Steadyshot and filters when using a WA-adapter on PDX10 at DVinfo.net

Hans van Turnhout · March 28th, 2003, 11:34 AM

I have the PDX10P but have this far not really had any real opportunity to play with it. Hope to be able to do this next week when I'm attending a conference in a Swedish Ski resort.

I'm a pure hobbyist and have a lot to learn. I know that trial and error is the best way to learn. I don't mind the trial part but I would like to cut down on the errors and would appreciate all the help/tips I can get.

I have invested in a circular polarizer and a ND4 filter (both 37mm) and I have a 0.45 WideAngel lens (Bought this in an off Broadway photoshop two years ago and yes, I'm one of those suckers that has been taken in by these salesmen. Lesson learnd and hopefully it will not happen again).

If I attach a WA lens shall I then turn steadyshoot off (my shoots will most likely be handheld)? I've read somewhere that steadyshoot can be messed up if a lens is attached.

I'm considering to invest in a Sony WA lens since I guess/hope this is a better lens than the unbranded lens I have and will result in less distorsion. The thing that has held me back is the fact that the Sony lens doesn't have any filter threads (which my current lens have). The question is what happens if I attach a filter between the main lens and the WA lens, will this result in distorsion or will it be OK? I'll be shooting in 16:9 (that's why I bought the PDX instead of the VX2000). Will the format affect the distorsion?

I find it very difficult, not to say impossible, to manage the polarizer when the "small" lens hood is attached. It's a bit easier, but still very difficult, to manage the polarizer with the wideangel lens hood attached (but will probably be impossible if I attach a WA lens in front of the filter). What purpose does the lens hood have, is it pure protection or does it have other functions, i.e. can I or shall I take it off when using a polarizer?

Hans

Frank Granovski · March 28th, 2003, 08:32 PM

The Sony adaptors are made by Kenko. They're exactly the same as the Kenko Pro, except that Kenko puts filter threads on and they are a bit cheaper in price.

Tiffen makes a great wide angle in the 37mm size. They're better than Sony's and Kenko's. Tiffen also puts on filter threads. Tiffen's wide is about 0.5. No distortion with the Tiffen; clean, high quality glass.

Never put the filter between the cam and the adaptor.

I don't think the OIS is a problem with an adaptor. I'd just leave OIS on.

The lens hood protects the lens. It also blocks out light coming in from angles. I always use hoods on all my camcorders and SLRs.

John Jay · March 29th, 2003, 07:39 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Frank Granovski :
Never put the filter between the cam and the adaptor.

. -->>>

makes no difference optically but may slightly affect zoom / focus range but pretty much undetectable

Tom Hardwick · March 29th, 2003, 02:41 PM

OK, answers time.

Leave the OIS on unless it vignettes the corners of the frame as you move the camera. (Watch on a PC with no masking of the shot frame).

You can put filters where you like, but if placed between widie and zoom, you're more open to vignetting (see above).

A lens hood is the cheapest, lightest, easiest and best accessory to fit and it'll improve your picture quality no end. It might afford some protection for the front element, but it's primarily there to stop non image-forming light from hitting the chips. Use one on the wide-angle converter, too.

A linear polarizor would have done, and you'd have saved a lot of money. Circular polarizors were designed for cameras with beam-splitting prisims in the lightpath for metering feeds. Not the 10P.

If you want no distortion, you'll need to invest in an aspheric wide-angle. All the zoom-throughs that I've tested have given unacceptable distortion, though the Raynox 0.66x is the best.

tom.

Hans van Turnhout · March 29th, 2003, 04:22 PM

Thanks for the replies.

Forgive my ignorance but I had never heard about aspheric lenses before. I did a search in Google and in this forum (and followed the link to the German website). I couldn't find a lens that would fit my cam (not sure there is one). I guess all "standard" lenses talked about as attachments to DV cameras are non-aspheric, is this correct? From the information I found and from what I understood (my German is very poor) I guess that an aspheric wide-angel lens is too expensive for my needs.

Hans

Tom Hardwick · March 30th, 2003, 12:45 AM

You're correct - very nearly all the standard available wide-angle converters are made using spherical elements, as these are very much easier to grind and polish in quantity. I suspect the Raynox 660PRO (0.66x) has an aspherical in the three element lineup, and it'll certainly work happily on your Sony.

I've tested it on the Panasonic MX300 and 350, the Sony TRV900 and VX2000 and it works well on all of them, giving less barrel distortion than any other lens I've tried bar the single element (expensive) aspherics. But as I say, the only downside of the Raynox is that you can only zoom to about 6X in a 12x zoom - beyond that it flares in a soft focus way. Not unattractive on the leading lady, but maybe not so good for machinery.

tom.

