L. Kingston's Custom A1U

[Floris van Eck]

Originally Posted by Stu Holmes

floris - i tend to use 37mm pol.filter and attach it between the camera and the WA lens. A LOT cheaper than 82mm for sure as you've found out looking at the prices of an 82mm hi-quality pol.filter. Bit of a tough pill to swallow that one, so i'd go for a 37mm one. I don't see why you can't put it between camera and lens.

Does anyone else have experience with this? If I am correct, the Sony Y conversion lens manual states that they advice not to place a filter between the camera and the lens because it iss less durable (I guess more pressure on the filter thread of the camera and the lens). But hey, Sony does say other thigns that makes no sense so I prefer some feedback from users. I also thinkt hat with a filter between the lenses, there is less chance on dirt and glare because the fitler is not the front element in the line.

Furthermore, I am still puzzled about the lens hood. I was about to purchse the LH77 but no I am not sure if it is the best option. I heard about this matt box in combination with a step-up ring, but I guess this won't work with the wide-angle lens as it has no filter thread. I just wished sony had given the Y lenses a filter thread, which would have solved so many problems.

I might sell the official Sony lens and get Raynox conversion lenses instead which do have a filter thread. But I would like to get more feedback on Raynox lenses as only one person mentioned them in this entire topic.

I am looking forward to your responses.

[Floris van Eck]

Originally Posted by Dennis Kane

Floris
I carry ND .3, .6,. 9 , a polarizer, and a UV as standard equipment. I use the Cokin matt box with adaptor that will fit your Sony lens. Believe me, you must get good video first before post, otherwise you will have great problems.

I have read many books on cinematography, shooting video and the lower lattidue of video compared to film and film compared to the human eye. However, I need to learn more about filters and how to get the most out of my video but that will need to go through practice.

I have heard that I can use the Cokin matt box on the 37mm thread of the HDR-HC1 with a step-up ring, but what about my wide-angle lens? It has no filter thread or it takes 82mm filters with the LH77 lenshood. But it appears to me that it is thus simply not a workable solution.

[Floris van Eck]

Sorry double post.

[Tom Hardwick]

Dennis nails it: You've got to get good footage up front to even consider doctoring it in post. Beware of in-field filtration as it can be mighty hard to unfilter later. Grads are usually good because they contain the vast exposure difference between sky and a shadowed wall, for instance. With video you don't have many stops to play with.

I've owned a Raynox 6600PRO and tested various other Raynox lenses. I've found them all to be good, if not the best out there. The 0.66x PRO had amazingly little barrel distortion - far less than the 3x more expensive Century 0.6x, for instance. So I give Raynox the thumbs up, and their range is huge.

http://raynox.co.jp/english/video/hd7000pro/index.htm

tom.

[Floris van Eck]

Tom, I have a few questions for you. First of all, how does the Raynox HD 7000 Pro compare to the Sony Y lens (which I own)? For one, it has a filter thread which I think is very welcome.

Another question I have. I am thinking about buying the HD 7000 Pro and HD 2200 PRO (Telephoto). However, the front filter threads are a little bit different (82mm and 62mm I believe). Can I use a step up ring from 62mm to 82mm or will this cause vignetting problems?

I am planning on buying the slim multi-coated Hoya filters.

Another question I have: will it cause any problems if I use filters between the HDR-HC1 and the Sony Y wide-angle lens?

[Tom Hardwick]

Although it has a 'filter thread' I'd warn against using it as such. Look on it as a hood thread instead.

I haven't tested the HD7000PRO Raynox but I'd hazard a guess and say it was a fine lens, if only because it carries a proper maker's name and comes from a stable of fine lenses.

You'll always be safe from vignetting if you fit a filter that's too big for the front element, and use a step-up ring. The downside is the increased cost and it tends to look a bit silly on the smaller thread.

So why do you want to add more glass? Modern coatings are much more resistant to damage than coatings of old, and more glass is always more flare.

There should be no problem using filters between the zoom's front element and the converter lens, but I wouldn't. It moves the converter lens further away and it's then more likely to vignette the corners of the (full) frame. Don't forget you're not seeing the full frame in the v'finder or on the side-screen.

tom.

[Darren Rousar]

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick

So why do you want to add more glass? Modern coatings are much more resistant to damage than coatings of old, and more glass is always more flare.

So you're saying to skip the UV/ND, etc, filter altogether? Back in my SLR days we always had a protection glass up front unless I was in the studio. Even on my Sony F707 digicam I have one.

Of course, if I've read the other threads correctly, one can't fully use the hood with anything inbetween it and the lens. Granted, I don't have the cam yet and have never even held or seen one in person. Just a few more weeks though, fingers crossed :).

[Tom Hardwick]

Back in your SLR days (and back in mine too, Darren) we were using huge 36 mm x 24 mm 'chips'. We used focal lengths in the region of 50 mm. Now we have tiny 4.4 mm x 3.3 mm chips with 7 mm focal lenths giving us the same angle of view.

Think on this. If you'd fitted a 7 mm focal length lens to your 35 mm SLR, can you imagine what the dof would be? Even at max aperture it could easily encompas both surfaces of any filter you'd attached, especially if you were doing close-up work.

