image quality: lens cover off vs. lens cover on

[ribjig]

(in my case, P4P+)

Is screw on-off lens cover merely a protector
or is it also UV filter?
Has anyone tested for improved image quality
when lens cover is off vs. on?
There absolutely will be improvement, but
whether or not perceptible is the the question...?
Some of us shoot hand-held cameras without
any lens cover to maximize image quality...

 

[Bakersfield Quad]

I would worry about bugs and stuff, I get hits all the time. No cover, you splat on the camera glass.
I believe that it is UV.

 

[ribjig]

Some don't fly for sport-speed, etc.
Just for the photos = up, shoot, down...
In my first year of P4P+, ~300 different photos,
nothing more than dust specs on lens cover...
but, yes, there could be that one rare event;
another advantage to lens cover off =
more light gets to sensor, maybe 1/8th stop???
An occasional advantage when shooting low light...

 

[Meta4]

In my first year of P4P+, ~300 different photos, nothing more than dust specs on lens cover... but, yes, there could be that one rare event;
another advantage to lens cover off = more light gets to sensor, maybe 1/8th stop???
An occasional advantage when shooting low light...

The UV filter is also lens protection.
Just like riding a motor cycle without eye protection is a bad idea, flying your drone camera without lens protection is a bad idea.
There is no perceptible improvement in image quality or light transmission with the filter off.
But squashed bugs, raindrops dust or salt spray will give you something you can plainly see.

 

[ribjig]

There is no perceptible improvement in image quality or light transmission with the filter off.

Thanks for response.
Have you seen side-by-side on-off comparisons?
If possible, post link.

 

[Meta4]

Thanks for response.
Have you seen side-by-side on-off comparisons?
If possible, post link.

You don't need a side by side comparison to tell what a bug would look like on the lens
You'd need a good imagination to think that removing the UV filter would make any difference that you could see.
But it takes no imagination to understand why you need to protect the lens.

 

[ribjig]

There is no perceptible improvement in image quality or light transmission with the filter off.

Without side by side comparison, statement is an opinion.
Or documentation that lens cover is "optically perfect".

 

[Meta4]

Without side by side comparison, statement is an opinion.

Well ... I've only had 40 years experience in high level photography that's helped me form that opinion.
If you think it's important enough, it would be a simple matter to do the side by side testing.

 

[With The Birds]

(in my case, P4P+)

There absolutely will be improvement, but
whether or not perceptible is the the question...?
Some of us shoot hand-held cameras without
any lens cover to maximize image quality...

If there is no perceptible improvement (or more importantly detriment) why would you consider not using one?

The real only negative is introduced glare (esp if dirty) and the potential introduction of vignetting if stacking filters.

Shooting without the UV forces the sensor to deal with UV which has no benefit (we can’t see it with the naked eye obviously)- the result is less contrast in recorded images for some sensors. It is a significantly easier task to clean a removable filter than a front lens element (no risk of damaging delicate coatings).

As to SLR lenses I can see no good reason not to have UV’s on all of them. In fact for canon L series you have no ingress warranty coverage without a filter fitted.

 

[ribjig]

> As to SLR lenses I can see no good reason not to have UV’s on all of them.

Noticeable image degradation.
Good enough reason for some
who made side by side comparisons
of their Canon, Leica lenses & willing
to risk hazard -- but 24/7 lens shade cuts hazards...
Much less perceptible with very best filters, e.g., B+W.
Is P4P+ included screw-on filter at that quality...?
OP asks if others have tested.
Real world tests cut thru BS, IMO.
More tests, the merrier...

Contrast easily improved via Adobe Raw sliders or similar...

 

[With The Birds]

> As to SLR lenses I can see no good reason not to have UV’s on all of them.

Noticeable image degradation.
Good enough reason for some
who made side by side comparisons
of their Canon, Leica lenses & willing
to risk hazard -- but 24/7 lens shade cuts hazards...
Much less perceptible with very best filters, e.g., B+W.
Is P4P+ included screw-on filter at that quality...?
OP asks if others have tested.
Real world tests cut thru BS, IMO.
More tests, the merrier...

Contrast easily improved via Adobe Raw sliders or similar...

Image degradation is seemingly insignificant with the exception of the potential flare issue- that was my direct observation when testing with Canon 85 1.2L and vintage LEICA summicron on high end bodies. I have learnt this morning (simple google search) there is a lot of what you might call real world testing performed by others also, here is an example Photography Myths and Stereotypes | Can UV Filters Actually Ruin Your Images?
I use a good and a skylight filter, always. I have better things to do than risk damaging delicate kens coatings, running without a filter I would be almost guaranteed to get the front element covered in sea spray, it’s annoying enough cleaning filters.

 

[ribjig]

Photography Myths and Stereotypes | Can UV Filters Actually Ruin Your Images?

Nearly the opposite conclusion:

To UV Filter or Not to UV Filter? Do Filters on Your Lenses Hurt Your Photos?
(seems more authoritative, but only read first few paragraphs...)

 

[With The Birds]

Nearly the opposite conclusion:

To UV Filter or Not to UV Filter? Do Filters on Your Lenses Hurt Your Photos?

It is nowhere near the opposite conclusion- in fact it is in agreance, that is the negative is glare when shooting directly into a light source.

You might note that the author states his preference in the conclusion to have UV filters on all his lenses.

 

[ribjig]

Only very high end? B+W mentioned...?
"average" = complaints of softness
is P4P+ screw on cover average or high end???

 

[With The Birds]

Only very high end? B+W mentioned...?
"average" = complaints of softness
is P4P+ screw on cover average or high end???

You have the opportunity to perform testing- I would recommend an outdoor test with the AC on a stable surface. You could compare 100% crops with and without the filter.

 

[Meta4]

Noticeable image degradation.
Good enough reason for some who made side by side comparisons of their Canon, Leica lenses & willing to risk hazard -- but 24/7 lens shade cuts hazards...

You can shoot with an SLR without a UV filter if you want to be a "Princess and the Pea" kind of person.
But as both those references above show, you won't see any improvement worth the effort.
But if you are using a flying camera around the sky at 35mph, the big issue is not some minor image variation that's too small to be detectable with the human eye.
The important issue is protection.
Fooling yourself about a possible 0.5% improvement in image quality while subjecting your lens to dust, grit, salt spray and bugs doesn't make any sense.

 

[ribjig]

But if you are using a flying camera around the sky at 35mph...

Some of us are flying straight up, taking photo(s),
flying straight down to land. OP inquired as to
whether anyone already made "on" vs. "off" comparison,
& whether they could post here. Apparently not...

 

[With The Birds]

Some of us are flying straight up, taking photo(s),
flying straight down to land. OP inquired as to
whether anyone already made "on" vs. "off" comparison,
& whether they could post here. Apparently not...

The OP could have performed your own comparisons by now, I would be interested in your findings. I suspect the reason most have not is that any benefit would be negated by the potential negative consequences.

A dyno run on a performance engine may depict a couple of % extra peak power output running with the air cleaner element absent- that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.