Equipment for wildlife film-making.

Brendan Marnell · January 26th, 2006, 02:21 PM

At last I understand that telextenders are front-mounted if there's a suitable thread on my XM2 (GL2 to you) Steve, thank you. Vignetting is also clearer to me now. What I don't understand is How much loss of picture occurs? I copied the description below from www.centuryoptics.com and while the term "porthole effect" makes good sense it doesn't tell me at what zoom the picture is reduced by, say, 50%. And if as they say below a 2x "provides doubling of the indicated focal length", what would 1x achieve? Until I know this there's not much point in getting a 2x to find that it only gives a clean image up to 1x. Please tell me would a 1x actually increase the 20X of my XM2 to 40x or 30x? (58mm is my current filter diameter).

Of course as you say a .5x would be even safer (assuming it zooms me towards 30x) until I can learn to stop my pulse beating for that moment when the vulture hovers to blow his nose right in front of me. Would you also comment on loss of sharpness or image softening caused by telextenders, please?

Quote from Century Optics <<
"The 2X Tele-Converter is a front-mounting accessory that provides greater telephoto reach. Available in popular bayonet and 58mm screw mount, the 2X Tele-Converter instantly shifts the focal length range in the telephoto direction.

Unlike typical rear-mounted telephoto extenders, the Century Tele Converter provides doubling of the indicated focal length (through the higher end of the zoom range) without light loss, along with front-mounting convenience.

Note: Vignetting will occur from mid zoom range to wide angle producing a porthole effect which is common with all tele-converters." >>

J. Stephen McDonald · January 26th, 2006, 07:15 PM

Brendan, I may have made a mistake in saying that the Sony 1.7X telex can be bought with either a thread or bayonet-mount. I believe it's the Century 2X, with a 58mm thread, that is the one also available with a bayonet mount.
This bayonet mount on the Century model, was made mainly with the Canon GL1/GL2 and XM1/XM2 in mind. However, some people have reported they didn't get perfect clarity at some points in the zoom range, with this Century lens. I know nothing firsthand about its performance.

Generally, I've gotten good clarity all through the zoom ranges with the telexes I've described. A 2X telex will double the focal length and your XM2
would have its magnification doubled with it, although the zoom range stays the same at 20X, going from 2X at the bottom to 40X.

Not all telextenders fit on the outer end of a lens. Some removable pro lenses have a built-in, switchable extender at the base. The Canon LX and XL series of camcorders can use extender lenses that mount under the bases of their main removable lenses.

The tunnel effect of vignetting will make any images taken in the part of the zoom range that shows them, to be of little use. Sometimes, a camcorder will seem not to be vignetting, but later, on certain monitors, dark corners can appear. This is due to more of the outer safety margin being shown on some monitors than others. I try to keep my zoom a bit outside the vignetting range when I use a telex, to avoid this. Unless you're near a large city, it's unlikely you could find a Century 2X extender for sale locally, so you wouldn't be able to try one before you bought it. I've told you what to expect from a Sony VX2100/PD170 in regards to vignetting with the telexes I previously mentioned. I am guessing that the Century 2X would cause a VX2100 to vignette around the 50% zoom point or it could start even farther out in the range. You could go to the GL1/GL2 Son of Watchdog forum on this group and probably find someone who could give you specifics about how your XM2 would perform with a telex. I hope that someone who has the Century 2X will chime in and give us review of it, regarding its use on either the Sony or Canon cameras.

J. Stephen McDonald · January 26th, 2006, 07:27 PM

Duplicate message deleted

Brendan Marnell · January 27th, 2006, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil French

I use the XL1s, but the XL2 would be better. The larger LCD and flip lense will make a big difference, along with 16:9. I find the 1.6X extender invaluable to bring shots in a little closer. I haven't managed to afford and EOS lense and adapter, but that would certainly have some applications (you said under $10 k). ................... !

Phil

Please tell me more about your 1.6X extender. I don't mean more high tech; I really want to know simple facts like: (a) its full name (b) does it thread on or is it bayonet or both (c) do you use a filter behind or infront of it (d) what are you doing with it when you're bringing "shots in a little closer" ... please take time to describe this to me e.g. are you always using a tripod in such a situation (e) what's its diameter [would it thread onto my 58mm XM2] (f) do you leave it on your lens all or most of the time (g) is the 1.6X an example of using more glass in front of your lens and thereby softening your images (I'm not certain what this means but I've read it in other posts and it seems to be something I would rather avoid). And what EOS lens and adapter would you go for?

Brendan Marnell · January 27th, 2006, 06:09 AM

Thank you Steve for all that clarification.

