Is the Leica lens the right focal length? at DVinfo.net

Tom Hardwick · March 21st, 2004, 12:15 PM

I agree that the wide-angle at an equivalent of 32mm is a whole lot better than the 43mm of the VX2000 and the 49mm (!) of the TRV950, but it's still not wide - only sort-of-wide.
But the big problem I see with this Leica zoom lens is that you need a wide-angle converter AND a telephoto converter. The DVX tops out at 45mm, whereas the VX2k goes all the way to 72mm. So the VX is a DVX with a 1.6X telephoto converter permanently in place that magically adds a half stop wider
aperture into the bargain. The VX with the 0.5x Aspheron is a DVX with a 0.65X wide-angle converter in place.

Make sense? Am I being paranoid? Will I miss my 12x Sony zoom if I come over and join you guys?

tom.

Imran Zaidi · March 22nd, 2004, 09:50 AM

Your post just made me go cross-eyed with all those numbers!

All I know is I went from my GL2 with it's gorgeous 20x to the DVX, and I only miss the extra zoom when I'm just playing with the camera, not actually shooting.

But then, if you're a nature videographer you may want a 20x, or whatever zoom length you can get. I don't have a Sony cam so I can't speak of its zoom as opposed to the DVX's, but I can only imagine the difference is so small, that it shouldn't sway your decision between the cameras if you have other features that really stand out to you.

Matthew de Jongh · March 22nd, 2004, 05:51 PM

well i'm no expert, especially in all of the numbers and stats, but i have almost 90 hours on my dvx-100A and the only thing i found missing was the wide angle aspect

a few times i just couldn't get far enough back to get the shot i wanted.

i did a shot for one documentary where i had a chance to get in one of those 16 foot metal globes where the guy rides the motorcycle and when he was riding around me you didn't get much of an effect as desired because you couldn't see as much of the globe/rider

i just picked up a cavision wide angle lens and i'll be ready next time i get a chance to stand in the middle of a globe while someone rides around me...you know, your average every day occurance!

matthew

Tom Hardwick · March 23rd, 2004, 02:50 AM

I'd be interested in hearing what you think of the Cavision wide-angle Matthew. In a group tests I did a couple of years ago for Film and Video Maker the Cavision 0.5X performed very badly on a Sony VX2k, and I tried 4 different examples to check my own testing methods out. I hear they've changed the design. Good.

tom.

Jarred Land · March 27th, 2004, 09:05 PM

I breefly used the Cavision .6 and it was great, a nice zoomthrough, but you do get some expected disortion on the DVX. The metal build quality was top rate however, and it didnt loose any noticable light.

March 21st, 2004, 12:15 PM	#1
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Is the Leica lens the right focal length? I agree that the wide-angle at an equivalent of 32mm is a whole lot better than the 43mm of the VX2000 and the 49mm (!) of the TRV950, but it's still not wide - only sort-of-wide. But the big problem I see with this Leica zoom lens is that you need a wide-angle converter AND a telephoto converter. The DVX tops out at 45mm, whereas the VX2k goes all the way to 72mm. So the VX is a DVX with a 1.6X telephoto converter permanently in place that magically adds a half stop wider aperture into the bargain. The VX with the 0.5x Aspheron is a DVX with a 0.65X wide-angle converter in place. Make sense? Am I being paranoid? Will I miss my 12x Sony zoom if I come over and join you guys? tom.

March 22nd, 2004, 09:50 AM	#2
Imran Zaidi Trustee Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 1,315	Your post just made me go cross-eyed with all those numbers! All I know is I went from my GL2 with it's gorgeous 20x to the DVX, and I only miss the extra zoom when I'm just playing with the camera, not actually shooting. But then, if you're a nature videographer you may want a 20x, or whatever zoom length you can get. I don't have a Sony cam so I can't speak of its zoom as opposed to the DVX's, but I can only imagine the difference is so small, that it shouldn't sway your decision between the cameras if you have other features that really stand out to you.

March 22nd, 2004, 05:51 PM	#3
Matthew de Jongh Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: sounthern maine Posts: 344	well i'm no expert, especially in all of the numbers and stats, but i have almost 90 hours on my dvx-100A and the only thing i found missing was the wide angle aspect a few times i just couldn't get far enough back to get the shot i wanted. i did a shot for one documentary where i had a chance to get in one of those 16 foot metal globes where the guy rides the motorcycle and when he was riding around me you didn't get much of an effect as desired because you couldn't see as much of the globe/rider i just picked up a cavision wide angle lens and i'll be ready next time i get a chance to stand in the middle of a globe while someone rides around me...you know, your average every day occurance! matthew

March 23rd, 2004, 02:50 AM	#4
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	I'd be interested in hearing what you think of the Cavision wide-angle Matthew. In a group tests I did a couple of years ago for Film and Video Maker the Cavision 0.5X performed very badly on a Sony VX2k, and I tried 4 different examples to check my own testing methods out. I hear they've changed the design. Good. tom.

March 27th, 2004, 09:05 PM	#5
Jarred Land DVX User Join Date: May 2003 Location: Vancouver Posts: 281	I breefly used the Cavision .6 and it was great, a nice zoomthrough, but you do get some expected disortion on the DVX. The metal build quality was top rate however, and it didnt loose any noticable light.