Which WD

Buba Kastorski · October 18th, 2011, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Federico Perale

Buba did you tick "conversion lens" in the options menu of the G10? I tried but I see no difference at all either way
it seems fine even with that option OFF

I keep it on, it helps AF work faster in low light, that's what I noticed, but YMMV :)

Jeff Harper · October 18th, 2011, 12:18 PM

I just ordered the Sony on Amazon for $50, seller claims never been put on a camera. Thanks Bubba for recommending the lens! Angelo did you get yours on Amazon too?

Rainer Halbich · November 2nd, 2011, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buba Kastorski

I still have VCL-HG0758 since PD170 and it works just fine on G10,

I also have this lens, if you ask me, the corners are distorted and out of focus.

I use the xa10

Angelo Ucciferri · November 2nd, 2011, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

I just ordered the Sony on Amazon for $50, seller claims never been put on a camera. Thanks Bubba for recommending the lens! Angelo did you get yours on Amazon too?

No, I've been ordering from B&H, not Amazon.

I was waiting until I get some video online, but I figure I should mention about my experience with the Raynox HD-7000. I ended up returning it to B&H. I did 2 concert video shoots - and I did not have great experience with it. There was way too much fuzziness on the edges. It almost looked like the edges were out of focus, while the center of the frame was in focus. It was really odd, but I decided to try our the new Canon WD at $400 and compare. I'll post some clips as soon as I get them online. I think you'll agree the edge sharpness was really poor.

Angelo

Jeff Harper · November 2nd, 2011, 03:54 PM

Ranier, might be, that doesn't bother me. But the lens does have imperfections that show up in very low light footage as almost dead spots, they are blurry. For general day to day video in decently lit conditions, it's absolutely fine.

The Canon made for XA10 lens is undoubtedly a better lens for this camera, but for $50, as a business decision, the Sony is a no brainer.

Jeff Harper · November 2nd, 2011, 04:07 PM

So Angelo, you got the one made for the XA10?

Angelo Ucciferri · November 2nd, 2011, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

So Angelo, you got the one made for the XA10?

Yes, I've tried 2 lenses so far:

Raynox HD7000 - Blurry edges - tested in low light conditions (live concert stages) RETURNED
Canon WD-H58 - Major vignetting - RETURNED

So I will be ordering the Canon WD-H58W - which is made for the XA10/HFG10. I'll post footage as soon as it is online.

The Raynox might have worked fine in normal lighting conditions. But I primarily bought it for a B cam during concert shoots, which are notoriously dim - so the blurry edges are no good for me.

Angelo

Don Palomaki · November 3rd, 2011, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Canon WD-H58 - Major vignetting

No surprise: This is a 0.7x adapter designed for a camcorder with a nominal ~40mm equivalent field of view. This implies the lens was dsigned to deliver a 28mm equivalent field of view.

If you put it on a camcorder with a nominal ~30mm equivalent lens, the result is a nominal 21mm field of view at full wide, and vignetting is not a surprise - it is being use well beyond its designed width.

The question is at what point (equivalent field of view) did vignetting or CA become unacceptable? Did it make it to 24mm equivalent with a satisfactory image? If so it is a bargain and the shooter just needd to mind his zoom holding it to that point. The new Canon, for a lot more money, is 0.8x, netting to about 24mm on the XA10.

Don Palomaki · November 3rd, 2011, 07:13 AM

Just a caution. There are a number of Sony VCL-HG0758 offered on e-bay. Some are in kit that includes a lens hood. That hood is for the Sony camcorders and as delivered does not fit a Canon, either the XA10 or the old GL series.

Jeff Harper · November 3rd, 2011, 07:30 AM

Don, good to know about the hood, I kind of figured. I've owned the old Sony's and the ones you mentiond looked similar to the stock hood for the camera. I would love a hood for the Sony WA, would be very helpful outdoors. Had some major issues couple of weeks ago on a golf course. Fixable by adjusting the angle I shot at, but was very incontinent. Some of the flaring or whatever you call it actually was cool, didn't mind a little bit of it.

