|
G'day Chris. I know there are 2 schools of thought on it. When I started out the initial advice I was given, or at least that I took on-board, to always use the UV filter.
Not sure when, but some time along the way I decided to try without the filters. Primary reason I felt comfortable doing this is that I always[1] use a hood. So the hood acts at the lens-protector from bumps etc. Plus I thought it a bit redundant having a UV filter on when the camera has one over the sensor anyway. It just adds more glass between subject and sensor, that's always gotta degrade the image quality, no?
Big benefit of using a hood all the time is it helps keep stray light out, much better contrast in shots, saturation too IMO, and you don't get glare/reflections unless you are pointing directly into the Sun.
So whether or not you feel you need the security of keeping the UV filter on or not, I'd highly recommend always using the hood. Especially for your birding shots.
BTW I do use filters still, but not the UV one. I have a neutral density filter to kill light so that I can still get exposure with slower shutter speeds for those milky flowing waterfall type shots, or to give the impression of motion. Also have a circular polariser as well. I had looked long and hard into getting graduated filters for landscapes etc, but decided that I can achieve, or at least sufficiently mimic, the effects of those by taking a couple of different exposures and blending them in post processing. You can't mimic the effects of ND or CPL filters in PP.
[1] Except when I'm shooting macro, because the hood just takes up valuable real estate between the front of lens and subject.
|