Ok. here we go.

I'm just about ready to buy a PDX10 and am looking at the last things - the wide angle lens and the filters.

1. I think I'll get a step up from 37-49mm. From reading several posts this seems like a good idea.

2. Next, I need a wide angle lens, which will probably be on it all the time. Should I get a 49mm WA lens and add the filters to the front of that? I ask because I've seen a 37mm Century Optics .55x WA lens at B&H. There's no specs on the page but it looks like it has a front thread (essential for adding filters?) and its probably a 49 or 58mm thread. Would a 49mm WA lens be more advisable than a 37mm lens to reduce vignetting etc.

3. Next, Polarizer and ND filters. Can I add both of these at the same time? Do they fit together with screw threads?

4. I appreciate that I will need to audition ND filters to find what stops I need. Unfortunately, there's nowhere I can do this in Cardiff so I was thinking of getting .3 .6 .9 & 1.2 Does this sound about right? (sun is pretty absent 9 months of the year) can I double up .3 and .6 to get .9?

I know a getting a matte box would be easier. I don't mind spending the extra but I'd rather not have a huge weight hanging off the front of my relatively tiny camera. If I'm out on this, please let me know.

As always, thanks in advance
Steve

This was all covered in another thread recently, but here's my personal experience.

I got a 37mm .45x wide adaptor and have been very happy with it. It cost a bit more than $100 USD. It has 49mm filter threads, so your adaptor might be a good idea since you could use the same filters with or without the lens. But I got two sets of ND filters anyway, they're quite cheap in these sizes.

Personally I wouldn't put the WA lens on top of the adaptor ring because it will be larger, heavier and more expensive. One advantage of the 37mm lens is cheap filters and wide adaptors. I don't get any vignetting with the 37mm .45x WA adaptor.

Don't put any filters UNDER the WA adaptor or you probably will get vignetting at full wide, at least I did. And it's the annoying kind that doesn't show in the viewfinder but you discover in post when you see the full frame.

I'm glad I got the .45x WA cause I like the wider field of view, but I imagine a .55x wouldn't be too bad. Another reason to stick with a 37mm WA is the fact that it works along with the additional "wide" lens hood which Sony supplies with the PDX-10 (something you may not have been aware of?). I don't get any vignetting with this lens hood in place; you need to first attach the hood and then screw in the WA lens though. Another minor pain is that there's no lens cap for the wide hood, but I just use the little plastic cap on the WA lens. It's a little tight reaching inside to remove the cap though.

Regarding ND filters, it seems that different companies have different ways of rating them. I would suggest getting a couple. Basically I think you'll want the ability to reduce light by either one, two or three f-stops. I do stack them at times when shooting skies, sunsets, etc. All of mine have front threads, but it probably depends on the brand. When stacking them you should be careful to make sure each of them is really clean and dust free.

I have a 37mm linear polarizer which I've used a few times, but don't really consider it essential for my kinds of shooting. Your situation may be different however.

Enjoy the new camera, and let us know how it works out!

Sony sold the PD100 (the PDV10's dad) with a very high quality 0.7x 52mm fitting wide-angle converter. Doesn't Sony sell a similar lens in the 37mm fitting? Of all the cameras out there the PDx10 is in most need of a wide-angle, and a powerful one at that.

Beware of adding filters in front of the widie Steve as they can vignette the image if they're not the slimline variety. As the PDX10 also needs an ND filter for any sort of outdoor filming, I'd fit a 37mm ND8 and attach the w/angle to that. Then take a still into Photoshop via the Memorystick and check for vignetting.

This way your filters will be MUCH cheaper and every bit as effective. Vignetting is a matter of lens design and lens power so there's no substitute for checking the situation yourself, preferably before you hand over the money. A 49mm attachment doesn't necessarily help avoid the vignetting.

You can use two filters at once but I advise my students against it. Two filters equals 4 more surfaces for dust and fingerprints and flare. Less really is more. An ND8 (which absorbs 3 stops) is all you'll need, even in Cardiff.

tom.

Tom, I've checked and Sony do indeed make a 0.7x WA converter for about $150. That's a little more than I was planning to spend on one but it is more powerful than the 0.55x I was looking at so I am considering it (0.7x is wider than 0.55x right?)

This WA lens doesn't have any front threads though so any filters would have to be placed underneath. Tom, in your experience this is better; Boyd, with you it is worse. It looks like I'm going to have to find somewhere to try them out before I buy them.

