MX500 is coming, what about the rest?
 

Hi,
Thanks for all the help, the decision is made the money was paid, it is coming.

The rest of the message is about the rest of the gear, so Frank, push it where it belongs if not here.

Have a PC with P2.5Ghz, and standard 4:3 TV. What DVD set-up you guys and girls are happy with? I plan to shoot a lot and than cherry-pick and edit the best moments for DVD and VHS distribution, non commercial.

Ease of use and quality is what I am after. I want to watch rented DVDs on it as well.

Just leave this posted here, but post your DVD/VHS questions here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisp...?s=&forumid=37

or on the PC editing forum.

With your cam, I strongly suggest the following:

• UV filter and linear (or circular) polarizer
• rubber lens hood
• extra battery
• soft protective cam case, with extra room for the extras

Congratulations, Ayosha!! I look forward to hearing about your MX500 experience.

Here is my shopping list:

MX500 £1060
Battery D28 £60
20 Sony tapes £60
1 Sony Cleaning tape £19
3 year guarantee & insurance £179
Case Free

Still to get list, nowhere to find on UK web scene, will have to order specially from maybe Jessops

UV multicoated
Polariser
ND4
ND8
Raynox HD6600PRO43
Hood
Large bum bag
Silica gel (have site)


What is the difference between linear and circular polariser, could the effect be seen on MX screen? What is best for snow, and best for sea?

What is best for snow, and best for sea? A linear or circular polarizer. I would just get the linear. The difference? That would be best explained by Bryan B. I'll see if I can find a link for you later.

Okay, Bryan writes:And here's a good thread:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...ular+polarizer

And here's even a better one:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...ular+polarizer

Yee Gads! 19 pounds for a cleaning tape!!! I want that concession!

This is probably more than you wanted to know about linear and circular polarization.

How about those?
 

Hi,
You are right that cleaning tape was a ripoff.
Thanks for DVD links. Update: ordered Cyberhome CHDVD505

It looks like the only online shop offering anything 43mm here in UK is amazon.co.uk. Pathetic. Sometimes I realy envy you US guys. Hundreds, no, thousands shops over there, over the pond.

OK found some.

Now help me out, what of these are rubbish?

Tiffen MegaPlus .75x wide angle lens £90
Canon WD-43 WIDE CONVERTER (0.7x) £120
Kodak 43mm Ektanar Wide Angle £50
Hama filters £8 to £30
Hama lens hood £8
BW filters UV and circular £20-£60
Hoya skylight and polarising filters £15 - £20
Kood NDx4 filter £20
Jessops UV £20
Canon FS-43U 43MM FILTER SET (ND and MC protective) £35

Thanks
a

Even here (Vancouver), cleaning tapes are not cheap. :-((

The good news is that a cleaning tape will last a very very long time---probably longer than the life of the cam. :-))

Guy, thanks for the polarizer link!

Ayosha,
Looks like a pretty good list of quality accessories to me. I think someone on DV Info did an article/review on the Canon wide angle...you might do a search. Actually, I have been eyeing the Kodak wide angle. It is available for less than $40US which is a no brainer, and the quality should be pretty good because Kodak put them on their top-of-the-line digital cams. I don't know anything about Kood and Jessops since we don't seem to have them on this side of the pond. Hoya makes very good filters and, of course, you can't go wrong with Canon.

Here's the review I remembered...
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...3mm+wide+angle

Hey, Frank, that was quite an article...hard to read, eh.

Guy, I haven't read it yet. PDF files take a while to come up on my old computer. Later, when I have some time, I'll download it, print it, and then read it over a cup of coffee.

Step up 43/49 for MX500?
 

Hi,

It looks like much more is available for size 49mm than 43mm.
The prices are the same.

If I attach first 43/49 step-up ring and than Raynox .66xpro will there be a problem with vignetting or focusing?

What if I stack filters between the MX500 and Raynox, like:

MX500 - step-up 43/49 - circular - Raynox - 72mm UV

If that works I would need only one set of filters, all 49mm plus protective 72mm for Raynox. And save that 43mm thread on MX from wearing out.

Raynox .66x pro £110 at Jessops for 43mmm or 49mm.

Question about BW ND filters, described as ".3" and ".6". Does that mean ".3" version lets through 30% of light? How does that compare with 4ND and 8ND, from other makes.
The answer to that last one is here:
http://www.schneideroptics.com/filte...nsity_filters/

Yes, pro filters usually start at 49mm (& up).

PS: the filters screw on to the front of the adaptor, not in-between.

Before you decide on filter sizes, check the front threads on the Raynox, to find out the filter size.

