Last time we talked about filters,
we talked about really big ones.
Well, today we're talking about really small ones
for Canon, Sony, and Nikon mount converters.
Let's get Undone.
[offbeat music]
♪ Gerald Undone ♪
♪ He's crazy ♪
What's happening, everybody?
I'm Gerald Undone, and you're not.
And today we've got a sneak preview to look at
some of the new ND filters that Aurora Aperture is gonna be
releasing soon that are designed
to fit inside of the mount converters,
like the Canon RF adapter, the Nikon FTZ adapter,
the Sigma MC-11 adapter for Sony,
and the Sigma MC-21 adapter
for the new Panasonic L-Mount bodies.
And while we're at it, let's take a look at
the second generation of the Variable ND Filters
from Aurora Aperture as well, since many of you
recommended them in the comments of the last
ND filter roundup video that we did.
In fact, let's start with the Variable ND Filters.
But there's no point in repeating everything
that we talked about in the previous video,
so if you haven't seen it yet please go and watch it.
I'll put a link in the description.
So, continuing off with the last video,
I would say that those of you that recommended
getting the Aurora Variable ND Filters were right to do so,
because you get a pretty good bang for the buck with them.
Now, keep in mind, however, that these are the Mark IIs.
There was a previous edition of a Variable ND from Aurora,
and in this case with the Mark IIs,
it splits it up into two ranges,
just like with PolarPro, where you get the 1-7 stop filter
and the 5-11 stop filter.
Both of these have hard stops and indicators
to let you know what stop you're on approximately,
and so that you can't overturn them,
just like the PolarPros,
and optically, they perform very well.
But let's look at some test charts
so you can see what I mean.
OK, so to start out, we have our control here.
Now, this is a test chart that was shot with no filter
on the lens, and then if we jump over here,
we can see it with the 1-7 filter,
set to about 3 stops in.
And right away, we're gonna see the same problem
that we see with all variable NDs,
which is that you get kind of a warmer shift
in the colour there, and that's because you're using
two circular polarizers to make the filter variable.
But regardless of that, the sharpness is still
very, very good, and you can see in the corners
there's very little vignetting, and we maintain
our sharpness all the way through the frame.
And the same is true for 4 stops, which, again,
is completely sharp throughout the frame.
You can see a little bit of the pattern in the top right there,
and then as we move to the max stop--
which is about 6.66, not quite 7-- we can see
a little bit more of the polarization pattern.
And that's a criticism that I guess you could make
about this filter-- but you can make it, again,
about pretty much all the variable NDs-- which is that
you don't get exactly the range that's advertised.
This one says 1-7, but it actually starts at 1.33 stops--
which, again, that's pretty common because polarizers
are usually about 1.33 stops, not 1 stop--
and it doesn't go all the way to 7 stops,
it goes to about 6.66.
But it's still quite a usable range,
and this being on max here,
the polarization pattern isn't too bad.
I would actually say this is probably usable, even at max.
But you will get better results if you switch
to the other filter to achieve that 6.66 stops,
which is what I have here.
This is using the 5-11 stop filter, which, again,
is actually 5.33 stops, and then it goes actually
higher than 11 stops, and we'll get to that in a second.
But this is here at the equivalent
of the previous filter's max,
and you can see it cleans away that pattern quite nicely,
if we look here and then I jump back over here.
Now there might be a little bit more of that
warmer shift again, because the density is up, but still,
we're maintaining really great sharpness--
once Lightroom buffers it there--
all the way across the frame,
and the image is great,
and very little edge problems as we move across.
Now, there are going to be vignetting issues
if you use wider lenses, and again, that's the case
with pretty much every variable ND.
Usually the problems start around 16-20mm.
I shot all these at 35mm, I also tested them at 24,
and there wasn't really any problems.
However, once you move to the maximum stop
on the 5-11 filter, we do see some definite issues
due to the polarization here.
And this one's actually stronger than 11 stops, though.
I've got it at about 11.66, really close to 12 stops.
And so I wouldn't exactly call this usable,
but it's beyond what the advertised range is anyway.
But if we pull that back to, say, about 10 stops,
which we can see here, then we're back to an area
that's completely usable and quite satisfactory,
I would say, for 10 stops of reduction on a variable ND.
Now I'm gonna do a more accurate side-by-side test
to see exactly how this performs
if we white balance this shot.
First of all, I'll just choose the number seven over here,
and we'll set that to grey, and then we'll choose the original,
unfiltered shot and I'll white balance
at the number seven as well,
so that we should get a pretty even look here.
And then if we compare these two images...
original is on the left,
and the 10-stop variable is on the right.
If we zoom all the way in, we can see that
the sharpness is actually pretty good.
Now, obviously there's a little bit more noise
being introduced on the right, and that's because I had
to change the exposure in order to get those 10 stops achieved.
But if you just sort of ignore some of the noise
and look at the overall sharpness, I would say that
that's pretty good considering the craziness
that I had to do in order to make an equal exposure.
So, I'm pretty satisfied with this filter for being able to,
you know, fade all the way up to 10 stops.