According to:

http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/filters/nd/

ND 0.9 absorbs 3 stops and ND8 absorbs 20 stops. Are your filters rated in a different way Tom?

Boyd, with a ND filter and a WA lens, my camera lens should be pretty well protected so I probably won't need a polariser unless I'm shooting near a window etc. I might get one when I need one.

Thanks guys, youve cleared up a lot of confusion for me. I'll try to find somewhere I can try a 37mm ND filter with 37mm front threads and see how this works underneath a Sony 0.7x WA lens. If this is no good, I'll have to consider a filter on top of the WA lens, so I'll look for one with front threads. It would be easier if they put front threads on them all.

Cheers,
Steve

Steve Pierce,

Tiffen makes a great 0.5 wide angle in the 37mm size. It is zoom-through, great glass, there is no vignetting nor distortion. Plus it has filter threads on the front. It's probably Tiffen's best wide angle adaptor---the 37mm version.

No, no Steve. The 0.5x or the 0.7x refers to the multiplication factor that you apply to your focal lengths, so a 0.5x on a 6mm focal length takes it to 3mm, a lot wider than the 4.2mm when you've got a 0.7x converter on.

tom.

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Pierce: I'll try to find somewhere I can try a 37mm ND filter with 37mm front threads and see how this works underneath a Sony 0.7x WA lens.-->>>

If you try it in a store, be sure to hook up to a monitor that shows the whole frame, or roll a tape and bring it home to check in your NLE. In my case the vignetting was not visible on a regular TV or in the viewfinder. Perhaps this wouldn't be a problem for you, but I need the entire frame for my work.

Me too Boyd and that goes for everybody these days. More and more our work is being burnt to CD or DVD and when shown on an LCD projector or on a computer monitor every last pixel is shown. So beware the corners of the frame.

tom.

Thanks guys,

This area looks like a real minefield for online buyers so I'll make sure I try before i buy.

Steve

Kenko makes some if not all of the wide and tele adaptors for Sony. The Kenko Pro line seems to be on par with the ones Sony sells, except that the Kenko Pro adaptors are a tad cheaper, and come with filter threads in the front.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh4/controller/home?O=&A=ShowProduct&Q=&sku=221437&is=REG&bi=E15

Any one had experience with this WA? Is it work with PDX10??
What filter should I use with ( linkey ??) Thanks for clearing these things to a newbie.

<<<-- Originally posted by Boyd Ostroff :
Another reason to stick with a 37mm WA is the fact that it works along with the additional "wide" lens hood which Sony supplies with the PDX-10 (something you may not have been aware of?).
-->>>

Boyd,

I'm looking at getting a WA adaptor for the PDX10, and was wondering about a hood for it. Are you saying that the Sony-supplied wide hood will still fit with any 37mm WA adaptor, or just a specific make? And if so, which make?

I was leaning towards the Century 0.65x adaptor, but may look to go wider than this (open to suggestions).

<<<-- Originally posted by Tom Hardwick : Beware of adding filters in front of the widie Steve as they can vignette the image if they're not the slimline variety. As the PDX10 also needs an ND filter for any sort of outdoor filming, I'd fit a 37mm ND8 and attach the w/angle to that.
tom. -->>>

Tom,

This mostly answers a question that I had - but could I just check something? I'm just about to order some stuff from B&H and thought that I'd try and get everything I currently know I need in one go (to save on the international shipping). Part of what I'm ordering is a Century 0.65x WA adaptor (which I hope to use with the wide lens hood supplied with the PDX10, assuming it is deep enough) - but I also want to get some filters.

So ...

1. I'm planning to get 0.6 and 0.9 Tiffen ND filters, and from what you are saying I should just get 37mm and screw the WA adaptor into them. That has the advantage of being able to use them with or without the WA adaptor. However, some filters such as the Tiffen Black Pro-Mist range are not available in 37mm. Would you anticipate any problem with a 37mm ND filter behind the WA adaptor, and a 62mm diffusion filter in front of it?

2. I've been looking at Joe's Filters and I'm wondering if they really do provide a good alternative to the Tiffen Black Pro-Mist and other film-look filters. They appear to, and adding diffusion effects in post certainly seems a better bet - but I don't know the extent to which true optical effects may be better. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Do you really have to order these things from the USA Pat? Have you tried www.cke.co.uk or camerafilters.co.uk? No matter, to your thoughts.

