|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 16th, 2003, 11:51 AM | #1 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Bozeman MT
Posts: 51
|
2X Tele Photo Or Wide Angle For PDX10? Century Optics?
Has Century Optics come out With A Tele photo and Wide Angle for the PdX10? Thanks for The Info!
Todd |
April 16th, 2003, 01:50 PM | #2 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Amsterdam NL -Turnhout BE
Posts: 158
|
I know that the 0.5 wide zoom thru is very good
and fits weel in the widehood from the PDX10 http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/dv/4/4.htm |
April 16th, 2003, 02:35 PM | #3 |
Outer Circle
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hope, BC
Posts: 7,524
|
What is the filter thread size of the PDX10? 37mm?
|
April 16th, 2003, 03:35 PM | #4 |
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: orlando florida
Posts: 426
|
Hello,
Yes the filter thread size is 37mm.. Mike Moncrief |
April 16th, 2003, 05:22 PM | #5 |
Outer Circle
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hope, BC
Posts: 7,524
|
Then I strongly suggest looking at the Tiffen wide and tele adaptor. They come in 3 sizes, and 37mm is one of them. I actually tried the 37mm Tiffen on one of my JVC cams. I also tried their 43mm for my Panasonic.
The Tiffen is great for the money---very high quality glass. The Tiffen's even come with filter threads in the front, many brands do not. |
April 16th, 2003, 07:03 PM | #6 |
Major Player
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: US & THEM
Posts: 827
|
you might like to consider a stepping ring to say 52mm
advantages are 1 more choice 2 uses the best part of the lens - the middle bit 3 guaranteed vignette free zone 4 looks better than a cheezy 37mm attachment
__________________
John Jay Beware ***PLUGGER-BYTES*** |
April 16th, 2003, 07:35 PM | #7 |
Outer Circle
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hope, BC
Posts: 7,524
|
Yeah. But does this fellow need or want filter threads, to have the option of screwing on a filter? The Century adaptors don't have threads as far as I know. And, would a 52mm adaptor fit properly on the PDX10?
|
April 17th, 2003, 08:01 PM | #8 |
Major Player
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: US & THEM
Posts: 827
|
Frank
a 37-52 step ring will work fine on a pdx10, you may recall its ancestor the pd100 had a step ring moulded into the front assembly also there is no problem with having a filter thread on a WA - so long as the thickness of the filter ring does not induce vignetting - which tends to get worse for wider WA adapters the chief advantage in using the step ring 37-52 is that cheaper quality WA adapters can be used since only the central area of the glass is used (less barrel & chromatic distortion) as opposed to a high quality 37mm WA adapter where the optics have to be spot on over the whole area of the glass
__________________
John Jay Beware ***PLUGGER-BYTES*** |
April 17th, 2003, 10:13 PM | #9 |
Wrangler
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mays Landing, NJ
Posts: 11,802
|
I got a cheap .45x 37mm wide adaptor for my PDX-10. The box says "DIGITAL Optics 0.45x Night Vision High Resolution Video Recording". This lens also has the feature that you can unscrew the front element and have a macro lens. I haven't done any real tests, but no obvious flaws. It has filter threads on the front and the cost was around $120 from Beach Camera.
|
April 18th, 2003, 04:42 AM | #10 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Billericay, England UK
Posts: 4,711
|
Yes, my Tecpro 0.5S wideangle converter comes apart in this way, leaving a very powerful close-up lens behind. It says 'Macro' on it. It imparts a lot of distortion and the flatness of field leaves much to be desired, but hey - it was 'free'. The Cavision 0.5x comes apart in the same way and hey-presto, you're into macro photography. The only thing is that they don't advertise the fact.
A correction to John J. Using a wide-angle converter designed for a 58mm filter thread (say) on a 37mm filter thread has no effect on the barrel distortion or chromatic aberation. I do just this - fitting my 58 converters onto my Panasonic's 43mm filter thread. But I agree with you entirely - the bigger converters look a lot better than the 'cheezy little ones'. tom. |
| ||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|