Now look at your HC1 (to be). If you fit a 0.5x wide-angle converter you're shooting at focal lengths of 2.5 mm. 2.5 mm! Hold your fingers this far apart (1/8th inch) and just realise what we're saying.

At these focal lengths you'll need filters that are quite literally spotless (an impossibility, of course), otherwise you're going to see the dust, finger prints, whatever in your footage. You'll also start to lose definition at anything smaller than f/4 because of diffraction.

Now to the question of the hood. It's a sensible 16:9 design that shields the front element the best it can. Fit a filter and what happens? Just when you need the hood the most (because you've added another piece of glass with its two reflecting surfaces) you find you cannot use it.

Filters are fine, don't get me wrong. But they're not fine (or practical) when using short focal lengths on camcorders with tiny chips. Your F707 probably has a chip 4x the area of the one in the HC1, remember.

tom.

[Floris van Eck]

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick

Now to the question of the hood. It's a sensible 16:9 design that shields the front element the best it can. Fit a filter and what happens? Just when you need the hood the most (because you've added another piece of glass with its two reflecting surfaces) you find you cannot use it.

Which hood are we talking about?

Also, Stu, can you tell me if you have encountered any vignetting problems with your HC1 and 37mm filters?

[Darren Rousar]

Very, very good points Tom. Thanks for the info!
So I suppose one can assume those are the reasons for Sony's decision to put a lens cover in the hood (BTW, I'm talking about an A1 that I hope to get in a few weeks).

[Tom Hardwick]

The lens cap in the hood idea (PD170, Z1, A1 etc) is really a seller's delight. It compromises the efficiency of the standard hood (look at the PD150's to see what I mean) because you lose the shadowed interior, but I'm pretty much always this fussy. The 'snap-snap' hood demo on the shop counter will have buyers pushing aside the Panasonic and Canon and JVC, just to give this Sony gizmo a go.

But back to UV filters. If Sony thought the lens would be 'better' by adding another element in the line-up then they'd have added it. The front zoom lens element of the Canon GL2, the VX2100, the PD170 (to name but a few) are all 'protected' by the plane-parallel glass that forms the VAP OIS assembly, yet folk want to add yet ANOTHER piece of glass to protect that. And another to protect the very expensive S-HMC UV Hoya? When will it all end?

tom.

[Stu Holmes]

Yes Tom's right - DOF on these cams is inherently pretty huge.
The camera can and will actually focus on the surface of the front-element at WA settings if it's dusty and you're shooting into the sun and the dust flares. You can get round that a little by shooting in Program AE Landscape mode, but far far better is to regualrly (start of every day and occasionally thru the day) check the front-element for dust / debris.

Floris - *slight* vignetting at extreme corners but *only in the photo mode*. Video mode is fine, no vignetting. Photo mode doesn't bother me as i have a 'proper' digicam.

[Alex Thames]

It will end when there is a transparent, good front element that can act as a lens protector by being cheap. In other words, I'm not going to protect a $100-150 lens with a $100 filter. It makes absolutely no sense, almost protecting something dollar for dollar. I want something around $20-50 (but still good quality) to protect something worth $100-150.

[Floris van Eck]

Originally Posted by Alex Thames

It will end when there is a transparent, good front element that can act as a lens protector by being cheap. In other words, I'm not going to protect a $100-150 lens with a $100 filter. It makes absolutely no sense, almost protecting something dollar for dollar. I want something around $20-50 (but still good quality) to protect something worth $100-150.

That's what I figured. I did contact BH with the filter question and they recommended the following to me:

Hi Floris van Eck: ok here are the model # of the filters that we recommend
fo the circular Polarizer # BWKCP37 $ 89.95
for the neutral density # BW10237 $ 24.95
for the uv BWUVMC37 $ 39.95

I might skip the UV as I figured it is not really needed, and if it is needed, only at the front element of the wide-angle lens, thus on the LH77. I might get a $35 UV filter to protect the wide-angle lens, which I will take off when I am going to shoot footage, so it is only for protection purposes. But I guess that with a good bag, and the way I handle products, there is a small chance that the lens will get seriously damaged. But you never know.

Can someone tell me if you can leave a filter attached to the LH77 and then take it off the camera or do you need to remove the filter first?

[Floris van Eck]

Originally Posted by Stu Holmes

Yes Tom's right - DOF on these cams is inherently pretty huge.
The camera can and will actually focus on the surface of the front-element at WA settings if it's dusty and you're shooting into the sun and the dust flares. You can get round that a little by shooting in Program AE Landscape mode, but far far better is to regualrly (start of every day and occasionally thru the day) check the front-element for dust / debris.

Floris - *slight* vignetting at extreme corners but *only in the photo mode*. Video mode is fine, no vignetting. Photo mode doesn't bother me as i have a 'proper' digicam.

1) Which front element do you mean, that of the camera, filter or of the wide-angle lens? Does manual focus solve this (I guess so)?

2) Ok. That's good to know. I never use the photo mode because I, like you, use a digital still camera for that -- much better quality.