I have the Canon, and it's very nice. Its only real negative is that it isn't threaded for using filters. In terms of sharpness, etc. it's very good.

I have a couple Century lenses for my Z1 and they're very nice. They don't have filter threads, but Century has a relatively inexpensive lens shade/filter holder which clamps on to the outside of the lens. This is the Sony version, but it may also work on the Canon lens because I think they just provide different adaptors for the basic lens. I have one of these and it's very nice. Similar to a mattebox but the filter holder doesn't rotate.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ughType=search

This item wasn't on their website the last time I looked. When I got my lenses they had a promotional flyer enclosed in the box offering a discount on the filter holder which brought the price under $100. Give Century a call or send e-mail to see if it's compatible with their Canon lenses and if there is still a discount.

When I said I had already checked the lens on the camcorder, I meant the built in Canon 20x lens. Sorry if I didn't make that clear!

Is the Canon WD-H72 zoom through? I might go for that one if it is, simply because it's cheaper and the general consensus seems to be that it works just as well as the Century (and it comes with its own shade - unlike the Century where you have to buy one seperately for an extra $120, or get a matte box, and I just can't afford either at the moment).

Also, has anyone here had any experience with Digital Optics lenses? They do wide angle lenses too.

Unlike Bill, I feel the XH -A1's lens is pretty so-so at the wide end, being the equivalent of 32.5 mm. Nobody ever calls that wide in still terms, so I feel a 0.5x converter would be much more useful, and especially so when in the confines of a motor car.

And don't go thinking that wide-angle converters are threaded 'for filters'. When you're working at focal lengths as minute as 2.5 mm, filters are often going to degrade the image more than they're going to help. The threads are there invariably for hoods, and with widies hoods are good, very good.

The Century 0.65x I had for my VX2k was beautifully made, exceedingly sharp, very expensive and wonderfully coated. But my Raynox 6600PRO gave me far less barrel distortion at one third the price, so if avoiding the bends is important to you, beware of zoom throughs that use spherical elements in their construction.

There's no substitute for the adage 'suck it and see'.

tom.

Not having had much experience with additional lenses, what with being a bit new to this (ok, I haven't had ANY experience with wide angle lenses - I'm just learning what I can from forums such as this), would anyone be able to recommend a 'wider' wide angle lens other than the Century and Canon as discussed above (preferably something that isn't going to take a great chunk out of my bank balance, or give my wife an excuse to leave me).

On a side note, I have ordered a Raynox HDP-9000EX High Definition Telephoto conversion Lens 1.8X, which is supposed to be very nice, and a Raynox HD-FXR180 High Vision 180-degree (diagonal) Fish-Eye Conversion Lens (which was designed for the Sony HD cams such as the Z1 but is apparently compatible with all 72mm mount threads) - apparently Raynox are the oft over-looked but good quality lens manufacturers. Has anyone had any experience with Raynox, or indeed the two lenses I have just mentioned?

Just curious Tom, but how would filter use degrade image quality? Filters for wides are used constantly in still photography, and I have not seen a case where image quality was worse for using a filter. But I am not claiming to know everything here.

I have however, seen several cases where a once-good lens has been converted to scrap because of cleaning marks from cleaning an unprotected lens with the best of care over time have caused all kinds of undesireable effects. I have also had lenses saved by filters taking the brunt of an impact (while back packing) and from objects striking the filter instead of my expensive lens (while filming a road bike race).

The real risk to image quality is not in using filters but in damage to the lens from not using one, that may not be realaized until after a critical shoot (as can happen if you are not careful with cleaning mark). Then you have a real problem.

I somehow failed to check the Canon wide for threads before purchasing it. Would I have bought it anyways had I known? That would depend on the cost diff between the Canon and the Century, which I believe is threaded.

Filters are used for wideangle lenses in still photography, sure. But a wide lens on a 6 x 6 camera is 50 mm and a wide lens on a 35 mm camera is 28 mm (say). A wide lens on a PDX10 (to take an example) is 2.5 mm.

See the difference? Space your fingertips just 2.5 mm apart and see how minute such a focal length is. And when you're shooting at such focal lengths it very difficult indeed to avoid imperfections (dust and fingerprints that are all but invisible to the naked eye) from being within the depth of field and appearing pretty sharply on your image.

You've all seen the wide shot against the light spoilt by dirty filters. Hooding a widie is difficult at the best of times and these imperfections I'm talking about are painfully obvious. Another point - adding but one filter adds two reflecting (and maybe dusty) surfaces.

Modern multicoatings are really hard these days and it takes a halfwit to scratch the front element by scrubbing. I have a super multi-coated Hoya and an uncoated Tiffen, both UVs. In 10 seconds flat I can show any one of you out there the degradation caused by using an uncoated filter, and you'd never use an uncoated filter ever again. And the shorter the focal length, the easier it is to show the flare.

