Wide angle adapter HV20

Prech Marton · February 24th, 2008, 02:12 PM

really? a 0,45x one isnt enough wide?
you need a fisheye lens, but this will distort the edge a lot!

Tom Hardwick · February 24th, 2008, 02:40 PM

I feel the same as Prech - 0.45x isn't wide enough? On a Canon HV? You'll just have to pan L & R to get all the kids in.

Matt Krump · February 24th, 2008, 03:07 PM

I read another thread (http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=101539) and learned it's not as wide as the specs would have you believe. See below:

Nathan - your Merkury isn't .45x - it's roughly .75x, even less wide than the Canon WD-H43. That's b/c of the macro lens that sits behind it. Take off (unscrew it) and you have a .45x semi-fisheye (hence the ".45x wide angle"). Problem is, there's no way to mount it on your HV20 without the macro lens.

Arne Pursell · March 27th, 2008, 06:05 PM

I have the same lens (probably) as discussed earlier, which works fine as long as you don't zoom!!! But to get a wide angle for USD under $50? (I think actually it was a lot less) compared to Canons - and with reasonable optics as long as you're on wide - what a steal! Distortion is appalling of course on anything but the widest settings.

Unrelated - but maybe someone can help. I picked up an old Hasselblad bellows to use as a mattebox, 62mm, and even found the screw in for the bayonet mount (trying to 'professionalize' my HV20), but getting a macro ring for 62 to 62 (diameter of Mercury wide angle) so it can fit has proved impossible. This is an old-style Hass bellows.

The Merkury is fitted with a step up ring from 43-53mm of course - so am looking also for a solution to fit my Hass Bellows to the HV20 (inside) diameter of 43mm. Of course if my HV20 was working (see my post regarding Canon warranties....you've been warned before travelling!!) it would make things easier, considering I just received four 2400 mah batteries from best batteries.com!

James Bresnahan · March 28th, 2008, 04:30 PM

I wound up removing the glass from the macro and use it as a
mounting ring for the .45x. Now I actually have a .45 wide angle.

Jim

Nathan - your Merkury isn't .45x - it's roughly .75x, even less wide than the Canon WD-H43. That's b/c of the macro lens that sits behind it. Take off (unscrew it) and you have a .45x semi-fisheye (hence the ".45x wide angle"). Problem is, there's no way to mount it on your HV20 without the macro lens.[/QUOTE]

Tom Hardwick · March 28th, 2008, 04:31 PM

I bet it barrel distorts like crazy, yes?

Harry Wilkinson · March 30th, 2008, 11:05 AM

I intend to get an HV30 and will need a wide angle adaptor. The Raynox HD6600 has been well reviewed, but from an existing Sony TRV950, I have a
Sony HG0737X (x0.7). Would this be suitable? The Raynox appears to be a cheaper lens than my Sony. Would I really benefit from buying the Raynox? Am I missing something?

Tom Hardwick · March 30th, 2008, 01:34 PM

The Raynox 6600 PRO is a wide-converter that has amazingly little barrel distortion - far less than the Century of the same power. BUT, and it's quite a big but - the lens isn't very well coated and flare levels can be high if it's not well hooded. Also it can only be used as a half zoom-through, as it gets pretty soft at full tele. The softness is quite attractive on women of a certain age, but all in all I sold mine and went for something sharper.

The 0737 by Sony will distort straight lines more which doesn't look good in my view. It's also marginally less powerful, but you'll be able to zoom through it all day long. If your HV30 has a 37 mm filter thread, then I'd stick with the Sony lens - or at least till you get sick of bendy door frames and brides that are fatter in the middle.

tom.

Harry Wilkinson · March 31st, 2008, 05:22 AM

Thanks Tom. I had read your earlier posts about barrel distortion and lens flare.
If I have to pick between the two evils, I would choose the least distortion.

I`m getting ancient and lightness is a priority; hence the intended HV30 and
possible Raynox 6600 PRO, the latter being relatively light. I would use the camcorder almost entirely to record the scenery and architecture on my travels, ultimately PC edited, burned to DVD and viewed on a domestic TV.

I note your warning about the tele. end of the zoom, but anticipate little need for that.

