L. Kingston's Custom A1U

Dustin Tran · March 27th, 2006, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laurence Kingston

No, but the lens hood lets you use an 82mm screw in UV filter to protect the lens instead. I like this better. Actually I'm using a Cavision LH80M/P hood instead now. Just $50 with the adapter ring to make it fit the HG0737Y lens!

http://www.cavision.com/lenshoods/LH80.htm

Thanks for your great info. I have one quick question ... which UV filter are you using with your Cavision LH80M/P hood?
And for the Varizoom lanc controller what other functions of the A1 we can use with it? Does it have control over the start/stop ?

Laurence Kingston · March 27th, 2006, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dustin Tran

Thanks for your great info. I have one quick question ... which UV filter are you using with your Cavision LH80M/P hood?
And for the Varizoom lanc controller what other functions of the A1 we can use with it? Does it have control over the start/stop ?

Any 82mm screw on UV filter will work. I believe mine is a Tiffen but I'm not sure. It was left over from an earlier setup with a Century Optics squeeze lens that I had for my old VX2000. I just use the UV filter to protect the Sony wide angle lens. I don't have a lens cap or anything. I clean it with those little premoistened wipes you can buy for cleaning eye glasses.

As far as the lanc controller, most of the extra lanc features don't work with the A1. I was hoping to be able to use the "push to autofocus" feature but it doesn't work, though I've read posts by people with the Manfrotto 521P controller that says that the "push to auto focus" on that one does work. The Manfrotto controller looks a little big physically to me though. The lanc "start/stop" and frame advance controls don't work either. If I was to do it again I'd buy a simpler Varizoom model like this one:

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

or maybe just get one of these:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...=361366&is=REG

Tom Hardwick · March 28th, 2006, 03:07 AM

I have one of these Cavision LH80M/P hoods for my VX2k's wide angle converter. Must go see if Cavision are up with the times and are producung this hood in the 16:9 aspect ratio now. Anyone know?

tom.

Laurence Kingston · March 28th, 2006, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick

I have one of these Cavision LH80M/P hoods for my VX2k's wide angle converter. Must go see if Cavision are up with the times and are producung this hood in the 16:9 aspect ratio now. Anyone know?

tom.

They haven't changed the LH80M/P but as is it works well with the Sony "Y" wide angle lens. They have a little sliver thin adapter ring that matches the size up with the Sony "Y" lens (the "X" lens is a little smaller around). Just call Cavision and have them send you the adapter for this lens and you'll be set.

John K. Anderson · March 28th, 2006, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laurence Kingston

They haven't changed the LH80M/P but as is it works well with the Sony "Y" wide angle lens. They have a little sliver thin adapter ring that matches the size up with the Sony "Y" lens (the "X" lens is a little smaller around). Just call Cavision and have them send you the adapter for this lens and you'll be set.

I was looking at the Cavision site and looks like they now have a lens hood specific for the Sony VCL-HG0737Y lens: http://www.cavision.com/lenshoods/LH77.htm

What do you think of this one. No adapter ring needed?

Jeff DeMaagd · March 28th, 2006, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laurence Kingston

2) Tripod adapter for easy changing of tapes:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Tripod-adapter-f...QQcmdZViewItem

I just got a question on this. This link is pretty old and probably will expire soon. I have a somewhat more conventional web site, though not with a web store (yet): http://dm-accessories.com/ At least the link won't expire.

I haven't said so before, so I should say it now, that is a very impressive setup you have there, Laurence.

Alex Thames · March 28th, 2006, 10:32 PM

When I went to BH Photo Video (the physical store in New York) a couple days ago, I wanted to get as much of Laurence's setup. I asked for the 82mm UV filter listed in Laurence's list, but the sales rep asked why get a 82mm one when you can just get a 37mm one (for 1/4 for the price). I'm a little confused now as to why I would need the stepup rings and 82mm UV filter. I would like to usethe better lens shade with the UV filter as a protective layer (replacement for lens cap) while also having the Sony wideangle Y lens attached.

Dustin Tran · March 28th, 2006, 10:49 PM

The 82mm filter is for the wideangle lens hood (there's no cap for that hood, that's why we need an UV filter to protect the wideangle lens). If you pick the LH80 hood, you will need a step down ring adapter for the wideangle lens, but the good news is Cavision just has a new LH77 hood that doesn't require a step down ring adapter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Thames

When I went to BH Photo Video (the physical store in New York) a couple days ago, I wanted to get as much of Laurence's setup. I asked for the 82mm UV filter listed in Laurence's list, but the sales rep asked why get a 82mm one when you can just get a 37mm one (for 1/4 for the price). I'm a little confused now as to why I would need the stepup rings and 82mm UV filter. I would like to usethe better lens shade with the UV filter as a protective layer (replacement for lens cap) while also having the Sony wideangle Y lens attached.