Of course there are times when a clear UV is good mechanical insurance protection Steve. Sticky-fingered children's parties, wind-swept beaches and so on. But when you don't need the protection, don't use them. If Canon, Sony and Panasonic thought that adding another element to the line-up of 15 would give you better pictures, you can bet the camera would come with one.

tom.

New Schneider Optics Adapters & Converters
 

I called Schneider Optics in California after being refered to them by their colleagues on the east coast.

When I asked about HD adapters and convertors for the Canon XH-A1, I was informed the following will be released in 45 to 60 days.

x.6 w/a adapter (partial-zoom)
x.7 w/a converter (full-zoom)
x.8 w/a converter (full-zoom)
x.3 fisheye
x.4 or x.45 fisheye (couldn't confirm at the time)

do you know if the .7 use the bayonet mount ??

Barry,

the woman I talked to (on #107) told me all their heavier duty converters etc were bayonet mount so they don't strip some of the plastic threaded camera inserts.

good -- its nutty that Canon used the screw thread on their own converter...

Any ideas of the cost?

No mention of costs, though she did suggest contacting my local dealer(s).

RED EYE WA Converter
 

I had a go with one of these today. Falls to bits after zooming 50% but i was very impressed nonetheless. very light, user friendly and gives you a good extra 30% vision.

RED EYE WA Converter
 

I had a go with one of these today. Falls to bits after zooming 50% but i was very impressed nonetheless. very light, user friendly and gives you a good extra 30% vision. Less than 200 quid too.

I have one from Red Eye, .5 wide angle, it is very sharp, no resolution loss at all looking at it on my 1080 monitor, just as good if not better than my Century optics .6 but with the advantage of the size and weight of a filter, a little bending on the edge but that is to be expected with a .5, but I could not be any happier with it, the website said that it is not zoom through but I could with my A1 to about 1/3 range, they deliver it promptly and this company or the owner (videographer himself) is a pleasure to do business with, I highly recommend it.

I have the inexpensive Raynox .3 Semi Fisheye that has a spring loaded clip on mechanism. It is only about $100. Not the best piece of glass in the world but I used it for a few different things in weddings with the GL2 and VX cameras.

It wouldn't fit the 72mm threads of the A1. It snaps in up to 67mm. I went to the camera store and got a 72 -62 step down ring and now it fits fine. I just left the stepdown ring on the cam and got a new lens cap. It vignettes pretty good at full wide angle but I can zoom in almost half way before it goes blurry. The A1 focus can hold the image to about 1/2 way. I plugged my cam into my SD LCD tv to see how the image looks. It seemed as clean zoomed in to remove the vignetting as it did in full wide mode.

It isn't optimized for HD but for a few shots it will work while I save the money needed for one of the really good ones.

Just thought I would throw that one out there for a simple fix.

Thanks for your help guys, I appreciate it. I can't wait to get one!

That RedEye looks pretty good. Not a bad price compared to some.

Canon's WD-H72 wide converter?
 

Has anyone had any experience using Canon's WD-H72 wide converter? I am interested to buy it but would like to know if there are any other and better alternatives like Century Optics after market wide converters. Also, does the WD-H72 come with a lens hood or does the one from the XH stock lens fits it?

Thanks.

Thierry.

Yep, comes with a lenshood. I am content with it (only tested it in SD), although I'll probably won't use it as often as the WD-58 of my old xm1 (gl1), because the 'onboard' lens itself is quite 'wide angle', compared with other cameras.

There are quite a few user reports in this forum already. Search for the term "WD-H72" and it should return about a dozen threads. Hope this helps,

I do own the wide angle adaptor and enjoy it quite a bit. It comes in a nice bag and some end caps for the glass. It also comes with a lens hood as well (that blocks the focus assist sensor). You can put the cap on the hood once attached to keep the lens safe. It is nice while zooming, not much barrel at all. It screws on the front of the 20x pretty tightly.

The most common problem you hear is that you cant attach a filter on the front without a mattebox

0.45x $79.00 wide angle converter works with A1!
 

Yes, the cheap ($79.00) Merkury 0.45x wide angle converter works with A1, with some limitations:
Converter this wide can`t use even the slimmest filters because of the A1`s quite wide lens and it`s actually not zoom-through as it vignettes just slightly.

It can be used as ultra wide only converter indoors or for landscapes but then again it barrels a little.

Good thing is that the it isn`t soft at the edges and it`s compact.

> It looks like this <

Crappy samples can be seen > here <

Cheers,
T

You say it 'barrels a little'. yet most 0.45x converters barrel a *lot*. Better you send us a picture of a house shot square on with and without the lens rather than a picture of the lens itself.

tom.