Regarding which Raynox, do a search on Tom Hardwick's adaptor reviews (posts); also check out Allan's posts.

I see Raynox as a just another filter (OK, multi-layered, complex and pricey), something you stack if front of camera lens to change the quality of light coming in, in this case the angles.

The question is, does it have to be the first, next to the original lens or could we have a filter (or two or three) in between. From my half forgotten past I seem to remember a bit about optics that says it doesn't matter. But then I can almost remember the reasons it might.
Something I plan to try out as soon as the kit is in.

In the same boat here
 

Also just purchased an MX500B (£999 from Jessops, but no bag included)

A lovely camera, although I'm already wondering if I did the right thing....

This low-light performance issue really is a bugger. Comparing the MX500B to my old Hi-8 Sony TRV820, one is left with the conclusion that the MX500B simply doesn't work indoors at night unless the lights are turned up to a rather disconcerting level.

I hope to join you in the purchase of a Raynox 0.66x WA converter from Jessops. What's the situation regarding rubber hoods to go on the front?

Also wondering if a tight-fitting leathery cover is available so that I can afford to be a bit rough with it. Also, if I can make the leather cover look tatty, then it would reduce the attractiveness of the camera to theives...

By the way, looks like you paid over the odds for tapes - have you discovered KVJ Fairdeal yet? Also a good source for batteries, with D28's @ 51.99 (I guess the same price as your supplier)

Alex, isn't the TRV820 a Digital8?

Yes, low light performance is so overlooked these days in place of cramming more pixels and smaller CCDs into shrinking cams.

I think its humorous that when you look in a magazine these days and a camcorder's short description is dominated by its email or still capabilities. Or even better its 1500x digital zoom.

Oops
 

Actually it's a TR820E - about 8 years old or so, I'd say.

I'm wondering if older 3CCD panasonic's (eg. NV DX110) which had 1/4" CCDs would actually be of similar capability. Then I'm torn as the 953 is so lovely in the light. However, my wife would throw a fit if I wanted to take 2 cameras everywhere with me!

Gotcha, I thought you were referring to the DCR-TRV820 Digital8 which wasn't so great in low light.

I never gave low light a second thought back in the Hi-8 and 8mm days. You gotta love progress!

The JVC GR-DV3000 is a great low light single chipper.

Lights, camera, action! :-))

OK we are in business. The toy arrived today.

First impressions:

It is small enough.
Some buttons are awkward to reach, but we will learn.
Very limited light dynamics, made worse by over increased contrast, in the same frame highlights are burned out and details in the shadows lost, all indoors and under tungsten. The situation is much worse than on my digital Nikon not to mention negatives or slides.
On full automatic under low light the result is 1 stop darker (on average) than the real thing. On manual (1/50, open, +18dB) the sensitivity is more or less what you see. The slow shutter mode is useless unless desperate.
But the sensitivity under auto was good enough for a nice shot of a cat purring in my lap under 100W reading light. We all know you have to go VX2000 for a low light solution.
I am impressed with auto focus, couldn’t do a better job manually in a low light low contrast situation.
The sound is realistic. There is slight motor whine but I believe it is dominated by a single frequency and therefore removable.
The feel is of a quality.

I am happy so far and ready to order wide angle and filters.

Alex thanks for Fairdeal tip, I was Googling extensively for lenses and filters but didn’t do the same for tapes. Well done with Jessops, when I checked them the price was around £1500 on the web.

Rubbers by Hama at http://www.7dayshop.com, adjustable and in various sizes. Haven’t seen them but cheap enough.

No Firewire cable included. The cam has 4pin hole, and I am led to believe my Audigy has 6 pin. Is that correct? I was surprised to see 4/4, 4/6 and 6/6 Firewire cables offered. I thought the thing is more standardised than that.

Congratulations Ayosha! I look forward to hearing your impressions after you have shot some more video. BTW, I have a Kodak Ektanar 43mm wide angle coming. I just couldn't resist the price. I'll let you know what I find with it in a few days.

<<<-- I have a Kodak Ektanar 43mm wide angle coming. I just couldn't resist the price. -->>>

Spill the beans..... What factor is it and what was the price?

Alex,
It is a .65x 43mm wide angle made for the Kodak DC4800 and other still cameras. If you do an internet search, you'll find them all over for <$50. I picked mine up on e-**y for $44.95 before credits. Turns out, with credits, it only cost me shipping so I couldn't pass up the opportunity. I don't know what kind of quality to expect, but for that price thought I'd try it. After all, it was originally made for the top-of-the-line Kodak digital camera.