Regarding flare, I have seen, in another thread, the Canon XH A1 hood being used on an HV20m but this does not seem to be separately available and in any case, would it be superior to the alternative Cavision LH-77, which I can get? Am I right in thinking that the latter would be preferable to any circular hood (even though it`s not 16:9, but what is available that is?) (But, if I can get it, the Canon appears to be deeper (better?))

Do you think either hood would well reduce the risk of lens flare with the
6600PRO?

I am thinking that this combination is likely to be the most cost-effective consumer application.

Brendan Donohue · April 17th, 2008, 10:23 AM

any chance that canon will release the WD-H43 in black to match the hv30, I really hope so!!! Hopefully someone has some inside info...

Tom Hardwick · April 17th, 2008, 11:30 AM

You're right Harry - the 6600 PRO is very light, and I suspect there's a high pressure injection moulded aspheric element in the lens's lineup. This would explain the lack of barrel distortion and also the softness at full tele.

I used a 4:3 hood on my Raynox and yes, the longer the hood (and the blacker and matter) the better. In fact in an efficiency order there's shadowed aspect ratio hoods, then non-shadowed, then petal, then circular, then front element masking. Whatever you do hood it with though (even a French flag) will improve contrast and hide the fact that the front element isn't spotless.

The 6600 comes with a front thread. For hoods, not filters! And if you're shooting HDV on the HV30, I'd see if you can test out the 6600 on a posh 1080 telly before you clinch the deal simply because the 6600 is a fairly old design now. Hague might be party to this.

tom.

James Bresnahan · April 18th, 2008, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick

I bet it barrel distorts like crazy, yes?

Sorry for the delayed responses, Tom. Indeed it does barrel distort like crazy!

I consider it as more of a special effect that an everyday wide angle. I found the Merkury compromised the native HV20 image quality too much, so no way I was going to keep it on the camera for any length of time, and of course with the macro glass, we're no getting that much of a wide angle anyway.

Since it was so cheap, I had no qualms about converting to a true .45 "effects" lens.

Harry Wilkinson · April 20th, 2008, 07:24 AM

Thanks again, Tom. If you are not already aware of them, I would like to direct your attention to the following postings on the HV20 Forum:

1. "Accessories & Equipment" - "The BIG wide angle lens adapter shootout"
Post by "zephyrnoid" 26.1.08 (02.28)and then on to the direction to his own web site;

2. "Accessories & Equipment" - "Raynox SRW-6600-58LE Test"
Post by "CycleWriter" 9.4.08.

All things are relative and coming through Hi8 and DV, I would be happy with the results shown, even at 10X. Part of this, I suppose, is due to the HV20 quality.
These tests, couple with your confirmatory comments decided me to get the
52mm+Raynox step up ring, as recommended by Raynox, and I already have them.

Also, I have found a source for the Canon XH-A1 hood and have this on order.
This needs no thread, as I understand it will fit snugly on the outside of the 6600. I would hope that this hood would come next to the top in your order of efficiency list.

Tom Hardwick · April 20th, 2008, 08:05 AM

That's right Harry - second to top. The VX2000's hood (note - not the barn-doors lens cap design of the VX2100) is a very good example of the shadowed hood - the internal shadow being caused by the rectangular mask at the front.

You may have to 'petal' cut the Canon hood when it arrives, depending on how you fit it to the 6600 PRO. Don't believe your overscanning v'finder, get to see the entire frame in your NLE's software.

In my arsenal of cameras I have an FX1. The top-screen's overscanning (ug!) is huge - far worse than on any of my CRT or LCD TVs.

tom.

Tom Hardwick · April 20th, 2008, 08:22 AM

I've just had a look at the zephyrnoid test. Interesting, as Canon's 0.7x wide is much admired, but it certainly barrel distorts more than the more powerful 6600Pro.

As others have said - the Raynox needs careful hooding and mine carried only single layered coating, I'm sure. Like my Tecpro 0.5x (I do have rather a lot of wide-angle converters) I suspect that to keep costs down Raynox only coat the front surface of the front element - the most important one to be sure.

tom.