Could you post a before and after pic. I am looking for something like this for a few special shots but can't justify $500+ for a few special shots. I would be all over this if it works.

I am looking for more of a semi fisheye look with a little bit of distortion on the sides. I have a .3 semi fisheye on SD land and loved the look for certain shots.

Is is possible to get an image to look at?

Ok I must admit that I asked for trouble by not mentioning that I don`t have a picturesque scenery before and after comparison samples but here you go:
Crappy before and after samples

Notice that it was taken with the lens wide open and AF focusing on I don`t know what :)...
The vignetting can not be seen on TV or camcorders LCD I guess I`ll modyfy the lens by removing those unusable filter threads so it will not vignette.
CA is due the camcorders own lens as you might notice and considering that original lens barrel too my estimate is that it doesn`t barrel that much.

Hope that helps a little, I`ll try to get some "beauty" shots soon enough.

Cheers,
T

Thanks for the images. It looks like it does give a little curve distortion to the outer edges of the footage....This effect is what I want. When you get a chance some outdoor images would be nice to really determine how it looks. I don't mind that tiny vigenette. I can deal with that easy enough.

Toenis, it looks to me as if your lens manufacturer has inadvertently (ha!) misrepresented a 0.7x converter and labelled it as a 0.45x - not uncommon with what I'll call 'no-name' brands. Once you've zoomed up to remove the vignetting (which you'll need to do for any film that'll be projected or shown on google video, for instance) you'll be down to a very mild 0.8x.

The vignetting will be down to the entry pupil's diameter and the distance it's from your zoom's front element, so 'removing threads' won't help. You haven't got a filter between converter lens and zoom, have you?

Ok, the lens looks pretty flare free and the image is sharp enough, but a genuine 0.45x should more than halve your focal length and in so doing give you dramatically wider footage.

For what a 0.52x converter can do for the Z1, go have a look here:

http://www.fortvir.net/gallery/v/tom...wide+.jpg.html

tom.

I like the Canon wide angle lense alot. It changes the camera balance alot and is a bit of a pain to stow if you have a small camera bag. I have produced great images with it. I have not read of anyone with a better alternative than this lense.

Wide Angle Lens & Playback
 

1. Is there a way to adjust the speaker level on the A1 when playing back footage? I have looked through the book. I have scoured the camera. I cannot come up with a mechanism to adjust it.

2. Any one able to compare the Red Eye Wide Angle Adapters with the Century/Schneider non-zoom bayonet mount, fisheye and/or .6x?

From a distance the benefit of the Red Eye WA seems to be that it is lighter, can be flipped to create a fish eye.

The benefit of the Century lens is that it is a bayonet mount. Easy on/Easy off.

Can anyone make comparisons about the quality of glass?

I used the Century FishEye on my previous camera, a Z1, and was pleased with the results.

Best,

Whit

I went NUTS trying to find it also. Someone here helped me.

It isn't obvious, but if you look closely at the menu selector button at the bottom left of the battery compartment, you'll see that it adjusts playback volume by rotating up/down.

WOW!! I actually knew the answer to something here. I'm impressed with ME. Now if I could just get up to speed with everything else!!!

The select wheel on the back of the body. The same for headphone level.

Bill

I had some century adapters, bayonet mount, for my XL2 that I kept when I got the A1. Then bought the red eye and I much much prefer it.

And the Century adaptors fit? My bayonet mount Centurys from my XL1 won't fit on my A1 (and I was under the impression that the same Century models fit both the XL1 and XL2).

One of my lenses was actually for the XL1 I believe. They do fit if they are bayonet mount, it is just a very odd fit. I played with it for five minutes and was just about to give up then it just slipped on and the resolution was good in HD too. Problem is, I couldnt figure out a reliable way to get it on but both the WA and fisheye went on with some time spent. No forcing it was needed, just wiggling.

Right on, thanks. I gave up after a minute or so as I figured it was a long shot that it would fit in the first place. I will try again!


edit: wow that took all of 15 seconds. Thanks for the tip!

Thanks, very much, for pointing me to the menu selector.
Hiding in plain view!
Those crafty bastards!!

Thanks, too, for the Red Eye perspective.
I'll give it a shot.

Best,

Whit

I actually have the:
01) Century Optics .6X
02) Century Optics FishEye
03) Red Eye .4X

And a canon A1 and XL1s

if you want guys i can try to post images of all adapters !!!
But i thought the century optics adapters will not fit the A1 camera !!!!
I will give it a try and post something soon.

Amr

But i thought the century optics adapters will not fit the A1 camera !!!!

They just came onto the market:

http://www.schneideroptics.com/centu...h-g1/xh-g1.htm

Best,

Whit