<<<-- Originally posted by Ayosha Kononenko : No Firewire cable included. The cam has 4pin hole, and I am led to believe my Audigy has 6 pin. Is that correct? I was surprised to see 4/4, 4/6 and 6/6 Firewire cables offered. I thought the thing is more standardised than that. -->>>

Firewire only for those who actually use a PC to edit video. Manufacturers do not expect consumers to edit their video and the pros to have their own equipment ready. Third party cables will be cheaper, anyway.

As for 4 pins and 6 pins, it has to do with power. The two extra pins supply power to the Firewire device. I have a Firewire card, which uses 6 pins sockets, but I have not used it with power as I did not connect my mainboard power supply to the card. It works the same, as video cameras are self-powered.

BTW, the term Firewire is strictly Mac, the official term is IEEE1394 and Sony, fancy as ever, calls it iLink.

<<<-- Originally posted by Guy Bruner : Alex,
It is a .65x 43mm wide angle made for the Kodak DC4800 and other still cameras. If you do an internet search, you'll find them all over for <$50. I picked mine up on e-**y for $44.95 before credits. Turns out, with credits, it only cost me shipping so I couldn't pass up the opportunity. -->>>

Yeah, well I've seen it on the Internet for $35 in the US, but over here you're looking at close to $100. This turns a "WTF" priced object into something that would dent funds that might otherwise go towards the (good but bulky) Raynox option.

Stupid me...
 

I've found it at Jessops for £30 - almost a WTF price!

Their part number is KODDCSWAL43.

I wonder if I could get them to get one in for me to play with...

I gotta check one of these out. I gotta tell Pokey about it too.

Does it have filter threads on the front?

Don't think so
 

If you go to www.jessops.com

and type KODDCSWAL43 into the search, you get a picture of it - doesn't look like a front-thread to me.

Frank,
I honestly don't know, yet. Will let ya'll know in a few days. In the interim, here is another 43mm Panny user's shots using the wide angle, telephoto and fisheyes.

EDIT: According to the good, ole, reliable B&H Photo, it doesn't.

Hey, we've got to stop hijacking this thread.

Thanks for the info!! I'll buy one for my MX5000.

I would really like to hear how this Kodak 43mm WA works out. I've been looking at the Tiffen 43mm ($89 B&H) but I'd like to save a few bucks with the Kodak and its a better match for my black mamba.

Hi,

Raynox and some of the filters ordered are in.

First results:

Very little barrel distortion.
No problems with the zoom, but couldn’t check with small iris due to the constant lack of sun (yeah that's London).
No problems visually with stacking, (but I am yet to properly analyse the shot and test the set-up with all apertures):
43/49 ring - UV - Polarizing - Raynox - UV

Engineering problems with stacking:
Raynox feels too heavy for the sliding ring on polarizing.
It is difficult to remove polarizing from Raynox, due to lack of the grip on the sliding ring.

What is the best way to shift stuck rings and filters? I had to use Blue-Tack to increase the grip.
WD40 maybe?

Where are you screwing on the polarizer, on the Raynox's front threads or on the cam itself? The filter should go on the front filter threads of the (Raynox) adaptor.

That makes for a very expensive (72mm diameter) polarising filter Frank, and the effect on the chips will be just the same (bar some vignetting maybe) if the filter is screwed to the camcorder's filter thread.

tom.

Right. I was thinking of the vignetting with putting the filter in-between.

FWIW,
I tried using a Tiffen UV filter between the Kodak WA and the 953 lens and the result was terrible. Got ghosting, flare, and image defocusing. So, I wouldn't recommend that practice, at least for the Kodak, maybe other lenses will work better.

Just checked the following stack:
43/49 ring - HoyaUVMC - Raynox .66x pro - HoyaUVMC

Zoom OK
Focusing OK
Sharpness OK
No vignetting
No artefacts
Stabilizer badly affected.

With all this weight added to the front of camera it looks like the optical stabiliser has lost all its effectiveness. Very little difference now with or without it.

All this as seen on TV through composite.
I am still unable to do any PC work with it.

A word of caution:

Avoid like a plague Raynox step-up rings as sold by Jessops. Made of soft plastic and impossible to remove once stuck.

News to me about Jessops selling plastic step-up rings. I suppose you could cut them off with a break-off-blade knife should they become permanently stuck. Or melt them with a soldering iron.

Interesting to hear your thoughts on the OIS losing its effectiveness when a wide-angle converter is added. I too have noticed this, and despite the fact that you're using shorter focal lengths you still have to really work at keeping the camera steady.

I've just done some 'running across the lawn' shots. I suspended the VX2k in a string bag and held it just above the grass. Aspheron and steadyshot on. RUN! On the big screen just now it made my eyes pop.

tom.