Filter questions & "The extended plan"

[padrepaul77]

Purchasing a new SLR, and a few lenses. Also was of course offered the extended coverage plan.

I can get a Hoya 58mm filter kit with it with 3 filters for just over 50 bucks that has a UV filter, a circular polarizing filter and warming intensifier. Or, I can get a simple UV filter for $14. The camera is the Olympus E620; lenses are the 70-300mm; 14-42mm and 40-150mm. I shoot various shots of friends and family, but will be using it a lot for nature shots, wildlife, etc. There are all sorts of settings on the camera to change color tone, etc...so is it best to save $35 or should I go for the kit?

They also offer a plan for coverage for $117; didn't sound too bad, but the camera is already under warranty...do you think these are good or not?

Looking forward to getting going with this thing. I really enjoy shooting with my point-and-shoot Canon sx10, and will continue to do so, but I think this will open up new options.

Thanks too for your help and advice on my other posts. I think this hobby is becoming a bit of an obsession

Padre Paul

 

[Dwig]

The only filter that I would suggest that you consider getting is a good quality circular polarizer. UV filters are useless photographically and can create image quality problems of their own. They are of very, very little value as lens "protection". The "warming intensifier" is useless on any digital camera.

 

[Josh66]

They also offer a plan for coverage for $117; didn't sound too bad, but the camera is already under warranty...do you think these are good or not?

I personally never get the extended warranties...but that's just me.

I would look into exactly what it covers that the manufacturer's warranty does not cover. The manufacturer's warranty will likely only cover manufacturing defects and that sort of thing. If the extended warranty covers accidential damage (dropped it, or got it wet...) it could be worth getting...

 

[c.cloudwalker]

They also offer a plan for coverage for $117; didn't sound too bad, but the camera is already under warranty...do you think these are good or not?

$117 for how long? Extended warranty usually means it lasts longer than the standard warranty.

That said, I'm like Josh. I don't buy extended warranties. Things to check are duration and what is covered. If it covers accidents and you are accident prone than it might be worth it.

As for filters, I agree with Dwig. Get a circular polarizer, a must for landscape/nature photography as its effect can not be created in PP and you seem to do some of that type of photography.

 

[KmH]

It would be better to spend the money to get regular insurance for all your gear.

 

[padrepaul77]

They also offer a plan for coverage for $117; didn't sound too bad, but the camera is already under warranty...do you think these are good or not?

$117 for how long? Extended warranty usually means it lasts longer than the standard warranty.

That said, I'm like Josh. I don't buy extended warranties. Things to check are duration and what is covered. If it covers accidents and you are accident prone than it might be worth it.

As for filters, I agree with Dwig. Get a circular polarizer, a must for landscape/nature photography as its effect can not be created in PP and you seem to do some of that type of photography.

Yeah, it would be $117 for the camera protection plan for 3 years, and $47.99 on the other lens for 3 years. It's a little steep, but it does cover things like dropping it, etc. I'm currently leaning against it, and will probably not opt for it.

There is a poloarizer filter in that kit, along with the warming one and UV one. I might check locally too. And it is mostly nature shots, but some people ones too.

Thanks,
Paul

 

[c.cloudwalker]

It might be worth checking out KmH's idea. I don't usually think about insurance because I don't insure my personal property but you may want to ask the company you have a homeowner's or renter's policy with what the cost would be to add a rider for your photo gear.

True it would not cover manufacturing defects but, to be honest, those, if there are any and lemons do happen, will show up during the warranty period. Insurance would however cover accidents and theft which I think I far more common causes of problems.

No filter need for people shots. Really, the only filter anybody really need with digital is a CP. For protection of the lens, main reason people get a UV filter, just use the hood.

 

[table1349]

Depending on what you shoot a series of Neutral Density filters might be the only other thing you add to a CP filter. Other than that filters from the film days are able to be reproduced in post processing.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Depending on what you shoot a series of Neutral Density filters might be the only other thing you add to a CP filter. Other than that filters from the film days are able to be reproduced in post processing.

True. Thanks for correcting me.

 

[table1349]

Depending on what you shoot a series of Neutral Density filters might be the only other thing you add to a CP filter. Other than that filters from the film days are able to be reproduced in post processing.

True. Thanks for correcting me.

I wouldn't call it correcting, just adding to the good information already presented, since ND filters are a bit of a specialized piece of equipment.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

You are too humble. I don't really see ND filters as any more specialized than a 100 mm macro would be to someone who wants to shoot bugs.

 

[table1349]

You are too humble. I don't really see ND filters as any more specialized than a 100 mm macro would be to someone who wants to shoot bugs.

I use mine generally for running water/landscape stuff, hence the sort of specialized comment. Only once have I ever used one on a portrait shoot when the couple insisted that I shoot them next to a brick wall. They also insisted that they stand next to the corner of the wall. The light coming from the back of the wall was just too much, so I stuck a hard graduated ND on and stuck the hard line right at the wall.

What a pain in the but for one lousy shot that could have been easily accomplished if they had moved down the wall a bit. But they got what they wanted.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

I use mine generally for landscape stuff, hence the sort of specialized comment.

Part of what the OP wants to do and filters are fairly cheap. I tend to thing of specialized equipment more like a tilt shift lens for someone interested in architectural photography.

 

[padrepaul77]

I use mine generally for landscape stuff, hence the sort of specialized comment.

Part of what the OP wants to do and filters are fairly cheap. I tend to thing of specialized equipment more like a tilt shift lens for someone interested in architectural photography.

Yep, though the primary use of the filter will be to just protect the lens, in case I'm out there trying to shoot a bird and all of a sudden walk into a branch. The kit seemed like a little better way to go; the UV is pretty worthless for effect, but like I said, all I care about is protection, but it might be nice to have the three as apparently I might get some effect on the filters too.