PDX10 - NDs, polarizers and WA lenses

Pat Chaney · May 31st, 2004, 03:10 AM

Just to follow-up on my own post - I've now discovered that Century do a matte box that is recommended for use with the PDX10, which is nice. A mere $700 at B&H <shudder> and I imagine the 4x4" filters are quite expensive too. I'm scared to look <g>

Tom Hardwick · May 31st, 2004, 04:06 AM

The interesting thing about the PDX10 is that if you shoot in the 16:9 mode it's as if you've screwed a 0.8x wide-angle converter to the front of your (4:3) PDX10. So when checking for distortion and vignetting with your new wide-angle converter, make sure you do it in the 16:9 mode - or better yet in the still picture to Memorystick mode.

tom.

Pat Chaney · May 31st, 2004, 05:04 AM

Yes, I got the PDX10 primarily for the 16:9 mode and I don't anticipate shooting anything in 4:3 mode. So I guess that the 0.65x WA adaptor will get me to around the equivalent of a 24mm lens in 35mm camera terms.

Boyd Ostroff · May 31st, 2004, 01:17 PM

Sorry, have been away a couple days... I can't really answer whether the wide hood works with the various brands of wide adaptors. I suppose the neck of the lens might be too wide to fit inside, especially if you are using a larger lens with a 37mm adaptor. All I can tell you is that my .45x "Titanium" lens works fine inside the wide hood and there is no vignetting. Therefore I'd assume that a .65x adaptor wouldn't have vignetting issues. But you'd need to check the physical fit yourself. Maybe get the lens first and then decide if you need another hood.

Tom, it is true that the hoods have a simple bayonet mount, but this is outside the filter thread area and still allows you to screw in an adaptor lenses; I even use it with my Sony 2x telephoto, just because it hides the silvery aluminum finish :-) Since it works with a .45x adaptor, even in 16:9 mode, I'd say they had something in mind other than the builtin 12x lens... hence the name "wide hood".

As for filters, they need to be checked on the actual wide lens as well to see if there are vignetting issues. In my case, putting a filter between the camera and the lens causes vignetting, putting one on the front of the lens doesn't.

Cavision makes some matteboxes which people have mentioned here before, they're less expensive than Century. For a much less expensive option, cinetactics makes a soft mattebox, No personal experience though with any of these.

Graham Budd · May 31st, 2004, 04:26 PM

Just to confirm the Century .65 WA fits inside the PDX10 supplied 'wide' (large) hood & has 62mm filter thread & 65mm outside dia should wish to mount a mattebox
Cheers, Graham

Pat Chaney · May 31st, 2004, 06:54 PM

Thanks for confirming Graham, and thanks for the links Boyd - I'll take a look. However, at least I now know that the Century matte box works with the PDX10 with and without the Century WA adaptor so I have a fallback option if nothing more suitable turns up.

Despite the price it seems to me that a matte box would be the most convenient in terms of quickly changing filters, and just buying a single size of each one I need. And of course I'd look like I know what I'm doing <g>

I just need to try Joe's Filters to see if they are a good altenative to some optical filters. I'm hoping they will be.

Boyd Ostroff · May 31st, 2004, 07:22 PM

Pat, I'm a big fan of Joe's Filters. I am especially fond of "Joe's diffuser" and I think it will give you the ProMist effect you want. I also like the idea of shooting "clean" and applying filters in post. Unless you're using a good monitor while shooting you could end up with problems that don't show on the camera's LCD screen. Try the free download and see what you think.

I nearly pulled the trigger on a mattebox myself, but decided not to spend the money at the last minute. Based on everything I've read, personally, I would probably get the Cavision 4x4 bellows mattebox http://cavision.com/Mattbox/4x4E.htm. If you just want to mount filters then the shallower matteboxes should work fine, but if you're trying to keep stray light away from the lens to improve contrast and reduce vertical smear I think you'll need something pretty deep and also adjustable. It's a bit oversized, but I don't think there are any smaller bellows-style matteboxes. Maybe one day I'll make my own... :-)

Tom Hardwick · June 1st, 2004, 01:02 AM

Good solid info here about fitting filters, wide-angles and hoods. The 0.65x Century ttached to the PDX10 in 16:9 mode actually gives a 25.5mm lens in still camera terms, a very respectable wideangle in the horizontal plane, but less so in the vertical of course.

tom.

Graham Budd · June 1st, 2004, 03:02 AM

Related to this thread ..... I have purchased the .65 century & have a number of P series cokin filters including circular polarising, ND8 & gradual grey. Rather than reinvesting in these as screw ons to fit the 62mm I am considering the 3x3 Cavision matte box with 65-85mm adapter which I could possibly use one day with a PD170 or similar (when I can afford it!).

