UV filters

[Wandering Daisy]

Is a UV filter necessary for better Sierra photos? In the old days of 35mm cameras we all had UV filters. What about a tripod? If photos are not your main objective, but still important, is the extra weight (and cost) of a camera that takes a UV filter and a tripod worth it? Or do I just need to learn to better use the camera I have; learn to use the manual settings? I am still just using automatic; my camera certainly can do more. The new cameras are actually pretty good on the automatic setting, as long as one is careful about good lighting. I have always struggled with the balance between cost, weight, photo quality. Where is the point of diminishing returns?

[SirBC]

UV filters were more of a thing before digital cameras. Modern digital cameras already filter UV so you would not see any benefit by adding an additional filter. You may even see a degradation in image quality depending on how optically "clean" the filter is. The one thing it may be good for is to protect the front element of your lens, but that isn't a big concern for me. I find myself using other filters like Neutral Density filters (ND's) and polarizers quite frequently and I wouldn't want an additional UV filter on the lens if I was going to be using those, particularly if shooting towards the sun as the light has a tendency to want to bounce around between filters which can cause flaring and ghosting and this can become worse with more stacked filters. So, in my opinion, UV filters are not worth the money.

Regarding tripods and bigger/better cameras and manual camera settings, you can get amazing shots with the most basic of cameras. I've printed and hung photos that I've taken with my cell phone. However, better cameras and lenses give you more flexibility and predictability when taking and processing the shot. For example, a more expensive camera that has more dynamic range than a cheaper camera will allow you to make larger adjustments to the exposure when you are processing the image. Better lenses will have less non-desirable qualities than cheaper lenses (like chromatic aberration) while having more desirable qualities like sharpness that extends to the corner of your images. And there are just some shots you will not be able to get without a tripod. For me a tripod is essential. I don't use it unless I have to but I'd rather carry it and not need it than not carry it and wish I had when I do need it. On my last trip I carried my tripod for 4 days and I believe I only used it for this one shot, but I'm glad I schlepped it around those 4 days as getting even just one "keeper" is worth it to me:

Suns-Embrace.jpg

As I said above, I only use the tripod if I need to. That means if I can't handhold the shot and get a sharp image or if I want to include myself in the image. Otherwise I will hand hold every shot as taking out and setting up the tripod just gets in the way of my creativity. So if I don't 100% need it I don't use it.

I also struggle with the cost/weight/quality equation. I accept that I'm taking a camera and tripod and then do what I can to save on weight, both in my camera system and all non-camera items. I think I'm where I want to be with my non-camera gear in terms of minimizing weight. This year on my last trip I sacrificed "quality" (in theory) when I took a lighter camera and lenses instead of my regular DSLR setup. I saved about 6 pounds going with an APS-C crop sensor camera (sony a6300) vs. my Nikon D810 on the trip pictured above. There is a noticeable difference in quality with the crop sensor camera but I guess the question is if that loss in quality is worth saving 6 pounds. I think it would depend on the trip and what I'm expecting to photograph. If it's a once in a lifetime trip and I know I won't be going back, I'll probably take my better gear but otherwise I will probably take my lighter setup. Since summer ended I have swapped out the D810 for a full frame mirrorless (Sony a7R3) which will save me around 2 pounds, so I'll be trying that next year and may stick with that on shorter trips.

I would recommend moving away from the auto settings on your camera and consider shooting in manual mode. While auto may be able to take good shots, you may find yourself in a situation where the shot isn't coming out the way you want because of the settings the camera is using for that particular photo when it is set on auto. It's not unusual for me to want to be in control of all three of the ISO, shutter speed and aperture on a given shot as I may need to sacrifice on one of the three to get the other two where I want them. For example, if I am shooting a sunrise shot with some wildflowers in the foreground, it's probably going to have a dark foreground and bright background (mountain), which means if I want to get the foreground flowers properly exposed I will need a slower shutter speed to let in more light. But if it's windy and I use a slow shutter speed the flowers will move and look blurry in the photo. So I need to compromise and dial in a fast enough shutter speed to "freeze" the flowers so they are not blurry by increasing the ISO to compensate for the increased shutter speed. If you are on auto you won't be able to control all of the three parts of the "Exposure Triangle" and you may not be able to get the shot you want. This isn't true of every shot, but it is on most of the sunrise/sunrise shots and every single waterfall shot I take. Once you have a full understanding of how the settings on your camera change the exposure you will also be able to troubleshoot a shot when you take a photo and it isn't coming out the way you want. I recommend the book Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson. It is very good in explaining the exposure triangle and how to use your camera settings to get the type of photo you want.

[bobby49]

As a general rule, modern digital cameras don't need any external UV filter, since that function is built into the digital sensor. There is still value in other filters for other purposes. For example, a polarizing filter can make your skies look bluer, but it works best on a normal focal length lens, not a super-wide or super-telephoto lens. A neutral density filter can be helpful if you are shooting toward moving water, since it blocks some light, which forces the shutter speed to slow down, which adds blur to the moving water. That last one almost demands a solid tripod since the shutter is slow. I use a tripod when I am shooting a "selfie" over a distance of ten feet. I also use a tripod when I am using a super-telephoto lens at wildlife.

