Hi all,
I am new to this forum and I hope to make a comeback to this fascinating area after too many years I was out...)-;
I have great hopes to produce wildlife films professionally. Many years ago I won the BBC newcomers award in Wildscreen '88 for a film I have made about Kingfishers.(birds) It was made with Super-8mm film...(-;
Obviously I need to start from scratch and need every good advice from pros.
What equipment do I need to get? - camera, tripod, tripod head - everything.
What should I consider if I hope to sell my films to TV channels? Any other idea, suggestion would be highly appreciated.
My budget is limited to around 10,000 $.
Thanks for your attention and help,
Cheers,
Ofer Levy
Sydney-Australia

I just went thru long purchase process, but I don't do wildlife. IMHO there are 3 brands to consider. Sony, Canon, & Panasonic. Panny DVX100a does 24p, which might be important. They have a rockin HD camera coming by year end. Canon has interchangeable lenses, which might be important depending on wildlife, and has not announced HD plans yet. Sony has HDV available today, which you may choose to use. But I don't know if the HD TV channels woudl accept it. OTOH, they may require HD quality for all new video they buy. Better find that out first.

Carbon Fiber tripods are lighter but more expensive. Are you hiking to shoots, taking a safari, or shooting from the front seat of your car?

You did not say if you need to edit as part of your $10k budget.

If you are like me, it will take a couple of months just to understand what the questions should be to ask yourself.

For the budget that you have, I'd go for the Canon XL2, or to save some money so that you can buy more extras, then go for the XL1s (that's what I did). Both are high enough quality for TV. If you buy mint-conditioned second-hand items on Ebay it will cut your costs by more than half.

Then add extras - and these could be very varied, depending on your tastes and requirements. First, I'd add a manual zoom Eng lens such as the black Canon XL 16X Manual lens (although you could stick to the 16X or 20X IS lens if budget remains tight).

Next, buy either a Canon or Nikon XL adapter to fit 35mm SLR lenses on to your XL DV camera body. You don’t need AF lenses (they will NOT function in AF mode anyway) so go for MF versions. I’d steer you towards a 300mm f/2.8 or fast big zoom. Second-hand Canon FD or Nikkor MF ED-IF fast-aperture lenses can be found at very good prices at the moment.

If you go for Nikkor lenses, then Les Bosher supplies them or will make one to fit other lens mounts:
http://www.lesbosher.co.uk/default.htm

Add one or two quality long shotgun (with narrow sound cone) mics such as Sennheiser or Audio Technica - I'd go for the AT range. Here is a link to their worldwide website:
http://www.audio-technica.com.sg/

And their shotguns:

http://www.audio-technica.com/cgi-bin/product_search/wired_mics/mics_by_type.pl?product_type=Microphones%3A+Shotgun

Add a few short and long 3-pin XLR to XLR cables and, if you go for the XL1s, then a XLR shoulder adapter.

For outdoor work you'll obviously need some wind mufflers on those long mics. There is a big price range difference, but I'd steer you towards low priced pro quality 'dead-cats' such as from Reinhardt Film & TV:

http://www.reinhardt-film.com/

That quality sound you’ll need to monitor with a set of headphones. Beyer AT100 is a good solid pair. I use the Philips SBC HP840.

You’ll want to keep all camera and tape transport sounds isolated from a mic for the times when you mount one or two on the actual camera. I’d go for the Sound Systems Isolator.

Then of course, you’ll need a very sturdy tripod. I’d steer you towards the Pro Manfrotto range. My choice is the Manfrotto 028 legs with the 116Mk2 or Mk3 Head or 501/510 tripod head and the Manfrotto 438 Levelling Head (for adjusting quickly for straight horizons). Manfrotto main site is here:

http://www.manfrotto.com/product/catlist.php3?sectionid=1&manufid=1


You’ll need some sort of control on the Pan & tilt head arm. The Canon ZR-1000 is OK, but I prefer the Manfrotto 522C, shown here:

http://www.manfrotto.com/product/itemlist.php3?manufid=1&sectionid=305

The huge adjustable Quick Release Plate that comes with Manfrotto 116 head is easily strong enough for the longest of telephoto lenses, but you might also want to use something to stabilise the actual XL body as well, such as the Ronsrail:

http://www.ronsrail.com/

A good quality rain-cover is a very worthwhile option so that you can continue filming in all weather. I prefer the Kata Raincover.