March 28th, 2003, 11:34 AM	#1
Hans van Turnhout Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Sweden Posts: 70	Steadyshot and filters when using a WA-adapter on PDX10 I have the PDX10P but have this far not really had any real opportunity to play with it. Hope to be able to do this next week when I'm attending a conference in a Swedish Ski resort. I'm a pure hobbyist and have a lot to learn. I know that trial and error is the best way to learn. I don't mind the trial part but I would like to cut down on the errors and would appreciate all the help/tips I can get. I have invested in a circular polarizer and a ND4 filter (both 37mm) and I have a 0.45 WideAngel lens (Bought this in an off Broadway photoshop two years ago and yes, I'm one of those suckers that has been taken in by these salesmen. Lesson learnd and hopefully it will not happen again). If I attach a WA lens shall I then turn steadyshoot off (my shoots will most likely be handheld)? I've read somewhere that steadyshoot can be messed up if a lens is attached. I'm considering to invest in a Sony WA lens since I guess/hope this is a better lens than the unbranded lens I have and will result in less distorsion. The thing that has held me back is the fact that the Sony lens doesn't have any filter threads (which my current lens have). The question is what happens if I attach a filter between the main lens and the WA lens, will this result in distorsion or will it be OK? I'll be shooting in 16:9 (that's why I bought the PDX instead of the VX2000). Will the format affect the distorsion? I find it very difficult, not to say impossible, to manage the polarizer when the "small" lens hood is attached. It's a bit easier, but still very difficult, to manage the polarizer with the wideangel lens hood attached (but will probably be impossible if I attach a WA lens in front of the filter). What purpose does the lens hood have, is it pure protection or does it have other functions, i.e. can I or shall I take it off when using a polarizer? Hans

March 29th, 2003, 07:39 AM	#3
John Jay Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: US & THEM Posts: 827	<<<-- Originally posted by Frank Granovski : Never put the filter between the cam and the adaptor. . -->>> makes no difference optically but may slightly affect zoom / focus range but pretty much undetectable __________________ John Jay Beware *PLUGGER-BYTES*

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

March 28th, 2003, 08:32 PM	#2
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	The Sony adaptors are made by Kenko. They're exactly the same as the Kenko Pro, except that Kenko puts filter threads on and they are a bit cheaper in price. Tiffen makes a great wide angle in the 37mm size. They're better than Sony's and Kenko's. Tiffen also puts on filter threads. Tiffen's wide is about 0.5. No distortion with the Tiffen; clean, high quality glass. Never put the filter between the cam and the adaptor. I don't think the OIS is a problem with an adaptor. I'd just leave OIS on. The lens hood protects the lens. It also blocks out light coming in from angles. I always use hoods on all my camcorders and SLRs.

March 29th, 2003, 02:41 PM	#4
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	OK, answers time. Leave the OIS on unless it vignettes the corners of the frame as you move the camera. (Watch on a PC with no masking of the shot frame). You can put filters where you like, but if placed between widie and zoom, you're more open to vignetting (see above). A lens hood is the cheapest, lightest, easiest and best accessory to fit and it'll improve your picture quality no end. It might afford some protection for the front element, but it's primarily there to stop non image-forming light from hitting the chips. Use one on the wide-angle converter, too. A linear polarizor would have done, and you'd have saved a lot of money. Circular polarizors were designed for cameras with beam-splitting prisims in the lightpath for metering feeds. Not the 10P. If you want no distortion, you'll need to invest in an aspheric wide-angle. All the zoom-throughs that I've tested have given unacceptable distortion, though the Raynox 0.66x is the best. tom.

March 29th, 2003, 04:22 PM	#5
Hans van Turnhout Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Sweden Posts: 70	Thanks for the replies. Forgive my ignorance but I had never heard about aspheric lenses before. I did a search in Google and in this forum (and followed the link to the German website). I couldn't find a lens that would fit my cam (not sure there is one). I guess all "standard" lenses talked about as attachments to DV cameras are non-aspheric, is this correct? From the information I found and from what I understood (my German is very poor) I guess that an aspheric wide-angel lens is too expensive for my needs. Hans

March 30th, 2003, 12:45 AM	#6
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	You're correct - very nearly all the standard available wide-angle converters are made using spherical elements, as these are very much easier to grind and polish in quantity. I suspect the Raynox 660PRO (0.66x) has an aspherical in the three element lineup, and it'll certainly work happily on your Sony. I've tested it on the Panasonic MX300 and 350, the Sony TRV900 and VX2000 and it works well on all of them, giving less barrel distortion than any other lens I've tried bar the single element (expensive) aspherics. But as I say, the only downside of the Raynox is that you can only zoom to about 6X in a 12x zoom - beyond that it flares in a soft focus way. Not unattractive on the leading lady, but maybe not so good for machinery. tom.