Somewhere along the line you have to decide what your goal is. Are you trying to document what the scene looked like to you? Are you trying to make something creative and artsy? You really have to shoot a lot and view the results on a computer screen. Then you can decide what makes your socks roll up and down.

[Wandering Daisy]

Thanks, SirBC, for the detailed response. Your photos are always enjoyable and professional.

How much does your tripod weigh? I do think a lot of slight blurriness is due to my shaking. I liked the old cameras with view finders because I could set the camera on my nose to steady it and still see what I was shooting. It also helps to take off my pack before taking a photo- easier said than done.

One reason I use automatic setting is that I cannot read the touch screen without my glasses, which usually are packed away and a pain to get out every photo. But I do agree that I should really play with the camera at home and get proficient at using the menu and all the settings that are available. I am not a gadget person. It takes a big twist of my arm to get me to learn to use electronic gadgets. I really should look into a class to motivate me. I doubt I utilize more than 5% of the capabilities of the camera I have.

Bobby- I mainly want to "re-live" my trips by putting them on my screen saver. Still, it is always better to have a great photo to look at.

[Jimr]

In my film days, I always used a UV filter as a protection against scratches on my lens coating. I never used them in the Sierra because I always had a polarizer on that does double duty. Protect the lens face and control errant light. A tripod is indispensable, IMHO. Polarizers will cut exposure times to levels that are difficult to hand hold. Sure, you can raise the ISO to bring exposure into hand held limits, but I'm still in the mind that higher ISO increases graininess. While I believe that digital photography reduces graininess at higher ISO, I still revert to the lowest ISO I can get away with and that requires a tripod.

[bobby49]

In the context of ultralightweight backpacking gear, my camera tripod weighs only 17 ounces, and will elevate my camera to chest level.

[SirBC]

How much does your tripod weigh? I do think a lot of slight blurriness is due to my shaking. I liked the old cameras with view finders because I could set the camera on my nose to steady it and still see what I was shooting. It also helps to take off my pack before taking a photo- easier said than done.

I have a GITZO GT1541T tripod with a Really Right Stuff BH40 ballhead and together they weigh 43 ounces or about 2.7 lbs. I also have an L-Plate on my camera that weighs about 5-6 ounces.

One reason I use automatic setting is that I cannot read the touch screen without my glasses, which usually are packed away and a pain to get out every photo. But I do agree that I should really play with the camera at home and get proficient at using the menu and all the settings that are available. I am not a gadget person. It takes a big twist of my arm to get me to learn to use electronic gadgets. I really should look into a class to motivate me. I doubt I utilize more than 5% of the capabilities of the camera I have.

Oh, so your camera doesn't have a view finder? What model camera is it? I also need reading glasses but with a viewfinder you can dial in the correct diopter so it's in focus when looking through the viewfinder. Does you camera or lens have some type of optical stabilization built in? That will allow you to handhold your camera at slower shutter speeds but you may need to turn it on, both in the lens and on the camera. Another nice feature of mirrorless cameras is that you can review the images right in the viewfinder, so you don't even need to put your glasses on. Quite handy.

[Wandering Daisy]

I think my ideas of extra "weight" is quite different from serious photographers! I hesitate to even take extra batteries for my camera. I chose a camera a lot on battery life and supposedly a view finder eats up power. I have a Canon Power Shot G 9X, purchased in late 2019 (not in the market for a new camera yet). I got it primarily for the larger sensor. I suspect much of my blurriness in distance is due to using the automatic setting; I think that is called depth of field?

I have worn bifocals in the past but tend to trip over my feet when hopping rocks, so now I just take reading glasses. Perhaps I need to go back to wearing bifocals so I could read the screen easier and just not wear them when hopping rocks, which is really a small portion of my trips. Also, I really take two kinds of photos - quick shots while backpacking and then the shots that I remove my pack and take more time with.

[Jimr]

Put the camera in A or Av mode and manually choose the aperture. Frame the subject and see what the camera chooses for shutter speed. If it's too slow for hand held, then kick up the ISO until the shutter speed is within hand held territory. I shoot in manual mode. Normally, I will set the aperture, then aim the camera at a patch of blue sky to see what shutter speed it suggests. I adjust from there.

[JayOtheMountains]

If the goal of the trip has photography in it and I'm bringing my DSLR I just resign to the fact that it's another piece of kit that I'm carrying. Usually I have an objective in mind and bring what I think will be needed. That being said, I've carried multiple Canon L lenses along with a sturdy tripod in, to include multiple filters and whatnot (flashes, reflectors, and the kaboodle...) I like the extra layer of security a neutral filter brings, but as was stated modern cameras and their fancy computers do a fair amount of work for you already.

Currently I bring along a pretty high end point and shoot and a small tripod that is pretty much made of short segments of tent pole. Lightweight and gets the job done when it's needed. Your mileage may vary depending on what you are aiming for. I did do a 5 day trip with only my phone being my camera. I had so much anxiety, but in the end the photos turned out okay. I wish I had the resolution of either my DSLR or the point and shoot, but in the end, the story was told and everyone was pleased with the quality presented.

At the end of the day, your mileage may vary.