Wide Angle Adaptor for XH A1? - Page 22 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Canon EOS / MXF / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Canon HDV and DV Camera Systems > Canon XH Series HDV Camcorders

Canon XH Series HDV Camcorders
Canon XH G1S / G1 (with SDI), Canon XH A1S / A1 (without SDI).


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old February 5th, 2008, 03:40 PM   #316
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 118
If I had the money for a 35mm adapter and wide angle lenses for that I would totally do that. It really depends what you want to do and how much of it you are going to do for the money. Obviously the Canon 72mm Wide Angle adapter is much cheaper than a 35mm setup but it is also more limited (no matte box/filer capabilities etc).

What do you mostly film?

About the Letus and monitor issue there is a post a few below this that discusses exactly that...
Kellen Dengler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 5th, 2008, 03:50 PM   #317
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Breda, Netherlands
Posts: 67
Thanks for the quick reply!

I'm doing only narative work. Long filmprojects. This summer, I want my DOP to mount the xh a1 on his shoulder and use a wide angle lens. I will probably have around 2000 euro (about 3000 dollar) to spend. So a Letus Economy with railsystem, shouldermount and maybe a follow focus I can afford.

Is a follow focus important to have in your setup?
Ivo van Aart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 5th, 2008, 04:11 PM   #318
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 118
So then do you already have a set of lenses for the 35mm adapter? Or at least the wide angle lens you want to use?

I don't own a 35mm adapter and follow focus, but I've used one and found the follow focus to be very helpful in obtaining very precise focused shots. Once you get an adapter and lenses and all that, and then throw it on your shoulder the follow focus make sit easier to adjust focus for sure.

I'm sure others on here who own a 35mm adapter and follow focus will give input...
Kellen Dengler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 6th, 2008, 01:00 AM   #319
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Breda, Netherlands
Posts: 67
I hope so :)

I have a lot of still lenses. Personally I have a wide angle, normal (like 50mm) and a zoomlens (canon, exept the zoomlens) but I know a still photographer who still works analogue so he has a lot of lenses.
Ivo van Aart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 28th, 2008, 05:37 PM   #320
Major Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 643
After reading through this whole thread, is it safe to deduce that the Canon is the best for image quality, price, and accessories (bag, hood, etc.) but the only downside is the weight?

I'm going to be using it for a LAST MINUTE gig in a week and I'm researching like a madman trying to find a suitable wide angle in time.

Back story is my friend/client lost my number and only now found it a WEEK away from his event. Didn't have time to prepare as far as tapes/cleaning/prepping goes so scrambling a bit and will have to 2day or overnight a lens here.

Thanks for all the info posted so far.
Randy Panado is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 1st, 2008, 05:41 PM   #321
New Boot
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 17
ok, so here's a question:

Which is better for quality of image and versatility/zoom?

Century Optics .3x fisheye
or
16x9 EX Super Fisheye

???
Matt Desmond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2008, 05:54 AM   #322
Major Player
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Knokke-Heist, Belgium
Posts: 963
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Panado View Post
After reading through this whole thread, is it safe to deduce that the Canon is the best for image quality, price, and accessories (bag, hood, etc.) but the only downside is the weight?

I'm going to be using it for a LAST MINUTE gig in a week and I'm researching like a madman trying to find a suitable wide angle in time.

Back story is my friend/client lost my number and only now found it a WEEK away from his event. Didn't have time to prepare as far as tapes/cleaning/prepping goes so scrambling a bit and will have to 2day or overnight a lens here.

Thanks for all the info posted so far.
Weight is indeed a serious disadvantage, plus the fact that I find the wide-angle effect marginal.
Luc De Wandel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29th, 2008, 08:00 AM   #323
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Espoo Finland
Posts: 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellen Dengler View Post
Obviously the Canon 72mm Wide Angle adapter is much cheaper than a 35mm setup but it is also more limited (no matte box/filer capabilities etc).
Not so.