If you’re ever in good ‘ol blighty, you might consider a wildlife filming course using the Canon XL, such as with Wildeye:

http://wildeye.co.uk/canonxl.html

You’ll want a good bag to carry that lot in. I use both the Kata XL bag, and the LowePro Nature Trekker.

Remember, the most important item of all, is your lens…so look after it, and even sleep with it if you have to:

http://www.raysoda.com/Com/Photo/View.aspx?f=C&p=154389&c=450


I hope some of these pointers help in your choices.

Hi all,
I am new to this forum and I hope to make a comeback to this fascinating area after too many years I was out...)-;
I have great hopes to produce wildlife films professionally.
Obviously I need to start from scratch and need every good advice from pros.
What equipment do I need to get?

Cheers,
Ofer Levy
Sydney-Australia
-----------------------------------

When I first started doing video, with mostly wildlife in mind, I bought every kind of accessory, spending like a drunken sailor. I rarely if ever used half of the stuff and much of it wasn't ideally suited for my main equipment or purposes. The best advice is to at first buy only a camcorder and a few filters and whatever basic editing system you need. Pick up the rest as you go along, piece by piece. Later, you'll know more about what is good and what isn't and your money can be spent more efficiently. Never buy anything until you really need it for a specific production.

I understand that in Oz, you get socked with much higher prices for most equipment, than we pay in equivalent U.S. dollars. So, this advice may be even more pertinent there.

If you want to sell wildlife videos to the big networks, such as the BBC and PBS, they'll probably have to be in high-definition. But, would an investment in HD production gear be wise, to use for your re-entry into the field? Probably not, so I'd suggest you start with a good, but relatively inexpensive SD camcorder and polish up your techniques with it. You could choose one of the Sony single-CCD models and use it to find out how well the whole proposition was going to work out for you. Later, this camcorder could be handy as a backup or for rough shooting where you wouldn't want to risk an expensive one. Also, there's some doubt whether the currently available HDV camcorders are going to be good enough in a year or two, to compete with the improved models that will appear then. Those on the market now, are decidedly weak in limited light and often wildlife videos have to be done in dark areas.

Your choice of an excellent microphone system will be essential for making wildlife productions. Wait until you have learned what the very best one is for your purposes, before you buy this accessory, which can be expensive.
Did you know that Jocko, the ABC Kookaburra, is a type of kingfisher?

Yes, i think Tonys advice is good,

I have the XL1s and i do wildlife filming and as far as iam concerned with the XL2 is the best you can get for this type of work, and of course is good enough for broadcast, You can get a bit paranoid about formats if its interesting and shot well broadcasters will be interested.

I have just watched a DVD that one of my proffesional filmmaker friends has just completed and it looked awesome, and it was shot useing an old XL1, and he makes is living from filming and he is quite happy with SD video and now as i speak is looking in to the XL2.

As far as we are concerned all this hype about HDV is companys ramming it down your throat and of course the extra cost it incur's is just not viable at this moment in time.

I use the XL1s, but the XL2 would be better. The larger LCD and flip lense will make a big difference, along with 16:9. I find the 1.6X extender invaluable to bring shots in a little closer. I haven't managed to afford and EOS lense and adapter, but that would certainly have some applications (you said under $10 k). Here's my other field gear:

- portabrace rainslicker
- light tripod (would also like a heavier one)
- monopod
- splash bag (you probably won't need this)
- Sennheiser ES-100 wireless microphone
- Audio Technica shotgun microphone
- couple of batteries and a car charger
- UV and polorized filters
- Pelican case
- weatherproof backpack

I think that's about it. Have fun!

I think Tony's advice says it all, I am using an XL2 with a Canon FD 300mm (with Optex universal mount) lens. Les Bosher (UK) made up the adaptor mount and support plate and rods, and did a great job.

Results I have been getting are remarkable BUT a study tripod is a must, I am using a Satchler studio 7+7, which is mainly used with large 35mm Arriflex cameras, this tripod allows smooth pans following birds.

I don't think you can generalise to much as to which is the correct type of equipment to have. It is dependent on your subject. In the past I have used an Xl1 with converters and adaptors. At this time I am able to fulfil all my requirements with a Z1+ 1.6 converter. It is all dependent on the type of animal, bird etc that you are recording, likewise how close you can get. In another thread I indicated that I now tend to use hides more and allow the the subject to come to me. Wildlife filming is so broad from macro-distance -underwater.
To get the correct kit you need to decide on you subjects and purchase accordingly.
Also you must bear in mind any legal restrictions govening your subject, as this could all dictate your eqipment reqirements.