February 24th, 2008, 02:12 PM	#61
Prech Marton Major Player Join Date: May 2004 Location: hungary Posts: 462	really? a 0,45x one isnt enough wide? you need a fisheye lens, but this will distort the edge a lot! __________________ Relaxing clips with waterfalls and music, 3D photos, 3D videos: www.3d-video.hu

March 27th, 2008, 06:05 PM	#64
Arne Pursell Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Ithaca, NY (USA) Posts: 40	Merkury 0.45x I have the same lens (probably) as discussed earlier, which works fine as long as you don't zoom!!! But to get a wide angle for USD under $50? (I think actually it was a lot less) compared to Canons - and with reasonable optics as long as you're on wide - what a steal! Distortion is appalling of course on anything but the widest settings. Unrelated - but maybe someone can help. I picked up an old Hasselblad bellows to use as a mattebox, 62mm, and even found the screw in for the bayonet mount (trying to 'professionalize' my HV20), but getting a macro ring for 62 to 62 (diameter of Mercury wide angle) so it can fit has proved impossible. This is an old-style Hass bellows. The Merkury is fitted with a step up ring from 43-53mm of course - so am looking also for a solution to fit my Hass Bellows to the HV20 (inside) diameter of 43mm. Of course if my HV20 was working (see my post regarding Canon warranties....you've been warned before travelling!!) it would make things easier, considering I just received four 2400 mah batteries from best batteries.com!

March 30th, 2008, 11:05 AM	#67
Harry Wilkinson New Boot Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Todmorden England Posts: 5	Wide angle adaptor HV20 I intend to get an HV30 and will need a wide angle adaptor. The Raynox HD6600 has been well reviewed, but from an existing Sony TRV950, I have a Sony HG0737X (x0.7). Would this be suitable? The Raynox appears to be a cheaper lens than my Sony. Would I really benefit from buying the Raynox? Am I missing something?

March 31st, 2008, 05:22 AM	#69
Harry Wilkinson New Boot Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Todmorden England Posts: 5	Thanks Tom. I had read your earlier posts about barrel distortion and lens flare. If I have to pick between the two evils, I would choose the least distortion. I`m getting ancient and lightness is a priority; hence the intended HV30 and possible Raynox 6600 PRO, the latter being relatively light. I would use the camcorder almost entirely to record the scenery and architecture on my travels, ultimately PC edited, burned to DVD and viewed on a domestic TV. I note your warning about the tele. end of the zoom, but anticipate little need for that. Regarding flare, I have seen, in another thread, the Canon XH A1 hood being used on an HV20m but this does not seem to be separately available and in any case, would it be superior to the alternative Cavision LH-77, which I can get? Am I right in thinking that the latter would be preferable to any circular hood (even though it`s not 16:9, but what is available that is?) (But, if I can get it, the Canon appears to be deeper (better?)) Do you think either hood would well reduce the risk of lens flare with the 6600PRO? I am thinking that this combination is likely to be the most cost-effective consumer application. Last edited by Harry Wilkinson; March 31st, 2008 at 11:01 AM.

April 17th, 2008, 10:23 AM	#70
Brendan Donohue Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Nashville, TN Posts: 161	Canon WD-H43 in black? any chance that canon will release the WD-H43 in black to match the hv30, I really hope so!!! Hopefully someone has some inside info...

February 24th, 2008, 02:40 PM	#62
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	I feel the same as Prech - 0.45x isn't wide enough? On a Canon HV? You'll just have to pan L & R to get all the kids in.

February 24th, 2008, 03:07 PM	#63
Matt Krump New Boot Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sugar Grove, IL Posts: 17	I read another thread (http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=101539) and learned it's not as wide as the specs would have you believe. See below: Nathan - your Merkury isn't .45x - it's roughly .75x, even less wide than the Canon WD-H43. That's b/c of the macro lens that sits behind it. Take off (unscrew it) and you have a .45x semi-fisheye (hence the ".45x wide angle"). Problem is, there's no way to mount it on your HV20 without the macro lens.