Canon 0.8x adapter fits the Chrosziel 450-XHG1 mattebox. It is used without the 110 to 81mm adapter (needed with the fixed lens, included in the kit), the Canon WA adapter is about 1 mm smaller in diameter than the mattebox opening. If you feel you need to fill the gap Chrosziel sells a black rubber band for that purpose.

I have both Canon 0.8x and Century 0.6x adapters. Canon 0.8x is great quality, full zoom-thru, but heavy and not all that WA. Century is light, cheaper, approaches a real WA, but has slightly soft corners and is only about 6x zoom-thru.

I like them both, usable in different situations.
Petri Kaipiainen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 4th, 2008, 06:15 PM   #324
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fort Dick California ( Far North)
Posts: 59
I bought the .45 $45 WA Cheeser! Eat your hearts out!

I think it's probably the same thing labelled "Titanium," this one is labelled something else, but the kicker is it has "Japan" on the lens rim, but right on the box it says Made in China.

I have actually, in other areas than optics, gotten some great super cheap stuff from China, maybe like getting a 1980 Toyota before people knew they were already great.

Something I don't understand is there is a unscrewable rear element that says "Macro" on it, and I think it must be meant to stay on there because when you remove it the front section does not have 72 MM threads that I can seat in the camera.

It vignettes with my 72 MM Canon brand UV filter on between it and the camera, but not without.

I'll try to put up some test cheese shots. I like to buy either really good things or really bad ones. Low risk either way, and sometimes you get lucky with junk. It was this or nothing for WA on my budget.
Alain Lumina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2008, 01:30 AM   #325
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Billericay, England UK
Posts: 4,711
Alain, you should avoid using filters with wide-angle adapters, either between zoom and converter or on the front of them. This is because you're adding two extra air-to-glass surfaces and increasing the chances of flare, diffraction and vignetting.

The 'macro' part of the lens is simply a very powerful c.10 dioptre close-up lens. It might be worth experimenting with, but generally the edge definition is pretty poor. It might be ok on still cameras where you can crop the image to remove the whooshy edges.

tom.
Tom Hardwick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 16th, 2008, 11:43 AM   #326
New Boot
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Akron, Ohio, USA
Posts: 10
Wd- H72

I just switched from the Gl-2 with the 58 wide, and ordered the XHA1 with a WD- H72. The GL 2 was a great balance with the wide on. I was stunned to say the least how front end heavy the XhA1 is with the WD- H72 on. But as I do more run and gun news style video for Ohio.com I am not inclined to go without in on camera full time. Note it is a must to keep the wide, spit-spot clean or it will show.
Lew
Lew Stamp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 16th, 2008, 11:50 AM   #327
New Boot
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Akron, Ohio, USA
Posts: 10
filter WD- H72

There are no filter threads on the front end, they would have to clamp on like the lens hood, if still needed.
Lew
Lew Stamp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 15th, 2008, 02:24 AM   #328
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Fadely View Post
We've got the WD H72 wide angle. It screws in to the camera's 72mm threads; it's not bayonet.

It is better than our 16x9 Inc. wide lens.

chuck
which model are you comparing to? what makes the Canon better [anybody]?
John Stakes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 20th, 2009, 06:48 PM   #329
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Burlington, VT
Posts: 33
New Century Optics WA

Has anybody used this adapter?
Century Precision Optics | 0.6x Wide Angle Adapter | 0HD-06WA-AG

Or know anything about its performance?
Joe Gaetani is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2009, 02:48 AM   #330
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Billericay, England UK
Posts: 4,711
Being from Century it will be beautifully made, superbly coated, wonderfully powerful and barrel distort pretty severely as its of spherical construction. If these parameters suit you, go for it.
Tom Hardwick is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Canon EOS / MXF / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Canon HDV and DV Camera Systems > Canon XH Series HDV Camcorders

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:52 AM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network