uv filter problem with Canon XM2

[Bouncing Account needs new email address]

Small Iris opening (bright light) and Wide Angle results in the focus being sharp on ANYTHING… from a thousand feet away to dust and scuzz on the lens.

If you want to shoot in bright light (sunlight), take off the UV lens and replace it with a Neutral Density (ND) lens filter.
One with at least a couple of f-stops darkening ability, maybe more.

The Iris will open up a bit, resulting in lesser depth-of-field which will reduce the chance of actually focussing on anything near (or ON) the lens.

[Fraz2005]

Thanks for your reply but it wasn’t a focusing problem as such, more of a reflection problem (the UV filter is reflecting the camera own lens back at it under certain conditions)…so wouldn’t the same thing occur whatever type of filter I use?

[Bouncing Account needs new email address]

[FRAZ2005] “but it wasn’t a focusing problem as such, more of a reflection problem”

I guess I need to strengthen my writing skills.

I didn’t say it WAS a “focusing problem”.
I said it was an IRIS problem.
Well, not so much a “problem” as it is just the “nature” of iris/focus relationships… in which there is a phenomenon that can cause EVERYTHING (wanted or not) to become “in focus”.

That means that under strong lighting conditions, when the iris opening becomes quite small (almost CLOSED to a pin-point), even when you set the focus on a subject a few feet from the camera lens, things virtually TOUCHING the lens are still seen in sharp focus. (If there is a filter/lens reflection it can be quite visible.)

If you use a relatively dark Neutral Density lens filter, it will cause the iris to OPEN much more to admit more light… and throw anything close to touching the lens OUT OF FOCUS.
(So, when you set the focus on a subject a few feet from the camera lens, if there is still a filter/lens reflection, it will be virtually in such soft focus it will not be seen.)

[Fraz2005]

Gotcha…thanks man 🙂

[Squire Robert j. wolff]

Do you know if the filter is a linear polarizer, or, a circular polarizer? It should be the latter when shooting video.

Himself

[Bouncing Account needs new email address]

[squire Robert J. Wolff] “Do you know if the filter is a linear polarizer, or, a circular polarizer?”

Well, its not either one, since we’re discussing using a UV filter and/or an ND filter. 😉

But you’re right, if we were discussing a polarizer.

[Squire Robert j. wolff]

Linear filters, on a video format, can introduce reflections do to the scanning process; as opposed to films instant chemical change when exposed to light.

Himself

[George Hurst]

Hi

Sorry to resurrect such as old thread, but I am experiencing the exact same problems.

Looking at these responses, it would seem that cheap UV filters are doomed to ‘reflect back’ on the Canon XM2/GL2.

There is recommendation to use a ND filter instead, but this requires ‘unfocusing’ the unwanted reflection… and meaning iris and depth of field must be changed to suit the filter.

Before I buy a new filter for my XM2 that will not give me an unacceptable reflection, is there a product that will screw on which will not reflect back but also does not require the reflection to be ‘focused out’ by opening the iris [as an ND filter would]?

My goal is to protect my expensive lens, but still have the freedom to change exposure as normal to suit the film… not the filter.

I note the comments about linear of circular filters. I cannot find a circular ‘UV filter’ as such, but there are plenty of circular ‘polarisers’ available.

Can anyone confirm is screwing on a circular polariser will not produce any reflections, at any exposure settings?

Thank you for any help