I've tested the Century 0.65x for FVM mag and the VC2k bayonet version doesn't have a filter thread, so (without chcking) I'd guess the one you're looking at doesn't either. Any filters you plan fitting will need to attach directly to the Sony lens.

The PDX10 I tested for CV mag did indeed come with two hoods, but they were both designed for the 12x zoom as it stands, and not designed to fit any wide-angle you might choose. I do applaud your decision to buy a hood for the Century, but the Sony one supplied won't work. Both the Sony hoods bayonet to the the front of the PDX10, and you'd be better off with a 4:3 clamp-on hood for the Century.

I'm prepared to be shot down in flames if the 37mm fitting Century 0.65x comes with a filter/hood thread. It's a nice lens, beautifully made and beautifully coated. Too mild a wide-angle in my view - especially for the 950/PDX10. And it distorts too much for all that money too, though undoubtedly B&H's prices are good.

tom.

Thanks for the quick reply Tom.

The Century 0.65x adaptor does indeed have a 62mm filter thread - www.centuryoptics.com/products/dv/65xhr_wa/65xhr_37mm_specs.htm

It isn't as wide as I would ideally like, but it's a choice that I've arrived at after reading much here, including a lot about the lower quality of the 0.5x adaptor. So, a compromise between angle of view and quality.

I had assumed that the Sony wide hood would fit around the Century adaptor, but maybe not. There are a number of 62mm screw-in hoods at B&H but I know I need to be careful about vignetting. So, I just sent a mail to Century Optics asking for their recommendation on this.

As far as ordering from the US is concerned, that would not be my first choice as it complicates things if I need to return something. However, B&H do have the widest online display (and in store - I did visit once) and stock of any reputable company I've ever come across. There is also a considerable price saving, even after shipping, import duty and VAT is added. I wouldn't bother just for smaller low cost items, but the Steadicam JR (PAL) is considerably cheaper than in the UK.

I had already checked www.cke.co.uk (they don't have any of what I want) and did take a look at www.camerafilters.co.uk, from a previous post of yours I think. Their site seemed very confusing in the way it was structured, but I will take another look later on.

I'm kind of hoping that Joe's Filters will be a suitable alternative to some of the effect filters, and I'll probably get it anyway.

Another thing that keeps going through my mind is a matte box (despite the unexplainably high prices - have I missed something here?) but haven't yet done any research on this, and haven't seen any that clearly state that they would fit the PDX10. If anyone knows of a model that is good and would fit I'd like to hear about it.

Just to follow-up on my own post - I've now discovered that Century do a matte box that is recommended for use with the PDX10, which is nice. A mere $700 at B&H <shudder> and I imagine the 4x4" filters are quite expensive too. I'm scared to look <g>

The interesting thing about the PDX10 is that if you shoot in the 16:9 mode it's as if you've screwed a 0.8x wide-angle converter to the front of your (4:3) PDX10. So when checking for distortion and vignetting with your new wide-angle converter, make sure you do it in the 16:9 mode - or better yet in the still picture to Memorystick mode.

tom.

Yes, I got the PDX10 primarily for the 16:9 mode and I don't anticipate shooting anything in 4:3 mode. So I guess that the 0.65x WA adaptor will get me to around the equivalent of a 24mm lens in 35mm camera terms.

Sorry, have been away a couple days... I can't really answer whether the wide hood works with the various brands of wide adaptors. I suppose the neck of the lens might be too wide to fit inside, especially if you are using a larger lens with a 37mm adaptor. All I can tell you is that my .45x "Titanium" lens works fine inside the wide hood and there is no vignetting. Therefore I'd assume that a .65x adaptor wouldn't have vignetting issues. But you'd need to check the physical fit yourself. Maybe get the lens first and then decide if you need another hood.

Tom, it is true that the hoods have a simple bayonet mount, but this is outside the filter thread area and still allows you to screw in an adaptor lenses; I even use it with my Sony 2x telephoto, just because it hides the silvery aluminum finish :-) Since it works with a .45x adaptor, even in 16:9 mode, I'd say they had something in mind other than the builtin 12x lens... hence the name "wide hood".

As for filters, they need to be checked on the actual wide lens as well to see if there are vignetting issues. In my case, putting a filter between the camera and the lens causes vignetting, putting one on the front of the lens doesn't.

