DV Info Net

DV Info Net (http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Canon XL H Series HDV Camcorders (http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-xl-h-series-hdv-camcorders/)
-   -   6x Wide Angle Shipping (http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-xl-h-series-hdv-camcorders/80666-6x-wide-angle-shipping.html)

John Richard February 28th, 2007 02:27 PM

FINALLY got a message back from Chrosziel on a new barrel ring gear for their follow-focus system for the H1's 6X wide angle lens.

After saying that a new gear for the 6X would be available end of Jan/early Feb, they are now saying that they will not have a new barrel gear for the 6X.

If anyone hears anything different, can you post info for the rest of us. I am going to look into having a machine shop custom make one for the 6X. If find myself using the 6X more than the 20X and really miss the follow-focus.

Anthony Koorlander March 1st, 2007 06:53 AM

Canon x6 WA lens in use
 
Hi .. I've been shooting for about a week now... still get aberration on some iris settings at widest angle shots ... but overall, the use factor of this lens is just brilliant!
The detail on the widest angle is incredible .. and for 'run and gun' type operation, this lens is terrific. The wide angle gives you easier hand held steadiness appearance.. and personally I find this better to use than the HD20X standard supplied lens.

Caveat ... you can only fit one 82mm filter on the front at a time... or else the filter ring shows in the corners at widest angle.

Steve Rosen March 2nd, 2007 12:10 PM

John: I too missed the FF - the 6x has forced me to become "lazy".. I rest the mattebox rods in the palm of my hand and flick the AF on and off with my thumb for focus... Luckily the AF on the 6x is considerably better than the 20x, so generally the technique works well - although you do have to be careful when switching back to MF that it holds at the distance (even a slight touch of the focus ring will change it from 20 feet to 3 feet) - you have to keep an eye on the scale in the finder -

In fact, I'm so used to it now that I fumble for a bit when I go back to the 20x or 16x and the Chrosziel FF...

Tony Davies-Patrick March 2nd, 2007 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Rosen (Post 634776)
John: I too missed the FF - the 6x has forced me to become "lazy".. I rest the mattebox rods in the palm of my hand and flick the AF on and off with my thumb for focus... Luckily the AF on the 6x is considerably better than the 20x, so generally the technique works well - although you do have to be careful when switching back to MF that it holds at the distance (even a slight touch of the focus ring will change it from 20 feet to 3 feet) - you have to keep an eye on the scale in the finder -

In fact, I'm so used to it now that I fumble for a bit when I go back to the 20x or 16x and the Chrosziel FF...

Nothing wrong with being lazy sometimes Steve, especially if it produces the results that you want.

Are you finding much actual difference in the image quality produced using the 6X compared to the 20X and 16X MF? - Or is it mainly the wide advantage when needed that makes you swap lenses? (By the way, did you ever try the old 3X on the H1 and compare it to results with the 6X...yes, I know there is a difference, but wondered just how much you found it made in real term results).

Steve Rosen March 3rd, 2007 09:50 AM

Tony: I think the 6x may be a little sharper, but it's really difficult to tell because when I use it, I generally use it full wide (that's why I put it on)...

What I can say for sure is that where the 20x and 16x are apparently otimized optically for the center of the zoom range - meaning the image is sharpest when using the center, especially wide open - the 6x seems to be optimized for full WA - it appears to be sharpest there - which is good because that's why we shell out the bucks for it...

As for the 3x, I've never even seen one so I can't say...

Tony Davies-Patrick March 3rd, 2007 10:45 AM

Thanks for your input, Steve.

Johan Forssblad April 27th, 2007 06:33 AM

Slim or normal filter?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony Koorlander (Post 633888)
Hi ... you can only fit one 82mm filter on the front at a time... or else the filter ring shows in the corners at widest angle.