Dustin Tran · March 28th, 2006, 10:50 PM

I just received an email from Cavision. We don't need ring adapter for the new LH77 hood.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John K. Anderson

I was looking at the Cavision site and looks like they now have a lens hood specific for the Sony VCL-HG0737Y lens: http://www.cavision.com/lenshoods/LH77.htm

What do you think of this one. No adapter ring needed?

Alex Thames · March 29th, 2006, 12:35 AM

Sorry, quick question: so if I get the LH77 lens, which requires no stepdown ring adaptor, what size UV filter will I need to act as a lens cap? Still 82mm?

Edit: Nevermind, I found out I'll still need 82mm.

But new question: there are so many different Hoya 82mm UV filters. What are the differences? They have no multi-coating, multi-coated, and super-multi-coated as well as different grades of UV(0) and not "applicable." The price varies from $43.50 to over $100. What are the advantages and disadvantages, or features, of the coatings and grades? Which one should I get? Does the multi or super multi-coating actually have a discernable difference, or is it more of something on paper (theory) and a marketing ploy?

Laurence, do you mean that the Manfrotto 521P compact controller can allow the A1 to use a push auto focus feature, even if the camera itself doesn't have that feature?

I'm looking at a few lanc controllers (even if not all the functions can work with the A1, but if there is a controller that can allow a push autofocus feature on the A1, that would be great):
Varizoom Rock LE Compact:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ughType=search

Varizoom Rock Variable Zoom Compact:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ughType=search

Manfrotto 521Pro Compact:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ughType=search

I'm not really sure what the differences between the three are. Can anyone explain?

Tom Hardwick · March 29th, 2006, 02:16 AM

There most certainly is a difference between no coating, coating, multi-coating and super multi-coating Alex. If you genuinely intend to replace your front element with another (i.e. add a UV filter) then make sure it has *the* very best SMC you can buy. The front element of any multi-element lineup is the most important element as far as coatings are concerned.

You'd not have bought your camera if it had a so-so coated front element when the same model alongside it was supplied with the beautiful Zeiss T* coatings.

Let's look at still photographers - they're dealing with focal lengths in the order, say, of 50 mm. A camcorder such as Sony's PDX10 will have a focal length of 3.6 mm to give the same field of view, and it's precisely because we're dealing with these very tiny focal lengths that I say you should beware of fitting filters, any filters.

If you attach a 0.5x wide-angle converter to the PDX10 you're suddenly
working at a focal length of 1.8 mm. Hold your fingertips 1.8 mm (3/32")
apart to appreciate the situation. Depth of field, whatever the aperture
used, will be enormous, often happily extending to cover both sides of any
attached filter.

When a filter is beautifully coated, spotlessly clean and well hooded all is
well. In the real world this is frequently not the case. The 'well hooded'
aspect is the one we all fall down on, simply because although we all use a
beautifully designed, multi-part, shadowed hood it has only been designed to work properly at the wide-angle end of our long 10x zooms.

tom.

Alex Thames · March 29th, 2006, 02:22 AM

Thanks, Tom. So you suggest super multi-coating over multi-coating and no coating. How discernable are the differences in the real, practical world though? Also, when you say well-hooded, do you mean that a LH77 from Cavision used in conjunction with the Sony wideangle Y lens and a good 82mm UV filter won't work well if I zoom in? How would one fix this problem?

Also, what about the grades, such as UV(0)? What does that mean? And why are some of them labeled as non-applicable?

The Lanc controller questions are still unanswered as well.

Tom Hardwick · March 29th, 2006, 02:40 AM

Back to basics Alex. For starters you don't need a UV filter. Glass in itself absorbs UV, so adding another element to the element lineup in front of the chip is quite unnecessary.

Now then, you've bought a Sony camera with a 10 x zoom lens (I'm guessing
here). This lens most probably has 12 individual elements in the line-up,
with two of them aspherical. All of these elements will be multi coated,
and *the* most important element (from a coating point of view) is the front
one.

It's the best lens Sony can give you at the price. If they thought that adding a $45 UV would improve the performance, they'd have included one. So remember, if you plan to add another element to the line-up of 12 you
already have, make sure it's the very finest you can buy, with the best
super multi-coating on offer.

I have two identical VX2000s, one fitted with an uncoated UV and the other
with no filter. In contrasty light (not into the light, mind) and in 20 seconds flat I can convince any one of you out there to unscrew the UV and skim it out over the lake, never to be seen again. Yes, the differences are easily discernable in the real, practical world, I promise you.

So remember this: filters only take away. So use filters when you must, and
remove them if you want the best picture quality. There are times of 'must', which include dusty or smoky atmospheres, sticky children's parties and so on, but generally I'd say beware of putting anything in front of your lens. A sorry to all those that have read this before.