March 28th, 2008, 04:30 PM	#65
James Bresnahan Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 30	I wound up removing the glass from the macro and use it as a mounting ring for the .45x. Now I actually have a .45 wide angle. Jim Nathan - your Merkury isn't .45x - it's roughly .75x, even less wide than the Canon WD-H43. That's b/c of the macro lens that sits behind it. Take off (unscrew it) and you have a .45x semi-fisheye (hence the ".45x wide angle"). Problem is, there's no way to mount it on your HV20 without the macro lens.[/QUOTE]

March 28th, 2008, 04:31 PM	#66
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	I bet it barrel distorts like crazy, yes?

March 30th, 2008, 01:34 PM	#68
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	The Raynox 6600 PRO is a wide-converter that has amazingly little barrel distortion - far less than the Century of the same power. BUT, and it's quite a big but - the lens isn't very well coated and flare levels can be high if it's not well hooded. Also it can only be used as a half zoom-through, as it gets pretty soft at full tele. The softness is quite attractive on women of a certain age, but all in all I sold mine and went for something sharper. The 0737 by Sony will distort straight lines more which doesn't look good in my view. It's also marginally less powerful, but you'll be able to zoom through it all day long. If your HV30 has a 37 mm filter thread, then I'd stick with the Sony lens - or at least till you get sick of bendy door frames and brides that are fatter in the middle. tom.

April 17th, 2008, 11:30 AM	#71
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	You're right Harry - the 6600 PRO is very light, and I suspect there's a high pressure injection moulded aspheric element in the lens's lineup. This would explain the lack of barrel distortion and also the softness at full tele. I used a 4:3 hood on my Raynox and yes, the longer the hood (and the blacker and matter) the better. In fact in an efficiency order there's shadowed aspect ratio hoods, then non-shadowed, then petal, then circular, then front element masking. Whatever you do hood it with though (even a French flag) will improve contrast and hide the fact that the front element isn't spotless. The 6600 comes with a front thread. For hoods, not filters! And if you're shooting HDV on the HV30, I'd see if you can test out the 6600 on a posh 1080 telly before you clinch the deal simply because the 6600 is a fairly old design now. Hague might be party to this. tom.

April 20th, 2008, 07:24 AM	#73
Harry Wilkinson New Boot Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Todmorden England Posts: 5	Wide angle adapter HV20 Thanks again, Tom. If you are not already aware of them, I would like to direct your attention to the following postings on the HV20 Forum: 1. "Accessories & Equipment" - "The BIG wide angle lens adapter shootout" Post by "zephyrnoid" 26.1.08 (02.28)and then on to the direction to his own web site; 2. "Accessories & Equipment" - "Raynox SRW-6600-58LE Test" Post by "CycleWriter" 9.4.08. All things are relative and coming through Hi8 and DV, I would be happy with the results shown, even at 10X. Part of this, I suppose, is due to the HV20 quality. These tests, couple with your confirmatory comments decided me to get the 52mm+Raynox step up ring, as recommended by Raynox, and I already have them. Also, I have found a source for the Canon XH-A1 hood and have this on order. This needs no thread, as I understand it will fit snugly on the outside of the 6600. I would hope that this hood would come next to the top in your order of efficiency list.

April 20th, 2008, 08:05 AM	#74
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	That's right Harry - second to top. The VX2000's hood (note - not the barn-doors lens cap design of the VX2100) is a very good example of the shadowed hood - the internal shadow being caused by the rectangular mask at the front. You may have to 'petal' cut the Canon hood when it arrives, depending on how you fit it to the 6600 PRO. Don't believe your overscanning v'finder, get to see the entire frame in your NLE's software. In my arsenal of cameras I have an FX1. The top-screen's overscanning (ug!) is huge - far worse than on any of my CRT or LCD TVs. tom.

April 20th, 2008, 08:22 AM	#75
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	I've just had a look at the zephyrnoid test. Interesting, as Canon's 0.7x wide is much admired, but it certainly barrel distorts more than the more powerful 6600Pro. As others have said - the Raynox needs careful hooding and mine carried only single layered coating, I'm sure. Like my Tecpro 0.5x (I do have rather a lot of wide-angle converters) I suspect that to keep costs down Raynox only coat the front surface of the front element - the most important one to be sure. tom.