Raynox DCR-2020PRO 2.2x telephoto for HDR-FX1? at DVinfo.net

Joel Corral · February 7th, 2005, 11:31 PM

Raynox DCR-2020PRO 2.2x telephoto for HDR-FX1? any one try this combo? or is this a waste of money?

Douglas Spotted Eagle · February 8th, 2005, 12:31 AM

Haven't tried it, do they have any images to show what sort of barrel distortion you're going to get, if any?

Joel Corral · February 8th, 2005, 12:42 AM

i saw some pictures but i can't tell of any distortion. i really need a telephoto and dont have the budget to go with the century optics telephoto. and 1.6x is not enough. the raynox is 2.2x

here is a link

http://www.raynox.co.jp/english/dcr/dcr2020pro/index.htm

Douglas Spotted Eagle · February 8th, 2005, 08:24 AM

Based on the image I see, I'd be frightened of using it, there are abberations in the shots, and it is a very low cost lens, but if it's what you can afford, then you go with what you can afford. Unfortunately, quality isn't cheap.
you won't be getting "bad" video, but you won't be getting great video either.

Kevin Shaw · February 8th, 2005, 08:42 AM

I have a Canon wide-angle adapter for my GL1/GL2, and although the image quality is tolerable it's noticeably softer than images taken without the adapter. Point being that anything you put in front of the main glass on your camera is likely to affect image quality, so don't expect any miracles even with an expensive adapter.

Robin Davies-Rollinson · February 8th, 2005, 09:51 AM

Kevin,
I use the WD58 with my XM2 and I must say that I haven't seen a real degradation in resolution. The only difference may be that since the shots are wider, SD will just not resolve all the extra detail...

Robin

Joel Corral · February 8th, 2005, 10:38 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle : Based on the image I see, I'd be frightened of using it, there are abberations in the shots, and it is a very low cost lens, but if it's what you can afford, then you go with what you can afford. Unfortunately, quality isn't cheap.
you won't be getting "bad" video, but you won't be getting great video either. -->>>

yeah, maybe the "under par" video won't be seen when down converted from HD.

Joel Corral · February 8th, 2005, 10:39 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Kevin Shaw : I have a Canon wide-angle adapter for my GL1/GL2, and although the image quality is tolerable it's noticeably softer than images taken without the adapter. Point being that anything you put in front of the main glass on your camera is likely to affect image quality, so don't expect any miracles even with an expensive adapter. -->>>

yeah and i have the WD-58 for my GL2 and i don't see any quality loss.

joel

Kevin Shaw · February 8th, 2005, 10:46 AM

<<<i have the WD-58 for my GL2 and i don't see any quality loss.>>>

Maybe it's just me then, but it sure looks like any video I shoot with the WD-58 is slightly softer than video shot without it. Maybe not by much, but enough to be distracting to me when looking at the source footage.

In any case, it's inherently true that you should be concerned about image quality when adding anything to the front of a camera lens, and take extra care to keep things clean when doing so.

February 7th, 2005, 11:31 PM	#1
Joel Corral Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Brea, CA Posts: 356	Raynox DCR-2020PRO 2.2x telephoto for HDR-FX1? Raynox DCR-2020PRO 2.2x telephoto for HDR-FX1? any one try this combo? or is this a waste of money?

February 8th, 2005, 12:31 AM	#2
Douglas Spotted Eagle VASST Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Stockton, UT Posts: 5,648	Haven't tried it, do they have any images to show what sort of barrel distortion you're going to get, if any? __________________ Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot Author, producer, composer Certified Sony Vegas Trainer http://www.vasst.com

February 8th, 2005, 08:24 AM	#4
Douglas Spotted Eagle VASST Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Stockton, UT Posts: 5,648	Based on the image I see, I'd be frightened of using it, there are abberations in the shots, and it is a very low cost lens, but if it's what you can afford, then you go with what you can afford. Unfortunately, quality isn't cheap. you won't be getting "bad" video, but you won't be getting great video either. __________________ Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot Author, producer, composer Certified Sony Vegas Trainer http://www.vasst.com

February 8th, 2005, 12:42 AM	#3
Joel Corral Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Brea, CA Posts: 356	i saw some pictures but i can't tell of any distortion. i really need a telephoto and dont have the budget to go with the century optics telephoto. and 1.6x is not enough. the raynox is 2.2x here is a link http://www.raynox.co.jp/english/dcr/dcr2020pro/index.htm

February 8th, 2005, 08:42 AM	#5
Kevin Shaw Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 2,488	I have a Canon wide-angle adapter for my GL1/GL2, and although the image quality is tolerable it's noticeably softer than images taken without the adapter. Point being that anything you put in front of the main glass on your camera is likely to affect image quality, so don't expect any miracles even with an expensive adapter.

February 8th, 2005, 09:51 AM	#6
Robin Davies-Rollinson Trustee Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Gwaelod-y-garth, Cardiff, CYMRU/WALES Posts: 1,215	Kevin, I use the WD58 with my XM2 and I must say that I haven't seen a real degradation in resolution. The only difference may be that since the shots are wider, SD will just not resolve all the extra detail... Robin

February 8th, 2005, 10:38 AM	#7
Joel Corral Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Brea, CA Posts: 356	<<<-- Originally posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle : Based on the image I see, I'd be frightened of using it, there are abberations in the shots, and it is a very low cost lens, but if it's what you can afford, then you go with what you can afford. Unfortunately, quality isn't cheap. you won't be getting "bad" video, but you won't be getting great video either. -->>> yeah, maybe the "under par" video won't be seen when down converted from HD.

February 8th, 2005, 10:39 AM	#8
Joel Corral Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Brea, CA Posts: 356	<<<-- Originally posted by Kevin Shaw : I have a Canon wide-angle adapter for my GL1/GL2, and although the image quality is tolerable it's noticeably softer than images taken without the adapter. Point being that anything you put in front of the main glass on your camera is likely to affect image quality, so don't expect any miracles even with an expensive adapter. -->>> yeah and i have the WD-58 for my GL2 and i don't see any quality loss. joel

February 8th, 2005, 10:46 AM	#9
Kevin Shaw Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 2,488	<<<i have the WD-58 for my GL2 and i don't see any quality loss.>>> Maybe it's just me then, but it sure looks like any video I shoot with the WD-58 is slightly softer than video shot without it. Maybe not by much, but enough to be distracting to me when looking at the source footage. In any case, it's inherently true that you should be concerned about image quality when adding anything to the front of a camera lens, and take extra care to keep things clean when doing so.