Q1 My understanding is that there are 2x versions of the 3x3 matte box one, a regular one & the other for a WA lens. Has anyone purchased the Cavision 3x3 and what has been their experience with a WA mounted. My plan was to also purchase the French flag which should lessen the flaring which occurs with the .65 Century inside the Sony wide hood. The hood does not extend out over the lens enough & the lens catches the sun directly very easily.

Q2 I have a Sennheiser ME66/K6 mounted on Bayer Dynamic mount (v.common) on the top shoe (I have removed the PDX10 mount).
Anyone using this and does it clear the Cavision 3x3 with a muff on?
Upon searching posts I believe there were photos mentioned but the site they were posted to was no longer accessible.

Pat Chaney · June 1st, 2004, 04:25 PM

Thanks, I ordered Joe's Filters today and just downloaded them (didn't bother with the demo). Had a quick try with Joe's Diffuser and it does indeed produce a pleasing effect. I'm sure there are a lot of possibilities here, given the time to experiment.

So, I was having second thoughts about the need for a matte box (just for ND filters) - until I read Graham's post about flare with the WA adaptor. I imagine that the French flag would help, but perhaps be something of a compromise over a deeper hood or bellows.

Now I'm wondering if the microphone will get in the way of anything too. Nothing is ever quite as straightforward as it first appears ...

Boyd Ostroff · June 1st, 2004, 05:57 PM

Rather than charging ahead too fast, why not get your hands on the camera and lens, then play around for awhile in different lighting conditions while you ponder the need for a mattebox? Could save some time, money and aggravation in the long run. I think it will be tough to make these decisions without some hands-on experience.

You're right, the mattebox photos that were posted earlier by "Blip Pio" are no longer accessible. There are a few threads about PDX-10 matteboxes however:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=11952
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=12473
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...&threadid=9878

Graham Budd · June 2nd, 2004, 02:46 AM

Thanks,
Graham

Pat Chaney · June 2nd, 2004, 06:00 AM

Yes, you're probably right that I should just get the WA lens first and leave the matte box for now. My thinking was driven by (a) not wanting to buy filters twice and (b) reducing international shipping charges if I order from B&H (can't find the Century 0.65 37mm anywhere in the UK).

May 31st, 2004, 03:10 AM	#16
Pat Chaney Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Berkshire, UK Posts: 107	Just to follow-up on my own post - I've now discovered that Century do a matte box that is recommended for use with the PDX10, which is nice. A mere $700 at B&H <shudder> and I imagine the 4x4" filters are quite expensive too. I'm scared to look <g>

May 31st, 2004, 04:06 AM	#17
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	The interesting thing about the PDX10 is that if you shoot in the 16:9 mode it's as if you've screwed a 0.8x wide-angle converter to the front of your (4:3) PDX10. So when checking for distortion and vignetting with your new wide-angle converter, make sure you do it in the 16:9 mode - or better yet in the still picture to Memorystick mode. tom.

May 31st, 2004, 05:04 AM	#18
Pat Chaney Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Berkshire, UK Posts: 107	Yes, I got the PDX10 primarily for the 16:9 mode and I don't anticipate shooting anything in 4:3 mode. So I guess that the 0.65x WA adaptor will get me to around the equivalent of a 24mm lens in 35mm camera terms.

May 31st, 2004, 01:17 PM	#19
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	Sorry, have been away a couple days... I can't really answer whether the wide hood works with the various brands of wide adaptors. I suppose the neck of the lens might be too wide to fit inside, especially if you are using a larger lens with a 37mm adaptor. All I can tell you is that my .45x "Titanium" lens works fine inside the wide hood and there is no vignetting. Therefore I'd assume that a .65x adaptor wouldn't have vignetting issues. But you'd need to check the physical fit yourself. Maybe get the lens first and then decide if you need another hood. Tom, it is true that the hoods have a simple bayonet mount, but this is outside the filter thread area and still allows you to screw in an adaptor lenses; I even use it with my Sony 2x telephoto, just because it hides the silvery aluminum finish :-) Since it works with a .45x adaptor, even in 16:9 mode, I'd say they had something in mind other than the builtin 12x lens... hence the name "wide hood". As for filters, they need to be checked on the actual wide lens as well to see if there are vignetting issues. In my case, putting a filter between the camera and the lens causes vignetting, putting one on the front of the lens doesn't. Cavision makes some matteboxes which people have mentioned here before, they're less expensive than Century. For a much less expensive option, cinetactics makes a soft mattebox, No personal experience though with any of these.

