Gadgets and Gold???? fakes or real?

[ryan_lau100]

http://toronto.craigslist.ca/tor/pho/601415739.html

anyone ever heard of these guys? is there any way to know for sure if those filters are real? looking for some cheap cpols but i hear alot of these fakes can be found.

any help would be amazing!!

[GZero]

I was under the impression Hoyas came packaged like this:

http://www.bccamera.com/index.php?ma...roducts_id=359

[THINKPADT61]

I was under the impression Hoyas came packaged like this:

http://www.bccamera.com/index.php?ma...roducts_id=359

Nope, they do look like that! I work in BB before and they sell the exact same thing.

The market up with these Hoya is $100%!! So the guy probably work there and get discount... than sell them to you!

But than again, dont take my word for it

[CSAgent]

Those are regular Hoya filters, Pro1s (their premium line) have different packaging (plastic case packaging instead of paper).

The ones Gadgets and Gold have are older, kind of like 1st generation when 35mm film was the norm.

Get B+W, much better and are premiums. All my filters are B+W.

[eelfliw]

Who cares if it's fake Hoya or not as long as you can try it on your camera and verify the picture quality before you buy?

As long as the quality is competent, how many people in the world can tell if you used a $250 CPL filter or a $40 CPL filter by looking at the picture you took?

The only photographers who really care about brand names over quality are the ones who get paid to advertise for manufacturers or if their reputation is tied to the brand they use. Otherwise, as long as the picture look the same, photographers don't care what brand name filters they use. Remember that photography is about the final picture. Not the brand name of the equipment.

The equipment brand name people are more camera gear junkies instead of photographers. They want people to see the brand name on the equipment. But $$$ filters don't guarantee better pictures. So, if you're more interested in the photograph instead of the brand name, go and verify the picture quality of photos taken by those filters. If you like it, then buy it. It's better to have 6 different $40 filters than 1 $250 filter.

[THINKPADT61]

Who cares if it's fake Hoya or not as long as you can try it on your camera and verify the picture quality before you buy?

As long as the quality is competent, how many people in the world can tell if you used a $250 CPL filter or a $40 CPL filter by looking at the picture you took?

The only photographers who really care about brand names over quality are the ones who get paid to advertise for manufacturers or if their reputation is tied to the brand they use. Otherwise, as long as the picture look the same, photographers don't care what brand name filters they use. Remember that photography is about the final picture. Not the brand name of the equipment.

The equipment brand name people are more camera gear junkies instead of photographers. They want people to see the brand name on the equipment. But $$$ filters don't guarantee better pictures. So, if you're more interested in the photograph instead of the brand name, go and verify the picture quality of photos taken by those filters. If you like it, then buy it. It's better to have 6 different $40 filters than 1 $250 filter.

Ouch!!

[ryan_lau100]

Who cares if it's fake Hoya or not as long as you can try it on your camera and verify the picture quality before you buy?

As long as the quality is competent, how many people in the world can tell if you used a $250 CPL filter or a $40 CPL filter by looking at the picture you took?

The only photographers who really care about brand names over quality are the ones who get paid to advertise for manufacturers or if their reputation is tied to the brand they use. Otherwise, as long as the picture look the same, photographers don't care what brand name filters they use. Remember that photography is about the final picture. Not the brand name of the equipment.

The equipment brand name people are more camera gear junkies instead of photographers. They want people to see the brand name on the equipment. But $$$ filters don't guarantee better pictures. So, if you're more interested in the photograph instead of the brand name, go and verify the picture quality of photos taken by those filters. If you like it, then buy it. It's better to have 6 different $40 filters than 1 $250 filter.

ive heard this argument as well. i have a kenko cpol and i cant really see any quality dropoff. dont know if i really wanna sit there trying these things on my camera to see if they are real though.

I think

[craftsman]

ive heard this argument as well. i have a kenko cpol and i cant really see any quality dropoff. dont know if i really wanna sit there trying these things on my camera to see if they are real though.

I think

Kenko is Hoya. Same company marketed under different names. Kenkos are usually 10% cheaper.

[craftsman]

Who cares if it's fake Hoya or not as long as you can try it on your camera and verify the picture quality before you buy?

As long as the quality is competent, how many people in the world can tell if you used a $250 CPL filter or a $40 CPL filter by looking at the picture you took?

The only photographers who really care about brand names over quality are the ones who get paid to advertise for manufacturers or if their reputation is tied to the brand they use. Otherwise, as long as the picture look the same, photographers don't care what brand name filters they use. Remember that photography is about the final picture. Not the brand name of the equipment.

The equipment brand name people are more camera gear junkies instead of photographers. They want people to see the brand name on the equipment. But $$$ filters don't guarantee better pictures. So, if you're more interested in the photograph instead of the brand name, go and verify the picture quality of photos taken by those filters. If you like it, then buy it. It's better to have 6 different $40 filters than 1 $250 filter.

Actually, there is a difference between filter manufacturers as well as models within a manufacturer's line-up. The problem is that the average guy/gal off of the street can't tell the difference between good optical glass and window glass. They don't know what to look for when you ask is it multi-coated. Heck, there is a question if the first time buyer will even know if it is coated.

For example, just look at Tiffen - sells well, not bad glass w/o any coatings. I won't buy it due to the lack of coatings. Then there is B+W glass. B+W's basic line doesn't come with any coatings but it is some of the best glass you can buy. Can I see a difference in the two pictures under "normal" conditions? Probably not. How about not so "normal" conditions - shooting towards the sun...? Yes. Better glass better transmission of light and fewer reflections. Coatings will reduce the reflections even more and increase the quality of the transmission of light.