Regards

Mick

Yes, i think Tonys advice is good,

I have the XL1s and i do wildlife filming and as far as iam concerned with the XL2 is the best you can get for this type of work, and of course is good enough for broadcast, You can get a bit paranoid about formats if its interesting and shot well broadcasters will be interested.

I have just watched a DVD that one of my proffesional filmmaker friends has just completed and it looked awesome, and it was shot useing an old XL1, and he makes is living from filming and he is quite happy with SD video and now as i speak is looking in to the XL2.

As far as we are concerned all this hype about HDV is companys ramming it down your throat and of course the extra cost it incur's is just not viable at this moment in time.

Ian, I would have to disagree with you you about going HDV. I too have a friend who films a lot for the BBC,two have just been shown recently on the 10 minute slot on wednesdays 8.50pm - 9pm New Forest snakes and Red Deer.
He has been informed that for future video tape commissions ,at present he records in digi beta (he also films in 16mm) the reqirement will be for HD.
Therefore you will need to get your stock footage future proofed by moving to a minimum of HDV as soon as possible to sell to TV companies.

Regards

Mick.

PS Great looking wildlife section to your web site, I like it, well done.

Hi Mike

Must have been asleep for the last few days did not see your thread till today

Glad you liked my website, Yes HDV will come but i think it will take a few more years here in the UK, at this moment in time i think SD 16:9 will be more important and for price the Canon XL2 will do a fine job, interchangeable lens is a must and although i thought my FX1 to be a brilliant camera it just can't match the Canon in the Zoom department

My understanding is (also) that the big boys will soon require nature docs
to be shot in HD. As much as I like the XL2, I would pony up for
the HD1 and a good tripod such as the Vinten Vision 3 if you
are truly serious about your work.

In the past, the combination of XL1 (or XL2) and EOS adapter with
the Canon 100-400 mm lens gave wonderful results. I am really
hoping that the 100-400/EOS proves to have enough resolution to
work well with the HD1 as it does with the XL2.

For a microphone, personally I like the Schoeps MK41 with Cut 1
filter. I also like the Sennheisers for shotguns.

I am new to the booard and relitively new to the video world, so take this for what it is worth. I have currently been capturing outdoor footage the past 4 years. I started out with XL 1, and the "s" series both great camaras and I love to run them and I feel that the footage is incrediable that they laydown. But I was turned on the the sony PD 170, and I do not hear any ever really mention it here. So I was just wondering if there was something that i am missing out on.

Because I feel that it does a far supperior job in the low light conditions than the canon's do. The only down fall that I can see is that the lens is only a 12X and I know that can limit you. But, for me I am dealing with animals that are inside of 60yards.

Brandon Potthoff

As I said in an earlier thread its all dependent on what you film. In the past I have used an XL1 with various lens and extenders , but for the type of filming I do now I can get away with the Z1 with a 1.6 centuary extender. I have also in the past used a PD 150 with a 2x extender and achieved excellent footage. BUT and its a big BUT if you are after small animals birds etc or you can get permission to move in close to a subject, then you are best to arm yourself with a camera that can take a longer lens.
So to answer your question there is nothing wrong with PD 170 and its low light capabilities over the XL are good, for example I was unable to record leatherback turtles at night under the red torch light of the researchers (the only lighting you are allowed to use) but the PD 150 under the same conditions did produce some useable footage. So think of the long term when purchasing.

Regards

Mick

I would agree and say there is nothing wrong with the PD170, but for the shots i need in the field of roe deer and Foxes etc the XL series for the price are unbeatable.

Some of the footage Ive got over the last few years with the XL1, XL1s would not of been possible with the Sony, the interchangeable lens is invaluable, I tried the 170 and got some lovely shots of deer but they had to be close and remember that when you add a converter on to the lens there is a small drop in quality,

And as all you wildlife shooters know you can't always get close to your subject so I had no hesitation in up grading to the XL2

The170 is a fantastic camera make no mistake but for wildlife filming it just lacks in the optical zoom department for my likeing

Just my thoughts

hey, i would simply looooove to use the FX-1 for wildlife, but the measly zoom prevents it. so it's FX-1 for landscape work, XL2 for animals. the H1 would solve the riddle, but where is my BODY ONLY package?????

of course, as someone once pointed out, the VERY BEST camera is the one you have with you when the animal is actually around.....

hey, i would simply looooove to use the FX-1 for wildlife, but the measly zoom prevents it. so it's FX-1 for landscape work, XL2 for animals.

