the camera's ability to meter the scene correctly, which again can impact the photo.

Far too many variables for three pictures to be anything close to conclusive.

ZV

 

[pray4mojo]

call me crazy for liking photo 2 more than 3. photo 3 is too bright imo.

 

[UnixFreak]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Polarizers rotate. Unless he can offer proof that both polarizers were oriented in precisely the same way, then the comparison is worthless. Also, for those prices, he is dealing with linear polarizers and not circular polarizers. Linear polarizers, in certain orientations, can affect the camera's ability to meter the scene correctly, which again can impact the photo.

Far too many variables for three pictures to be anything close to conclusive.

ZV

Dear Mr. Moose's Polarizer. I had no idea you were a member of Anandtech and would take this post so personally I'm sorry to have offended you.

This wasn't a "review" or a scientific experiment, its a post on a blog (that gets less than 100 visitors a day) based on some results I've found. I highly doubt rotating the polarizer is going to offset that dramatic of a difference, but I don't claim to be a photography expert.

Relax, it's going to be ok.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: UnixFreak
I highly doubt rotating the polarizer is going to offset that dramatic of a difference

do you know how linear polarization works?

it looks to me more like your camera metered 3 different things. can you post jpgs with exif data intact?

 

[Aharami]

what camera are you using?

 

[yllus]

Cool that you've discovered the world of filters. Being mostly an architecture photographer, circular polarizers are probably my favourite.

I will have to say that you do need to be corrected in terms of one polarizer being better than the other. All that's happened in the 3rd photo is that the CPL happened to be rotated around to provide more contrast than the CPL used in the 2nd photo. Your conclusion is flawed.

Offhand I didn't even know polarizers came that cheap! I have a Hoya on my Tamron 28-75mm myself and it does all right.

 

[vshah]

the 2nd one looks the best to me. the 3rd seems to have too much saturation and contrast. i doubt the tree was that green to the naked eye...

 

[JMWarren]

Originally posted by: UnixFreak

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Polarizers rotate. Unless he can offer proof that both polarizers were oriented in precisely the same way, then the comparison is worthless. Also, for those prices, he is dealing with linear polarizers and not circular polarizers. Linear polarizers, in certain orientations, can affect the camera's ability to meter the scene correctly, which again can impact the photo.

Far too many variables for three pictures to be anything close to conclusive.

ZV

Dear Mr. Moose's Polarizer. I had no idea you were a member of Anandtech and would take this post so personally I'm sorry to have offended you.

This wasn't a "review" or a scientific experiment, its a post on a blog (that gets less than 100 visitors a day) based on some results I've found. I highly doubt rotating the polarizer is going to offset that dramatic of a difference, but I don't claim to be a photography expert.

Relax, it's going to be ok.

You are 100% WRONG. The orientation of the polarizer is paramount to its functioning and effect.

ZV - You're right there are some issues with Linear polarizers, but there not as bad as the manufactures lead you to believe. If you can pick one up cheap for your wide angles you may find it a little more effective. Just focus and meter before mounting the filter, then re-engage the auto focus and make sure that the focus hasn't changed and that the meter reading is about 2stops less than without the filter (as you know some linear pol's will screw with AF and AE on some cameras). I think that the manufacutres are a little over zealous in the warning. Just the same way Nikon claimed that their newer DSLR's were incompatible with IR film as they used an IR based film transport sensor. The truth of the mater was the sensor only fogged the sprockets and not the frame itself, so IR films were fine despite the manuals warning.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: UnixFreak

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Polarizers rotate. Unless he can offer proof that both polarizers were oriented in precisely the same way, then the comparison is worthless. Also, for those prices, he is dealing with linear polarizers and not circular polarizers. Linear polarizers, in certain orientations, can affect the camera's ability to meter the scene correctly, which again can impact the photo.

Far too many variables for three pictures to be anything close to conclusive.

ZV

Dear Mr. Moose's Polarizer. I had no idea you were a member of Anandtech and would take this post so personally I'm sorry to have offended you.

This wasn't a "review" or a scientific experiment, its a post on a blog (that gets less than 100 visitors a day) based on some results I've found. I highly doubt rotating the polarizer is going to offset that dramatic of a difference, but I don't claim to be a photography expert.

Relax, it's going to be ok.

You've misunderstood greatly. I simply dispassionately pointed out the flaws in the comparison that make it scientifically invalid. I'd quite love to see a $4 piece outperform a $20 piece, but the comparison simply isn't valid and that's all I pointed out. Trust me that I'm very far from offended. I will admit to being rather more blunt than most, but that's something I've accepted about myself and have decided to let others deal with.

Rotation of a polarizer has a huge effect on the ultimate look of the scene. Compare the photos here that show the difference between a polarizer that is oriented properly and a polarizer that is oriented 45 degrees off of the proper setting. In the landscape shots on the link I've provided, the difference is almost identical to the difference you note between the two that you compared.

Finally, as I said, linear polarizers can also affect the camera's ability to meter, which introduces further variables. As has been pointed out above this post, a polarizer does not always affect this (I've been using a linear polarizer on my manual-focus Contax and did use it on my autofocus Olympus C-8080 without issue), but it's a possibility that needs to be accounted for in testing.

It's not emotional, it's simply cold science.

ZV