Meryem Ersoz · January 27th, 2006, 11:24 AM

okay, brendan, here i am chasing you around with more info!

i posted footage of my GL2 with and without the century optics 2x extender. you can find the link to the link here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...century+optics

not many folks had much to contribute to the conversation in the link, but 60 or so people have downloaded the footage, so i think it contributed something.

the 2x is a nice hunk o' glass! and you can pick them up used pretty inexpensively....unlike the breath-taking almost-$900 for a 1.6x for an FX-1. still reeling from the sticker shock of that one.

Meryem Ersoz · January 27th, 2006, 11:56 AM

while you're at it, brendan, you might want to check out this link as well:

http://ia300133.us.archive.org/3/ite...aberration.mp4

at full zoom, the 2x does show some serious chromatic aberration (purple fringing....), but on the other hand, full zoom is where you will primarily use it...classic rockandahardplace....

this won't show up in every instance, which is why it is not in the climbing footage, but does occur in fine detail circumstances (like the trees, the bird feathers, etc.).

Brendan Marnell · January 27th, 2006, 01:40 PM

Thank you for the links, Meryem

Were you much more than 400 yards from the climber?

The magpie detail is disappointing, even if you were 100 yards away?
The light or contrast seems to have been slightly washed out as well. What caused that?

I am still amazed to see how much detail Chris Hurd picked up (in his FoV Comparisons) with his XL2 + 70-300mm lens ... I realize they were stills and stationary but he must have been more than 200 yards away from the tractor.

Meryem Ersoz · January 27th, 2006, 01:57 PM

i was on the other side of a canyon from the climber, so pretty far away....i'm guessing about 300 yards?

as for the other test, it was shot at dawn (white sky), and i was testing at least one other camera at the same time, so i was kind of jumping around and there was a band of happy joggers running back, then forth through my two-camera set-up, freaking me out... (i thought i was going to be out there all alone with me and my cameras, but hey, this is boulder!), so i was sort of attending to multiple issues....

on this day, i was doing some comparison testing between GL2 with a teleconverter and XL2 with a long lens, to see how much reach was gained by the 70-200mm long lens v. the teleconverter. no contest. the long lens had some CA too, but it wasn't as pronounced. i did tweak the footage to fix the blown-out highlights, but these are just the test fottages, which i tend to run on out-of-the box auto, because the condition is easy to re-create, the problem easiest to observe....so some of it is fixable, but you want to know up front what it is that needs fixing......

steven macdonald and i had some prior discussion about long lens v. teleconverters, and i have both. there is really no contest, being able to stand eyeball-to-eyeball with a hawk using a long lens versus getting a long or medium shot with a teleconverter. just my opinion, of course.

Brendan Marnell · January 27th, 2006, 02:16 PM

I'm at a loss Meryem. Each time you wrote "no contest" I failed to identify the winner.

Meryem Ersoz · January 27th, 2006, 02:28 PM

i'm just giving you my opinion only. i don't have side-by-side footage to post of that morning shoot because the testing was for myself, just me looking through lenses trying to ascertain the difference in reach between two different camera set-ups, and not necessarily pressing the record button. i only posted that bit of GL2 footage because i was surprised at the level of CA when i reviewed it, and i was still trying to understand the uses/limits of the 2x, which was brand new...

the climbing footage was on a different day entirely, for a different purpose, to test for vignetting.

if you find this stuff is not helpful, feel free to disregard it. i'm not intending to add to the confusion!

Phil French · January 27th, 2006, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brendan Marnell

Phil

Please tell me more about your 1.6X extender. I don't mean more high tech; I really want to know simple facts like: (a) its full name (b) does it thread on or is it bayonet or both (c) do you use a filter behind or infront of it (d) what are you doing with it when you're bringing "shots in a little closer" ... please take time to describe this to me e.g. are you always using a tripod in such a situation (e) what's its diameter [would it thread onto my 58mm XM2] (f) do you leave it on your lens all or most of the time (g) is the 1.6X an example of using more glass in front of your lens and thereby softening your images (I'm not certain what this means but I've read it in other posts and it seems to be something I would rather avoid). And what EOS lens and adapter would you go for?

Hi Brendan - sorry I took so long to get back to you. My extender will not work for you. It is an extender which goes between the lense and and camcorder body on my XL1s. It's made by Canon (I think it's called simply an "XL 1.6X").

I do some video of larger subjects such as deer etc., but I do a great deal of bird videography. What I actually meant by bringing in shots closer is filling the viewfinder or screen with the subject. I believe in filling the screen as much as possible when shooting wildlife . I might go up to 300mm if I purchased an EOS zoom lense, though I'm sure 210mm would be plenty. I believe the focal length is 7.2X what it would be if I put the same lense on an SLR. Then I'd have to lug around a heavy tripod to keep the footage steady.