How about against someone's generic store brand? The glass could be worst. The construction of the filter poor - doesn't rotate well, gets stuck on the lens' threads, glass falls out or is loose.

Brand name makes a difference - if only to give the average person and ability to find a maybe-not-the-best product but an okay one.

For me, the majority of my filters are B+W. I do own Nikon CPs and a Kenko Pro1 CP as well. I find that the B+W and the Nikons are the easiest to keep clean. The Kenko is nearly impossible to keep clean. It's even hard to clean compared to the others.

[frogger]

I purchased a Hoya "Ultra" cpol from a GTA ebay store who specializes in Minolta stuff for the most part (minolta battery works in Pentax K10d and its a lot cheaper). Its designed to minimize the chance of vignetting on wide angle lenses. You cannot stack another filter on top of it, nor put a pinch type lens cover on it (it comes with its own rubber cover).

[klam]

Here's a test showing some differences

http://www.kenandchristine.com/gallery/1054387

[craftsman]

Here's a test showing some differences

http://www.kenandchristine.com/gallery/1054387

Good post.

However, the test are flawed - we are testing a $10 Tiffen uncoated versus a $25 super multicoated Hoya filter. We don't know all of the true differences between the two are. We know that the Hoya is super multi-coated and the Tiffen doesn't have any coatings. What we don't know is the type/quality of the glass. Is it the glass? Is it the coatings? Is it a combination of the two? It does show that the tested Hoya SMC filters are better than the tested Tiffens. Of course, you can see that there is a substantial price difference.

Please note that this test does not mean that Hoyas are better filters in general compared to Tiffens. For example, we don't know if the base Hoya filter for $10 is any better or worst that the $10 Tiffen.

A better test would have been to have filters from the same manufacturer but different coating levels - for example, Hoya sells single coated, multi-coated, super multi-coated, and Pro1 (super-duper multi-coated?). Probably similar glass but don't know for sure.

Personally, I believe that a combination of glass and excellent coatings (as well as solid construction) make the filter.

[eelfliw]

Actually, there is a difference between filter manufacturers as well as models within a manufacturer's line-up. The problem is that the average guy/gal off of the street can't tell the difference between good optical glass and window glass.

Well said.

For the OP. It's important for photographers to realize who they're taking the photographs for. Either themselves or paying clients. So, as long as you're impressed by the photographs you take and your clients are happy with the photographs you take, then mission accomplished.

Photographic equipment marketing people will argue that your picture isn't perfect if it isn't taken with top of the line equipment. Well, they are right. But if the difference between a perfect picture taken with $$$ filter and a picture that you like taken with a $40 filter has to be measured with an instrument or under very specific artificial conditions, then you are missing the whole point of photography. Photography isn't about technical perfection. It is more an art form than science. Granted, a picture has to be technically sound to even look good. But technically sound is far from technically perfect.

As far as photography is concerned, it's more important to focus on the artistic side of creating a beautiful image than a technically perfect picture with $$$ equipment. Some of the best photographs are taken on old cameras with grainy film. What makes the picture is the content and the artistry. Not technically superior equipment.

The OP has to decide if he is taking pictures for the art of photography or for better numbers in lens/body/filter comparison reports. For camera equipment manufacturers, artistry don't sell cameras. Specs does. So the marketing focuses on specs and makes people forget what photography is all about.

[craftsman]

Photographic equipment marketing people will argue that your picture isn't perfect if it isn't taken with top of the line equipment. Well, they are right. But if the difference between a perfect picture taken with $$$ filter and a picture that you like taken with a $40 filter has to be measured with an instrument or under very specific artificial conditions, then you are missing the whole point of photography. Photography isn't about technical perfection. It is more an art form than science. Granted, a picture has to be technically sound to even look good. But technically sound is far from technically perfect.

As far as photography is concerned, it's more important to focus on the artistic side of creating a beautiful image than a technically perfect picture with $$$ equipment. Some of the best photographs are taken on old cameras with grainy film. What makes the picture is the content and the artistry. Not technically superior equipment.

The OP has to decide if he is taking pictures for the art of photography or for better numbers in lens/body/filter comparison reports. For camera equipment manufacturers, artistry don't sell cameras. Specs does. So the marketing focuses on specs and makes people forget what photography is all about.

The above point is often missed or misunderstood by a lot of new camera buyers. They feel that getting that high end camera today will get them high end photos tomorrow. In reality, it gets them broke.

I know the local Nikon sales rep. He is a great photographer (should be right? after all he sells cameras... you will be surprise on who sells cameras). I've seen hundreds of his pictures through the years from film and slides to older digital cameras. It always amazes me - his shots and his exposures. But the real amazing thing is that he gets a lot of those shots with less than high end equipment. You see, he needs to shoot with everything he sells so that the retail sales guys can see the quality. I swear that the man can make magic with a $100 camera sometimes. He seldom speaks of specs but rather the pictures you can make (and he has the pictures to back them up).

Other guys will come in talking about specs and what features it has against the competition. Very rarely do I see what really counts... the shot.

[loraksus]

Look legit - looks like they got them from future shop who was clearing all the "old boxes" out for $5 a pop a while back - The sealed, barcoded, etc plastic box as in GZero's link is inside the cardboard box.
I bought a few when I saw them for $5 locally