Wide angle test stills (and a little surprise) at DVinfo.net

Pieter Jongerius · June 10th, 2007, 04:56 AM

Hi all,

well I've been away for a couple of weeks but for the best of reasons if I may say so myself: my much anticipated HV20 did finally arrive and I've been shooting tape after tape, as well as doing some tests I've been contemplating beforehand.

So, here's a modest start.

I have this old WD43 (not the H model) and wanted to know if it deteriorated the optical quality much. If not, this would save me a lot of money, obviously. Here's six JPEGs (100% quality):

- WD43, wide (zoomed out)
- WD43, med (zoomed in around half way)
- WD43, tele (zoomed in all the way)

- No WD43, wide (zoomed out)
- No WD43, med (zoomed in around half way)
- No WD43, tele (zoomed in all the way)

My conclusion, you may use the WD43 if you really need the wider angle, but it deteriorates the image a little bit. Zooming in a little actually helps, but that's not what you would use that lense for :). Whatever you do, stay well away from tele with the WD43: bad bad bad...

Next, the surprise (for me anyway): I did not like the "No WD43, tele" (ie the built-in lens zoomed in) very much, especially outside the center of the image.

Questions:
- anyone care to post some comparable tests with the WDH43?
- is the deterioration I experienced with my "No WD43, tele"-test normal for these or similar cams (such as the sonys)?

Thanks all,
Pieter

Corey Sosner · June 13th, 2007, 06:27 AM

no replies?

Tim Homola · June 13th, 2007, 07:37 AM

Pieter: Thanks, I will try some tests with mine as I have the WDH43.

Robert Ducon · June 13th, 2007, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pieter Jongerius

Hi all,

well I've been away for a couple of weeks but for the best of reasons if I may say so myself: my much anticipated HV20 did finally arrive and I've been shooting tape after tape, as well as doing some tests I've been contemplating beforehand.

Thanks Pieter for posting - that certainly helps to see.

I own the WD-H43, I only recently bought it.

As a rule of thumb I only use the WD-H43 for wide shots - when I need to zoom, I remove the wide angle lens and use the HV20's built-in one.

If I get a chance, I'll test mine out, but no time at the moment.

Pieter Jongerius · June 18th, 2007, 03:34 PM

Thanks Corey :))

Robert, Tim, anytime you have the chance: plz... I'm at a threshold here, not too anxious to go out and spend some on the WDH unless it's that much better.

My experience with the WD43 is that it performed great on SD, even with medium zooms (saves you the trouble of getting it on and off all the time), but at tele you saw the deterioration, just like in these tests above.

As said: anytime you have the chance,
Pieter

Oliver Reik · June 20th, 2007, 04:02 AM

Hello Pieter,

thank you very much for your examples. I think you didn't get too many replies, because your examples don't tell too much about the loss of quality.

The documents (IKEA? ;-) ) aren't filled with letters out to the corners, they are also just black and white. Flowers or any another colorful and fine structures that fill the picture 100% would probably be better.

Regards, Oliver

Barry Richard · July 14th, 2007, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oliver Reik

Hello Pieter,

thank you very much for your examples. I think you didn't get too many replies, because your examples don't tell too much about the loss of quality.

The documents (IKEA? ;-) ) aren't filled with letters out to the corners, they are also just black and white. Flowers or any another colorful and fine structures that fill the picture 100% would probably be better.

Regards, Oliver

the test as it was, was real useful -- but obviously color would be nice as well

I have a similar WD58 (from a vx2000) that I have adapted to the HV20

I wish someone would do the same test with the H version

Alex Zoltowski · July 14th, 2007, 05:34 PM

Indeed some outdoor shots in good lighting would be great. I'd expect a slightly wider angle from an 0.7x lens, maybe it's just the object you're photographing that gives such an impression.

What are the advantages of the WD-H43 over the WD-43?

Pieter Jongerius · July 15th, 2007, 01:42 PM

Thanks guys,

well it was a good test I think, first because its reproducable (still hoping someone does this through a WDH43 (just put your cam on auto and point at a printed piece of paper that's lit evenly)) and second because with this kind of material you can spot barrel distortion and blurring more easily (and third because I don't have a proper resolution chart ;). But there should have been more detail in the corners, so true.

Anyway today I've shot some outdoor stuff. 4 JPEGs attached.

Scene1, shot this morning, WD43 and NO WD43 - A shot of our fence, especially for all the flower lovers out there. :)) Not too much flowers though, because by the fence you can tell the barrel distortion. Both shot in cinemode. WD43 shot taken from closer by in order to capture the same amount of fence, to be able to judge the deterioration better.