Brendan Marnell · January 28th, 2006, 03:26 AM

Very helpful Phil, thank you.
I'm glad to get those facts before I disappear for a week.

Rodney Compton · February 25th, 2006, 04:03 AM

Hi Brendan

Go to this link http://www.xyris.tv/%20%20%20pages/diary.htm and look at the still of the bird. Imagine this area cropped right into the bird and that's exactly what I got on film using an XL2 with an EF adapter.

Rod C

Brendan Marnell · February 25th, 2006, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodney Compton

Go to this link http://www.xyris.tv/%20%20%20pages/diary.htm and look at the still of the bird. Imagine this area cropped right into the bird and that's exactly what I got on film using an XL2 with an EF adapter.

Rod C

Thanks for the link Rodney. 3 questions please.

Did you superimpose (e.g import using Photoshop) a still of the owl on to a still of the trellis?
About how far were you from the bird?
Did you use a tripod or was your XL2 handheld?

January 26th, 2006, 07:15 PM	#32
J. Stephen McDonald Major Player Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Eugene, Oregon Posts: 909	Brendan, I may have made a mistake in saying that the Sony 1.7X telex can be bought with either a thread or bayonet-mount. I believe it's the Century 2X, with a 58mm thread, that is the one also available with a bayonet mount. This bayonet mount on the Century model, was made mainly with the Canon GL1/GL2 and XM1/XM2 in mind. However, some people have reported they didn't get perfect clarity at some points in the zoom range, with this Century lens. I know nothing firsthand about its performance. Generally, I've gotten good clarity all through the zoom ranges with the telexes I've described. A 2X telex will double the focal length and your XM2 would have its magnification doubled with it, although the zoom range stays the same at 20X, going from 2X at the bottom to 40X. Not all telextenders fit on the outer end of a lens. Some removable pro lenses have a built-in, switchable extender at the base. The Canon LX and XL series of camcorders can use extender lenses that mount under the bases of their main removable lenses. The tunnel effect of vignetting will make any images taken in the part of the zoom range that shows them, to be of little use. Sometimes, a camcorder will seem not to be vignetting, but later, on certain monitors, dark corners can appear. This is due to more of the outer safety margin being shown on some monitors than others. I try to keep my zoom a bit outside the vignetting range when I use a telex, to avoid this. Unless you're near a large city, it's unlikely you could find a Century 2X extender for sale locally, so you wouldn't be able to try one before you bought it. I've told you what to expect from a Sony VX2100/PD170 in regards to vignetting with the telexes I previously mentioned. I am guessing that the Century 2X would cause a VX2100 to vignette around the 50% zoom point or it could start even farther out in the range. You could go to the GL1/GL2 Son of Watchdog forum on this group and probably find someone who could give you specifics about how your XM2 would perform with a telex. I hope that someone who has the Century 2X will chime in and give us review of it, regarding its use on either the Sony or Canon cameras. __________________ Steve McDonald https://onedrive.com/?cid=229807ce52dd4fe0 http://www.flickr.com/photos/22121562@N00/ http://www.vimeo.com/user458315/videos

January 26th, 2006, 07:27 PM	#33
J. Stephen McDonald Major Player Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Eugene, Oregon Posts: 909	Duplicate message deleted __________________ Steve McDonald https://onedrive.com/?cid=229807ce52dd4fe0 http://www.flickr.com/photos/22121562@N00/ http://www.vimeo.com/user458315/videos

February 25th, 2006, 04:03 AM	#44
Rodney Compton Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: London Posts: 90	Xl2 Plus Ef Adapter And 134-400 Hi Brendan Go to this link http://www.xyris.tv/%20%20%20pages/diary.htm and look at the still of the bird. Imagine this area cropped right into the bird and that's exactly what I got on film using an XL2 with an EF adapter. Rod C

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

January 26th, 2006, 02:21 PM	#31
Brendan Marnell Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Dublin, Ireland Posts: 938	At last I understand that telextenders are front-mounted if there's a suitable thread on my XM2 (GL2 to you) Steve, thank you. Vignetting is also clearer to me now. What I don't understand is How much loss of picture occurs? I copied the description below from www.centuryoptics.com and while the term "porthole effect" makes good sense it doesn't tell me at what zoom the picture is reduced by, say, 50%. And if as they say below a 2x "provides doubling of the indicated focal length", what would 1x achieve? Until I know this there's not much point in getting a 2x to find that it only gives a clean image up to 1x. Please tell me would a 1x actually increase the 20X of my XM2 to 40x or 30x? (58mm is my current filter diameter). Of course as you say a .5x would be even safer (assuming it zooms me towards 30x) until I can learn to stop my pulse beating for that moment when the vulture hovers to blow his nose right in front of me. Would you also comment on loss of sharpness or image softening caused by telextenders, please? Quote from Century Optics << "The 2X Tele-Converter is a front-mounting accessory that provides greater telephoto reach. Available in popular bayonet and 58mm screw mount, the 2X Tele-Converter instantly shifts the focal length range in the telephoto direction. Unlike typical rear-mounted telephoto extenders, the Century Tele Converter provides doubling of the indicated focal length (through the higher end of the zoom range) without light loss, along with front-mounting convenience. Note: Vignetting will occur from mid zoom range to wide angle producing a porthole effect which is common with all tele-converters." >>