But overall, for around $150 USD, I would say that
the Aurora Aperture Variable ND Mark IIs provide
a pretty compelling value, especially compared
to some of the bigger brands' entries
at that price point, like from Tiffen and Hoya.
I would definitely say that the Aurora beats them.
Now, you're not gonna get a lot of the nicer touches
and cases and lens caps that you might see
from something like PolarPro.
In fact, you're pretty much just gonna get
the filter inside of this plastic case,
but I think that's reasonable considering the discount.
And I'd feel confident putting the Aurora Mark IIs
in my top three variable NDs available today,
and definitely the best at their price point.
OK, now let's jump over to a product that isn't available
yet, but will be soon: these little adapter NDs.
So, I've got the ones for the MC-11,
and I have three strengths:
a 4-stop, a 6-stop, and a 12-stop.
They just slide into the adapter from the lens side
toward the camera, and seem to stay in place without issue.
I tested them against my Red Diamond NDs
that I've come to trust, and the results are really good.
The 4-stop performed really well, but I did notice
a slight reduction in contrast and saturation.
If you look here at these images-- no filters
on the left, and the 4-stop filter is on the right.
And you can see that it is a little bit less punchy,
but I found that, in Lightroom, if you just bump the contrast
to about +5 and the saturation to just--
I don't know, like, +2, once you make those changes,
they're pretty much identical.
Now, that difference could also be because of the difference
in exposure required, because you either have to change
the shutter speed drastically or up the ISO quite a bit
in order to make that 4-stop adjustment,
which you can obviously see in the background
and the way that the image focuses a little bit here.
So, it could be that that was a loss of the saturation as well,
due to ISO changes, but either way,
it's pretty easy to fix in post,
and when you're done I would say that they're
pretty much identical, and definitely both usable.
I think that the 4-stop filter is quite nice, actually.
Now, when comparing the 4-stop to the 6-stop,
the 6-stop did have a bit more of a colour shift
and definitely went a little bit more in that
warmer direction, which I'm not really sure why,
'cause it doesn't have that circular polarizer quality
we were talking about, but the sharpness is still
great throughout the frame, all the way to the corners.
Finally, I tested the 12-stop filter,
which is denser than anything that I ever use.
I basically had to go point the camera
at the brightest part of the sky.
And besides having to use exposure settings that were
completely insane in order to achieve the same results
on a 12-stop filter versus no filter, I thought that
the 12-stop filter actually performed quite impressively.
So, the one on the right is the 12-stop filter,
and the one on the left is no filter.
And I would say at a quick glance,
they're both really great.
You can see that the corners are really great.
And there is a little bit of difference in sharpness.
Now, again, this is that same problem
where the shutter speed was slowed right down
on the one and has a higher ISO and that kind of thing.
So, if we just look at sort of, like, colour and contrast
and the overall clarity, and the way that the details
are preserved, and if there's colour shifts,
then basically I would say that the 12-stop did extremely well.
And I would be quite pleased,
considering how far of a difference it is
to push the exposure in order to use a 4000 ND...
uh, this is great results, and I think that
landscape shooters that are looking to do long exposures
while in the middle of switching from DSLRs
to mirrorless will be quite happy with this little filter.
Because that's who I see this being ideal for:
somebody who's got a bunch of DSLR glass
and wants to be able to switch back and forth
between their favourite lenses without having to thread
screw-on filters on and off, and can just use their
favourite mount converter for their new mirrorless camera
and use all their glass with the same levels of ND,
and sort of get comfortable with the system that way.
And then obviously the other advantage here would be that
the wide-angle lenses that you might not be able
to use typically with a screw-on filter
should now probably be at play.
I don't have any crazy wide-angle lenses
to really test this with, but if you just consider
how the physical properties work--
you're not screwing a filter on the end,
it actually is going inside the mount converter--
so you should be able to use much wider lenses
than you would be able to otherwise.
And it also helps a filter stacking,
because now if you wanted to put two filters,
you don't have to screw two on the end of a lens,
which is gonna make that vignetting problem even worse.
You only have to have one on the end of the lens
to theoretically be stacking filters.
But that's my question for you guys today:
is there another benefit to this type of filter
that I'm not thinking of, or that I didn't mention?
And is there some way that this filter would
specifically benefit your workflow?
I'd love to know your thoughts in the comments below.
Overall, I like what Aurora Aperture
is doing with their filters.
I really like when companies take existing tech
and put a new twist on it to make our jobs easier.
In fact, Aurora has another product coming out soon,
which is a variable graduated ND,
which is something I've never seen before, and I'm sure
has a lot of landscape shooters pretty excited.
So, yeah, good job Aurora, and good job to my viewers
for the recommendation.
Everybody just keep doing what you're doing.
But that's gonna be it for me. I hope you found this video
helpful, or at least entertaining.
And if you did, make sure you leave it the old thumbs-up
and consider subscribing if you haven't already.
But if you did not find this video helpful or entertaining,
feel free to hit the dislike button twice.
Alright... I'm done.