If you were shooting from a stationary car, you'd instinctively roll down the window, and for good reason.

UV(0) simply means it has no affect on exposure. Skylight filters absorb 1/3 rd of a stop, polarisors 1.5 stops. Lens hoods are only designed to be efficient at wide-angle - as you zoom the hood needs to 'grow longer' to keep efficiency high. Some collapsible Hoya hoods allow you to extend them for telephoto work - a very good idea.

I use a Zoe controller, and love it.

tom.

Alex Thames · March 29th, 2006, 03:01 AM

Thanks again for all the info, Tom, but because I am a newcomer, I have elementary questions. If a UV filter is not necessary, how come they make UV filters at all? What are the differences between a Skylight filter and a UV filter?

How does the Zoe controller compare to the other three I listed above?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ughType=search

I guess some of the functions I would really like to have work with the A1 are:
zoom in/out (preferable with throttle setting available) (Varizoom rocker style over the stick kind found on the Varizoom Stealth models)
start/stop rec
data on/off
push auto focus
focus

and F-/F+ (even if it doens't work with A1)

Tom Hardwick · March 29th, 2006, 03:20 AM

Keep asking the questions Alex.
UV filters are sold because there's a demand for them. Uncoated filters are sold because people are unaware of the image degredation they cause and because they're cheap. UV filters are great mechanical insurance protection for when you're in a sand storm, filming in the surf, down at the level of the inquisitive sticky-fingered kids. When you're in clean air you don't need them, though some people still like the 'peace of mind' even at the expense of image flare.

A skylight filter is very slightly pink, though no two are the same shade of pink, so a Tiffen will look different from a Hoya or a B & W. That's the maker's name, not black and white, BTW. Skylight filters were popular in the days of Ektachrome slide film, where you got back and projected what you shot. So to warm that 'cold' film, permanent skylight filters were very popular. And as I've explained, using them on 35 mm cameras has a far less degrading effect than on tiny chipped video cameras.

I tested the Steath and the Rock for a British magazine and found them both faulty, then received a lot of verbal from the firm's MD for daring to say so in print. My editor also received the same sort of abuse. Consequently I can't hand on heart recommend them, though my 'prototype testing' for the firm may well have got the problem sorted.

tom.

March 29th, 2006, 12:35 AM	#40
Alex Thames Major Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: New York Posts: 508	Sorry, quick question: so if I get the LH77 lens, which requires no stepdown ring adaptor, what size UV filter will I need to act as a lens cap? Still 82mm? Edit: Nevermind, I found out I'll still need 82mm. But new question: there are so many different Hoya 82mm UV filters. What are the differences? They have no multi-coating, multi-coated, and super-multi-coated as well as different grades of UV(0) and not "applicable." The price varies from $43.50 to over $100. What are the advantages and disadvantages, or features, of the coatings and grades? Which one should I get? Does the multi or super multi-coating actually have a discernable difference, or is it more of something on paper (theory) and a marketing ploy? Laurence, do you mean that the Manfrotto 521P compact controller can allow the A1 to use a push auto focus feature, even if the camera itself doesn't have that feature? I'm looking at a few lanc controllers (even if not all the functions can work with the A1, but if there is a controller that can allow a push autofocus feature on the A1, that would be great): Varizoom Rock LE Compact: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ughType=search Varizoom Rock Variable Zoom Compact: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ughType=search Manfrotto 521Pro Compact: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ughType=search I'm not really sure what the differences between the three are. Can anyone explain? Last edited by Alex Thames; March 29th, 2006 at 01:21 AM.

March 28th, 2006, 03:07 AM	#33
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	I have one of these Cavision LH80M/P hoods for my VX2k's wide angle converter. Must go see if Cavision are up with the times and are producung this hood in the 16:9 aspect ratio now. Anyone know? tom.

March 28th, 2006, 10:32 PM	#37
Alex Thames Major Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: New York Posts: 508	When I went to BH Photo Video (the physical store in New York) a couple days ago, I wanted to get as much of Laurence's setup. I asked for the 82mm UV filter listed in Laurence's list, but the sales rep asked why get a 82mm one when you can just get a 37mm one (for 1/4 for the price). I'm a little confused now as to why I would need the stepup rings and 82mm UV filter. I would like to usethe better lens shade with the UV filter as a protective layer (replacement for lens cap) while also having the Sony wideangle Y lens attached.