January 27th, 2006, 06:09 AM	#35
Brendan Marnell Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Dublin, Ireland Posts: 938	Thank you Steve for all that clarification.

January 27th, 2006, 11:24 AM	#36
Meryem Ersoz Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 3,015	okay, brendan, here i am chasing you around with more info! i posted footage of my GL2 with and without the century optics 2x extender. you can find the link to the link here: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...century+optics not many folks had much to contribute to the conversation in the link, but 60 or so people have downloaded the footage, so i think it contributed something. the 2x is a nice hunk o' glass! and you can pick them up used pretty inexpensively....unlike the breath-taking almost-$900 for a 1.6x for an FX-1. still reeling from the sticker shock of that one.

January 27th, 2006, 11:56 AM	#37
Meryem Ersoz Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 3,015	while you're at it, brendan, you might want to check out this link as well: http://ia300133.us.archive.org/3/ite...aberration.mp4 at full zoom, the 2x does show some serious chromatic aberration (purple fringing....), but on the other hand, full zoom is where you will primarily use it...classic rockandahardplace.... this won't show up in every instance, which is why it is not in the climbing footage, but does occur in fine detail circumstances (like the trees, the bird feathers, etc.).

January 27th, 2006, 01:40 PM	#38
Brendan Marnell Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Dublin, Ireland Posts: 938	Thank you for the links, Meryem Were you much more than 400 yards from the climber? The magpie detail is disappointing, even if you were 100 yards away? The light or contrast seems to have been slightly washed out as well. What caused that? I am still amazed to see how much detail Chris Hurd picked up (in his FoV Comparisons) with his XL2 + 70-300mm lens ... I realize they were stills and stationary but he must have been more than 200 yards away from the tractor.

January 27th, 2006, 01:57 PM	#39
Meryem Ersoz Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 3,015	i was on the other side of a canyon from the climber, so pretty far away....i'm guessing about 300 yards? as for the other test, it was shot at dawn (white sky), and i was testing at least one other camera at the same time, so i was kind of jumping around and there was a band of happy joggers running back, then forth through my two-camera set-up, freaking me out... (i thought i was going to be out there all alone with me and my cameras, but hey, this is boulder!), so i was sort of attending to multiple issues.... on this day, i was doing some comparison testing between GL2 with a teleconverter and XL2 with a long lens, to see how much reach was gained by the 70-200mm long lens v. the teleconverter. no contest. the long lens had some CA too, but it wasn't as pronounced. i did tweak the footage to fix the blown-out highlights, but these are just the test fottages, which i tend to run on out-of-the box auto, because the condition is easy to re-create, the problem easiest to observe....so some of it is fixable, but you want to know up front what it is that needs fixing...... steven macdonald and i had some prior discussion about long lens v. teleconverters, and i have both. there is really no contest, being able to stand eyeball-to-eyeball with a hawk using a long lens versus getting a long or medium shot with a teleconverter. just my opinion, of course.

January 27th, 2006, 02:16 PM	#40
Brendan Marnell Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Dublin, Ireland Posts: 938	I'm at a loss Meryem. Each time you wrote "no contest" I failed to identify the winner.

January 27th, 2006, 02:28 PM	#41
Meryem Ersoz Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 3,015	i'm just giving you my opinion only. i don't have side-by-side footage to post of that morning shoot because the testing was for myself, just me looking through lenses trying to ascertain the difference in reach between two different camera set-ups, and not necessarily pressing the record button. i only posted that bit of GL2 footage because i was surprised at the level of CA when i reviewed it, and i was still trying to understand the uses/limits of the 2x, which was brand new... the climbing footage was on a different day entirely, for a different purpose, to test for vignetting. if you find this stuff is not helpful, feel free to disregard it. i'm not intending to add to the confusion!

January 28th, 2006, 03:26 AM	#43
Brendan Marnell Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Dublin, Ireland Posts: 938	Very helpful Phil, thank you. I'm glad to get those facts before I disappear for a week.