Cavision (http://cavision.com/Mattbox/Mattebox.htm) makes some matteboxes which people have mentioned here before, they're less expensive than Century. For a much less expensive option, cinetactics (http://www.cinetactics.com/mb100m.php) makes a soft mattebox, No personal experience though with any of these.

Just to confirm the Century .65 WA fits inside the PDX10 supplied 'wide' (large) hood & has 62mm filter thread & 65mm outside dia should wish to mount a mattebox
Cheers, Graham

Thanks for confirming Graham, and thanks for the links Boyd - I'll take a look. However, at least I now know that the Century matte box works with the PDX10 with and without the Century WA adaptor so I have a fallback option if nothing more suitable turns up.

Despite the price it seems to me that a matte box would be the most convenient in terms of quickly changing filters, and just buying a single size of each one I need. And of course I'd look like I know what I'm doing <g>

I just need to try Joe's Filters to see if they are a good altenative to some optical filters. I'm hoping they will be.

Pat, I'm a big fan of Joe's Filters. I am especially fond of "Joe's diffuser" and I think it will give you the ProMist effect you want. I also like the idea of shooting "clean" and applying filters in post. Unless you're using a good monitor while shooting you could end up with problems that don't show on the camera's LCD screen. Try the free download and see what you think.

I nearly pulled the trigger on a mattebox myself, but decided not to spend the money at the last minute. Based on everything I've read, personally, I would probably get the Cavision 4x4 bellows mattebox http://cavision.com/Mattbox/4x4E.htm. If you just want to mount filters then the shallower matteboxes should work fine, but if you're trying to keep stray light away from the lens to improve contrast and reduce vertical smear I think you'll need something pretty deep and also adjustable. It's a bit oversized, but I don't think there are any smaller bellows-style matteboxes. Maybe one day I'll make my own... :-)

Good solid info here about fitting filters, wide-angles and hoods. The 0.65x Century ttached to the PDX10 in 16:9 mode actually gives a 25.5mm lens in still camera terms, a very respectable wideangle in the horizontal plane, but less so in the vertical of course.

tom.

Related to this thread ..... I have purchased the .65 century & have a number of P series cokin filters including circular polarising, ND8 & gradual grey. Rather than reinvesting in these as screw ons to fit the 62mm I am considering the 3x3 Cavision matte box with 65-85mm adapter which I could possibly use one day with a PD170 or similar (when I can afford it!).

Q1 My understanding is that there are 2x versions of the 3x3 matte box one, a regular one & the other for a WA lens. Has anyone purchased the Cavision 3x3 and what has been their experience with a WA mounted. My plan was to also purchase the French flag which should lessen the flaring which occurs with the .65 Century inside the Sony wide hood. The hood does not extend out over the lens enough & the lens catches the sun directly very easily.

Q2 I have a Sennheiser ME66/K6 mounted on Bayer Dynamic mount (v.common) on the top shoe (I have removed the PDX10 mount).
Anyone using this and does it clear the Cavision 3x3 with a muff on?
Upon searching posts I believe there were photos mentioned but the site they were posted to was no longer accessible.

Thanks, I ordered Joe's Filters today and just downloaded them (didn't bother with the demo). Had a quick try with Joe's Diffuser and it does indeed produce a pleasing effect. I'm sure there are a lot of possibilities here, given the time to experiment.

So, I was having second thoughts about the need for a matte box (just for ND filters) - until I read Graham's post about flare with the WA adaptor. I imagine that the French flag would help, but perhaps be something of a compromise over a deeper hood or bellows.

Now I'm wondering if the microphone will get in the way of anything too. Nothing is ever quite as straightforward as it first appears ...

Rather than charging ahead too fast, why not get your hands on the camera and lens, then play around for awhile in different lighting conditions while you ponder the need for a mattebox? Could save some time, money and aggravation in the long run. I think it will be tough to make these decisions without some hands-on experience.

You're right, the mattebox photos that were posted earlier by "Blip Pio" are no longer accessible. There are a few threads about PDX-10 matteboxes however:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11952
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12473
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9878

Thanks,
Graham

Yes, you're probably right that I should just get the WA lens first and leave the matte box for now. My thinking was driven by (a) not wanting to buy filters twice and (b) reducing international shipping charges if I order from B&H (can't find the Century 0.65 37mm anywhere in the UK).