March 29th, 2006, 02:16 AM	#41
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	There most certainly is a difference between no coating, coating, multi-coating and super multi-coating Alex. If you genuinely intend to replace your front element with another (i.e. add a UV filter) then make sure it has the very best SMC you can buy. The front element of any multi-element lineup is the most important element as far as coatings are concerned. You'd not have bought your camera if it had a so-so coated front element when the same model alongside it was supplied with the beautiful Zeiss T* coatings. Let's look at still photographers - they're dealing with focal lengths in the order, say, of 50 mm. A camcorder such as Sony's PDX10 will have a focal length of 3.6 mm to give the same field of view, and it's precisely because we're dealing with these very tiny focal lengths that I say you should beware of fitting filters, any filters. If you attach a 0.5x wide-angle converter to the PDX10 you're suddenly working at a focal length of 1.8 mm. Hold your fingertips 1.8 mm (3/32") apart to appreciate the situation. Depth of field, whatever the aperture used, will be enormous, often happily extending to cover both sides of any attached filter. When a filter is beautifully coated, spotlessly clean and well hooded all is well. In the real world this is frequently not the case. The 'well hooded' aspect is the one we all fall down on, simply because although we all use a beautifully designed, multi-part, shadowed hood it has only been designed to work properly at the wide-angle end of our long 10x zooms. tom.

March 29th, 2006, 02:22 AM	#42
Alex Thames Major Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: New York Posts: 508	Thanks, Tom. So you suggest super multi-coating over multi-coating and no coating. How discernable are the differences in the real, practical world though? Also, when you say well-hooded, do you mean that a LH77 from Cavision used in conjunction with the Sony wideangle Y lens and a good 82mm UV filter won't work well if I zoom in? How would one fix this problem? Also, what about the grades, such as UV(0)? What does that mean? And why are some of them labeled as non-applicable? The Lanc controller questions are still unanswered as well.

March 29th, 2006, 02:40 AM	#43
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Back to basics Alex. For starters you don't need a UV filter. Glass in itself absorbs UV, so adding another element to the element lineup in front of the chip is quite unnecessary. Now then, you've bought a Sony camera with a 10 x zoom lens (I'm guessing here). This lens most probably has 12 individual elements in the line-up, with two of them aspherical. All of these elements will be multi coated, and the most important element (from a coating point of view) is the front one. It's the best lens Sony can give you at the price. If they thought that adding a $45 UV would improve the performance, they'd have included one. So remember, if you plan to add another element to the line-up of 12 you already have, make sure it's the very finest you can buy, with the best super multi-coating on offer. I have two identical VX2000s, one fitted with an uncoated UV and the other with no filter. In contrasty light (not into the light, mind) and in 20 seconds flat I can convince any one of you out there to unscrew the UV and skim it out over the lake, never to be seen again. Yes, the differences are easily discernable in the real, practical world, I promise you. So remember this: filters only take away. So use filters when you must, and remove them if you want the best picture quality. There are times of 'must', which include dusty or smoky atmospheres, sticky children's parties and so on, but generally I'd say beware of putting anything in front of your lens. A sorry to all those that have read this before. If you were shooting from a stationary car, you'd instinctively roll down the window, and for good reason. UV(0) simply means it has no affect on exposure. Skylight filters absorb 1/3 rd of a stop, polarisors 1.5 stops. Lens hoods are only designed to be efficient at wide-angle - as you zoom the hood needs to 'grow longer' to keep efficiency high. Some collapsible Hoya hoods allow you to extend them for telephoto work - a very good idea. I use a Zoe controller, and love it. tom.

March 29th, 2006, 03:01 AM	#44
Alex Thames Major Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: New York Posts: 508	Thanks again for all the info, Tom, but because I am a newcomer, I have elementary questions. If a UV filter is not necessary, how come they make UV filters at all? What are the differences between a Skylight filter and a UV filter? How does the Zoe controller compare to the other three I listed above? http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ughType=search I guess some of the functions I would really like to have work with the A1 are: zoom in/out (preferable with throttle setting available) (Varizoom rocker style over the stick kind found on the Varizoom Stealth models) start/stop rec data on/off push auto focus focus and F-/F+ (even if it doens't work with A1)

March 29th, 2006, 03:20 AM	#45
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Keep asking the questions Alex. UV filters are sold because there's a demand for them. Uncoated filters are sold because people are unaware of the image degredation they cause and because they're cheap. UV filters are great mechanical insurance protection for when you're in a sand storm, filming in the surf, down at the level of the inquisitive sticky-fingered kids. When you're in clean air you don't need them, though some people still like the 'peace of mind' even at the expense of image flare. A skylight filter is very slightly pink, though no two are the same shade of pink, so a Tiffen will look different from a Hoya or a B & W. That's the maker's name, not black and white, BTW. Skylight filters were popular in the days of Ektachrome slide film, where you got back and projected what you shot. So to warm that 'cold' film, permanent skylight filters were very popular. And as I've explained, using them on 35 mm cameras has a far less degrading effect than on tiny chipped video cameras. I tested the Steath and the Rock for a British magazine and found them both faulty, then received a lot of verbal from the firm's MD for daring to say so in print. My editor also received the same sort of abuse. Consequently I can't hand on heart recommend them, though my 'prototype testing' for the firm may well have got the problem sorted. tom.