But I'd like to choose when that happens rather than have to inconvenience my subjects because I don't have my camera properly outfitted.

Angelo Ucciferri · November 7th, 2011, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Palomaki

The question is at what point (equivalent field of view) did vignetting or CA become unacceptable? Did it make it to 24mm equivalent with a satisfactory image? If so it is a bargain and the shooter just needd to mind his zoom holding it to that point. The new Canon, for a lot more money, is 0.8x, netting to about 24mm on the XA10.

Great info Don,

The vignetting on the Canon WD-H58 was so significant, it would not of been acceptable to simply zoom past it. Not to mention the fact that I need this camera to be 100% reliable - since it is often un-manned, or operated by un-skilled videographers (my wife or friend who might be helping me on a job). I can't trust them to have to zoom past a vignette - especially in a dark concert environment, where the vignette might not be completely obvious in the LCD. Considering those factors, the lens had to go back since the vignetting was so significant.

Also, I wanted to share some footage from the Raynox HD7000. As you may have read in my previous post - I felt the Raynox had significant blurring on the edges when shooting in a dark environment. I think this sample will show you exactly what I am referring to . Please observe the keyboard player and the horns on the sides of the stage. Compare their (lack of) sharpness with the lead singer. I had the camera on manual focus, and I focused by zooming in to the lead singer (with the adapter attached) - and then zooming out to my desired shot. The lead singer looks reasonably in focus (although still not too crisp), but the players on the sides of the stage look essentially out of focus. This was shot with a wide open iris, so I thought it might have been a depth of field issue. But why would that be a problem on such a wide angle? I made the final final determination that the lens lacked edge sharpness in low light - so I returned it and plan to buy the Canon WD-H58W and see if I notice an improvement.

(The Canon HFG10 / Raynox HD700 is (obviously) the stationary wide shot - the handheld is a Sony NX5)

Any thoughts or feedback are appreciated.

Thanks,
Angelo

October 18th, 2011, 12:18 PM	#32
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Re: Which WD I just ordered the Sony on Amazon for $50, seller claims never been put on a camera. Thanks Bubba for recommending the lens! Angelo did you get yours on Amazon too? __________________ "The horror of what I saw on the timeline cannot be described."

November 2nd, 2011, 03:54 PM	#35
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Re: Which WD Ranier, might be, that doesn't bother me. But the lens does have imperfections that show up in very low light footage as almost dead spots, they are blurry. For general day to day video in decently lit conditions, it's absolutely fine. The Canon made for XA10 lens is undoubtedly a better lens for this camera, but for $50, as a business decision, the Sony is a no brainer. __________________ "The horror of what I saw on the timeline cannot be described."

November 2nd, 2011, 04:07 PM	#36
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Re: Which WD So Angelo, you got the one made for the XA10? __________________ "The horror of what I saw on the timeline cannot be described."

November 3rd, 2011, 07:13 AM	#39
Don Palomaki Wrangler Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Northern VA Posts: 4,487	Re: Which WD Just a caution. There are a number of Sony VCL-HG0758 offered on e-bay. Some are in kit that includes a lens hood. That hood is for the Sony camcorders and as delivered does not fit a Canon, either the XA10 or the old GL series. __________________ dpalomaki@dspalomaki.com

November 3rd, 2011, 07:30 AM	#40
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Re: Which WD Don, good to know about the hood, I kind of figured. I've owned the old Sony's and the ones you mentiond looked similar to the stock hood for the camera. I would love a hood for the Sony WA, would be very helpful outdoors. Had some major issues couple of weeks ago on a golf course. Fixable by adjusting the angle I shot at, but was very incontinent. Some of the flaring or whatever you call it actually was cool, didn't mind a little bit of it. But I'd like to choose when that happens rather than have to inconvenience my subjects because I don't have my camera properly outfitted. __________________ "The horror of what I saw on the timeline cannot be described."