Hi, is this true even with a slim filter? To use one filter, does it need to be slim or could it be normal thickness? Is a slim filter without front threads of any advantage here? /Johan

Marty Hudzik May 30th, 2007 10:05 AM

OK. So can someone actually refer me to a good quality 82mm UV to protect this lens? I see all kinds of vendors selling Hoya filters on the internet that ship form Hong Kong directly and they all claim that these are the best you can buy....but they are trying to sell something....so of course they are going to say that!

So realistically, which brand and from where should I look?

Thanks.

Tom Hardwick May 30th, 2007 11:03 AM

Hoya SMC (Super Multi- coated) and accept no less. But protect your lens from what? Sticky-fingered children or blowing sand on the beach? OK then - fit a filter.

But at the focal lengths and DOF we're talking here, be very wary of fitting any sort of filter, and if you don't really need one, don't fit one. And if you do, then hood and flag your front element with great care.

tom.

Johan Forssblad May 30th, 2007 03:37 PM

Marty,
I selected the B+W 010M 82 mm MRC SLIM UV-HAZE No. 26943 after study of tests found on the Internet. Seems even better than the Hoya according to someone who evaluated them by measuring the spectral filtering properties.
And these B+W comes from Schneider Optische Werke GmbH who are famous for top end optical stuff.
Could be interesting if somebody could shoot three pictures; with B+W, Hoya and without filter. /Johan

Floris van Eck May 31st, 2007 04:53 PM

How much is everyone switching lenses between the 6X and 20X? I am not sure if I like to have to switch lenses all the time, especially in the field.

Marty Hudzik June 1st, 2007 07:28 AM

Haven't had it long enough to really answer with any certainty. What I can say is that if you are shooting in the focal range that overlaps on these 2 lenses (6x and 20x) then you'd really want to use this 6x. It looks "that" good. I do not know exactly what it is but the picture is amazingly sharp. The 6x range is just about enouigh to cover most of what you would shoot. If you need to go to extreme telephoto then pop on the 20x.

I will say I am not that thrilled about changing lenses in the field. I have a .8x wide that I use frequently on the 20x and it is zoom through. The convenience is obvious but it is not as wide as the 6x and it is not as sharp. Heck, the 20x by itself is not as sharp so adding an adapter lessens it a bit more.

I don't know what they did but the 6x image is amazing. Amazing.

My only nit-pick is that it is so wide that there are times it almost seems distorted on the edges when panning. What I mean is not that it is geometrically distorting or softening, it is sharp edge to edge. But on pans the severe wideness of it gives a different sensation to stuff coming into frame as you pan.

This is not a flaw but the optical nature of a wide lens that is "this" wide. I see this on Discovery HD programming and HDnet programming that are shot on Varicam and CineAlta with much higher end lenses. So it is just the way it is and not a flaw.....anyone ever notice this?

Peace.

Tom Hardwick June 1st, 2007 07:39 AM

'I don't know what they did but the 6x image is amazing. Amazing.'

Simple really Marty - they spent a lot of time in getting this lens to market and they sure charge a lot of money for it when it gets there. I'm glad it shows.

And what you're seeing in the pans comes about because the lens exhibits so little barrel distortion. As you pan or tilt at a constant speed objects decelerate and diminish in size as they move towards the centre of the frame and accelerate as they leave the frame.

With a barrel distorting lens (which encompasses the vast majority of zoom-through wide converters) objects travel across the frame at a much more even rate. Unfortunately they increase in size as they cross the centre of the frame - they literally 'barrel out'. I know which effect my brides prefer.

tom.

Marty Hudzik June 1st, 2007 07:46 AM

Thanks for that answer Tom. It makes sense now that you put it that way. I got my lens for such a good price that it makes it that much more of a joy to use. Still, the general consensus around here when the lens was first announced was that the price was ridiculously low for a lens of this class. Now I personally don't think a $3k list price is low by any means.....but apparently it is quite an achievement for that price.

Thanks.

Floris van Eck June 1st, 2007 08:11 AM

The lens can be had everywhere for $2500. If you compare that to most high-end photography lenses, it is not that expensive. And from what I hear from all of you, the lens is really worth every penny.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:26 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2019 The Digital Video Information Network