Scene2, shot half an hour ago (in twilight conditions, around 9PMCET, running full auto), again with and without the thing, but this time from same distance to subject, so anyone who's interested in the .7x effect can see what it does.

So i'm thinking I'll use it only when I really need the angle. But how cool would it be to be confident enough to go out and buy a better lens that I can keep on all the time because it hardly distorts or blurs! Again: samples anyone?

Best,
Pieter

June 10th, 2007, 04:56 AM	#1
Pieter Jongerius Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Netherlands Posts: 101	Wide angle test stills (and a little surprise) Hi all, well I've been away for a couple of weeks but for the best of reasons if I may say so myself: my much anticipated HV20 did finally arrive and I've been shooting tape after tape, as well as doing some tests I've been contemplating beforehand. So, here's a modest start. I have this old WD43 (not the H model) and wanted to know if it deteriorated the optical quality much. If not, this would save me a lot of money, obviously. Here's six JPEGs (100% quality): - WD43, wide (zoomed out) - WD43, med (zoomed in around half way) - WD43, tele (zoomed in all the way) - No WD43, wide (zoomed out) - No WD43, med (zoomed in around half way) - No WD43, tele (zoomed in all the way) My conclusion, you may use the WD43 if you really need the wider angle, but it deteriorates the image a little bit. Zooming in a little actually helps, but that's not what you would use that lense for :). Whatever you do, stay well away from tele with the WD43: bad bad bad... Next, the surprise (for me anyway): I did not like the "No WD43, tele" (ie the built-in lens zoomed in) very much, especially outside the center of the image. Questions: - anyone care to post some comparable tests with the WDH43? - is the deterioration I experienced with my "No WD43, tele"-test normal for these or similar cams (such as the sonys)? Thanks all, Pieter Attached Thumbnails

July 15th, 2007, 01:42 PM	#9
Pieter Jongerius Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Netherlands Posts: 101	Thanks guys, well it was a good test I think, first because its reproducable (still hoping someone does this through a WDH43 (just put your cam on auto and point at a printed piece of paper that's lit evenly)) and second because with this kind of material you can spot barrel distortion and blurring more easily (and third because I don't have a proper resolution chart ;). But there should have been more detail in the corners, so true. Anyway today I've shot some outdoor stuff. 4 JPEGs attached. Scene1, shot this morning, WD43 and NO WD43 - A shot of our fence, especially for all the flower lovers out there. :)) Not too much flowers though, because by the fence you can tell the barrel distortion. Both shot in cinemode. WD43 shot taken from closer by in order to capture the same amount of fence, to be able to judge the deterioration better. Scene2, shot half an hour ago (in twilight conditions, around 9PMCET, running full auto), again with and without the thing, but this time from same distance to subject, so anyone who's interested in the .7x effect can see what it does. So i'm thinking I'll use it only when I really need the angle. But how cool would it be to be confident enough to go out and buy a better lens that I can keep on all the time because it hardly distorts or blurs! Again: samples anyone? Best, Pieter Attached Thumbnails

June 13th, 2007, 06:27 AM	#2
Corey Sosner New Boot Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Lakewood NJ Posts: 6	no replies?

June 13th, 2007, 07:37 AM	#3
Tim Homola Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 30	Pieter: Thanks, I will try some tests with mine as I have the WDH43.

June 18th, 2007, 03:34 PM	#5
Pieter Jongerius Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Netherlands Posts: 101	Thanks Corey :)) Robert, Tim, anytime you have the chance: plz... I'm at a threshold here, not too anxious to go out and spend some on the WDH unless it's that much better. My experience with the WD43 is that it performed great on SD, even with medium zooms (saves you the trouble of getting it on and off all the time), but at tele you saw the deterioration, just like in these tests above. As said: anytime you have the chance, Pieter

June 20th, 2007, 04:02 AM	#6
Oliver Reik Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Mettmann / Germany Posts: 96	Hello Pieter, thank you very much for your examples. I think you didn't get too many replies, because your examples don't tell too much about the loss of quality. The documents (IKEA? ;-) ) aren't filled with letters out to the corners, they are also just black and white. Flowers or any another colorful and fine structures that fill the picture 100% would probably be better. Regards, Oliver

July 14th, 2007, 05:34 PM	#8
Alex Zoltowski New Boot Join Date: May 2007 Location: Poznan Poland Posts: 6	Indeed some outdoor shots in good lighting would be great. I'd expect a slightly wider angle from an 0.7x lens, maybe it's just the object you're photographing that gives such an impression. What are the advantages of the WD-H43 over the WD-43?