Polarisers for digital cameras?

I keep noticing ads in magazines for filters-usually polarisers - supposedly

specifically for digital cameras. Is there a real difference between the

polarisers required for a dslr and those used on film cameras, or is it just a

feeble attempt by manufacturers to persuade those buying digital slr's for the

first time that they really should replace their filters as well?

 

I'm clearly aware that the word "digital" is used a cypher for everything

thats new and good, and that in general terms digital camera users may well

buy fewer filters than film users because they're more likely to use PS based

filtration for part of their needs. I'd just like to know whether there's

anything factual and useful in it.

If you have a good quality circular polarizer you are good to go. In a pinch you could even use a linear polarizer; however, it may affect autofocus.

I've seen digital tripods. Seriously. And isn't it Olympus who sells the special memory sticks required for panaramic shots?

I doubt there's a difference. I'd guess they've simply renamed "circular polarizer" to "digital polarizer" to make it easier for the hordes of new photographers jumping onto the digital bandwagon. "Linear" and "circular" probably don't mean much to them, but "digital" does.

 

On the other hand, it might be worth a chuckle to e-mail one of the vendors and ask them to explain exactly what it is about their filter that makes it "digital" vs any other kind.

I recall some ad that said they were coated specially to control....something or other to do with the anti-aliasing filter, sounds like typical advertising hype

There's no reflections from the film but the sensor. The multi-coated filter will reduce flares and ghost. There is a big difference between my regular Hoya glass CPL and the Pro1.

Yes but there's always been a discernable difference in coating between the top and bottom of the Hoya range. I have a Pro1 polariser bought before they acquired the digital "handle" and I agree that it has visibly more coating than the basic range Hoya make. What I'm trying to understand is whether manufacturers have made any "improvements" that might improve the performance of these filter for film cameras too; or whether they have done something that means I should avoid them for film cameras; or whether they have done little or nothing but change the orientation of their marketing.

 

Hoya in the UK are marketing the Pro1 filters as being "exclusively for digital" . I'd guess this is likely to be b----cks, and that the list of benefits their literature provides are as relevant to film cameras as digital. But I'm trying to find out whether someone has information or logic that would trump my guess.

The new filters only let digital light pass. What a silly question.

 

Doug

Doug. Its not a silly question and maybe a less narrow view might help. What if a filter manufacturer, cognisant of the supposedly greater sensitivity of sensors than film to stray light bouncing around, had developed a new coating, or new way of coating a filter to make it less susceptible to flare with light both just outside and inside the frame? That would be useful to me as a film user too, and may well influence my choice of polariser when I need to replace, which will be soon.

 

What I think may well be silly is a global filter manufacturer claiming that their filters are "exclusively for digital" if they aren't.

HA! I though you were kidding, so I did a Google search. OMG! IT IS TRUE! A Digital Tripod!

 

http://www.amazon.com/Quantaray-7001-Digital-Tripod-Sunpak/dp/B0006FRXHW

 

I laughed so hard my sides hurt!