May 31st, 2004, 04:26 PM	#20
Graham Budd Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 28	Just to confirm the Century .65 WA fits inside the PDX10 supplied 'wide' (large) hood & has 62mm filter thread & 65mm outside dia should wish to mount a mattebox Cheers, Graham

May 31st, 2004, 06:54 PM	#21
Pat Chaney Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Berkshire, UK Posts: 107	Thanks for confirming Graham, and thanks for the links Boyd - I'll take a look. However, at least I now know that the Century matte box works with the PDX10 with and without the Century WA adaptor so I have a fallback option if nothing more suitable turns up. Despite the price it seems to me that a matte box would be the most convenient in terms of quickly changing filters, and just buying a single size of each one I need. And of course I'd look like I know what I'm doing <g> I just need to try Joe's Filters to see if they are a good altenative to some optical filters. I'm hoping they will be.

May 31st, 2004, 07:22 PM	#22
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	Pat, I'm a big fan of Joe's Filters. I am especially fond of "Joe's diffuser" and I think it will give you the ProMist effect you want. I also like the idea of shooting "clean" and applying filters in post. Unless you're using a good monitor while shooting you could end up with problems that don't show on the camera's LCD screen. Try the free download and see what you think. I nearly pulled the trigger on a mattebox myself, but decided not to spend the money at the last minute. Based on everything I've read, personally, I would probably get the Cavision 4x4 bellows mattebox http://cavision.com/Mattbox/4x4E.htm. If you just want to mount filters then the shallower matteboxes should work fine, but if you're trying to keep stray light away from the lens to improve contrast and reduce vertical smear I think you'll need something pretty deep and also adjustable. It's a bit oversized, but I don't think there are any smaller bellows-style matteboxes. Maybe one day I'll make my own... :-)

June 1st, 2004, 01:02 AM	#23
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Good solid info here about fitting filters, wide-angles and hoods. The 0.65x Century ttached to the PDX10 in 16:9 mode actually gives a 25.5mm lens in still camera terms, a very respectable wideangle in the horizontal plane, but less so in the vertical of course. tom.

June 1st, 2004, 03:02 AM	#24
Graham Budd Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 28	Related to this thread ..... I have purchased the .65 century & have a number of P series cokin filters including circular polarising, ND8 & gradual grey. Rather than reinvesting in these as screw ons to fit the 62mm I am considering the 3x3 Cavision matte box with 65-85mm adapter which I could possibly use one day with a PD170 or similar (when I can afford it!). Q1 My understanding is that there are 2x versions of the 3x3 matte box one, a regular one & the other for a WA lens. Has anyone purchased the Cavision 3x3 and what has been their experience with a WA mounted. My plan was to also purchase the French flag which should lessen the flaring which occurs with the .65 Century inside the Sony wide hood. The hood does not extend out over the lens enough & the lens catches the sun directly very easily. Q2 I have a Sennheiser ME66/K6 mounted on Bayer Dynamic mount (v.common) on the top shoe (I have removed the PDX10 mount). Anyone using this and does it clear the Cavision 3x3 with a muff on? Upon searching posts I believe there were photos mentioned but the site they were posted to was no longer accessible.

June 1st, 2004, 04:25 PM	#25
Pat Chaney Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Berkshire, UK Posts: 107	Thanks, I ordered Joe's Filters today and just downloaded them (didn't bother with the demo). Had a quick try with Joe's Diffuser and it does indeed produce a pleasing effect. I'm sure there are a lot of possibilities here, given the time to experiment. So, I was having second thoughts about the need for a matte box (just for ND filters) - until I read Graham's post about flare with the WA adaptor. I imagine that the French flag would help, but perhaps be something of a compromise over a deeper hood or bellows. Now I'm wondering if the microphone will get in the way of anything too. Nothing is ever quite as straightforward as it first appears ...

June 1st, 2004, 05:57 PM	#26
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	Rather than charging ahead too fast, why not get your hands on the camera and lens, then play around for awhile in different lighting conditions while you ponder the need for a mattebox? Could save some time, money and aggravation in the long run. I think it will be tough to make these decisions without some hands-on experience. You're right, the mattebox photos that were posted earlier by "Blip Pio" are no longer accessible. There are a few threads about PDX-10 matteboxes however: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=11952 http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=12473 http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...&threadid=9878

June 2nd, 2004, 02:46 AM	#27
Graham Budd Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 28	Thanks, Graham

June 2nd, 2004, 06:00 AM	#28
Pat Chaney Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Berkshire, UK Posts: 107	Yes, you're probably right that I should just get the WA lens first and leave the matte box for now. My thinking was driven by (a) not wanting to buy filters twice and (b) reducing international shipping charges if I order from B&H (can't find the Century 0.65 37mm anywhere in the UK).