Well now, my VX2100 has the same 12X zoom and magnification power as the FX1 and I'm able to pull in critters just about as well as I need. I have three telex lenses, 1.4X, 1.7X and 2.2X. This gives me 26.4X magnification at the long end. By buying only the best add-ons, the image quality doesn't suffer. I've developed magician's hands for quick changes to avoid vignetting. In the dim evening light in which half of my monkey shots are taken, I wouldn't trade my VX for any Canon. Of course, the FX is a dog in dim light, but the issue here is about magnification power.

vx2100 probably is the ideal camcorder for eugene. here in bright sunny CO, i like the FX-1. you probably already know that teleconverters for the 58mm mount (on a vx2100) are much more common than the 72mm variety. it would be nice if the optics companies did something about a real set of universal 72mm teleconverters. it would make a whole lotta Z1 and FX-1 users happy....and some XL2 users, too, who could then use the canon 1.6x and a 72mm mount together. the FX-1's low light underperformance is overstated. it performs superbly in magic hour light.

vx2100 probably is the ideal camcorder for Eugene. here in bright sunny CO, i like the FX-1. you probably already know that teleconverters for the 58mm mount (on a vx2100) are much more common than the 72mm variety. it would be nice if the optics companies did something about a real set of universal 72mm teleconverters. it would make a whole lotta Z1 and FX-1 users happy....and some XL2 users, too, who could then use the canon 1.6x and a 72mm mount together. the FX-1's low light underperformance is overstated. it performs superbly in magic hour light.

So, you're saying that with no more than minimally good light, the FX1 is more of a fox than a dog? You probably know about the Century Precision Optics 1.6X telex, that has either a 75mm or 76mm mount. It will fit the FX1 and the XL1/XL2 and L1/L2/LX100 Canons as well as the DVX100 and Z1, with a step-down ring. It sells for a mere $895. Some Canon users put them on the end and also the 1.6X extender under the lenses, for as much as 51.2X total magnification. You could use this CPO telex on both your FX1 and XL2. If I had these cameras, I'd buy this telex for sure-----assuming that its optical quality measures up for HDV work.

You might want to look here: http://raynox.co.jp/english/video/hdrfx1/index.htm This page shows the Raynox high-definition add-on lenses that will work with the FX1 and Z1 and the other 72mm cameras. Their DCR-1540 PRO (1.54X) model has a 340 line per mm resolution at lens center. If you poke around on other sections of their website, you can see that these lenses were originally designed for use on professional still cameras. I have their DCR-2020 PRO lens, which has a 260 line per mm rating and it is very sharp. They say you can use both of these on the FX1/Z1 with step-down rings. They minimize the vignetting problem that exists, in a disclaimer on this page, but it's much worse than they say. On my VX2100, the 2020 vignettes at any point below 85% full zoom. However, for those extra-long shots, when you don't need to pull back on the zoom, it's a gem for the price. On a tripod with the FX1 and the 2020, you could enjoy that 26.2X power or get 18.48X with the 1540 model. I paid just $200. for my 2020 from a New York distributor, as I was the first person to buy one, 20 months ago. They might be more expensive now. This lens is also very useful on my largest digital still camera. It's very light for its size and sturdiness.

By the way, we not only have more oxygen and higher Winter survival rates than you do in bolder Boulder, but last Jan. and Feb. in Eugene, I had as good a suntan as I did in July. Not much skiing right out the backdoor, however.

2 teleconverters at $895 apiece, which are not specifically designed for a 72mm mount does not sound like much of a deal. you can get a nice EF adapter and a 100-400mm L series telephoto lens for less for an XL2. seems like a much better option.

as for the FX-1, i'd prefer to wait for something designed specifically for the mount. of course, there are ways to jerry-rig mounts for almost anything. i did this myself over in this thread (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=51686&highlight=z1+teleconverter) with a 58mm century optics 2x on the FX-1, but i just don't find those half-baked options appealing. vignetting, image softening, chromatic aberrations, on and on it goes.

so until a really satisfying solution appears, or until i find a spare 9 bills for an H1--or until the BODY ONLY option appears--i'm pretty happy with the tools i have. they're pretty great tools to have!

no doubt, the FX-1 is great for certain animals. i shot a nice lizard with it over on this thread: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=52904&highlight=fx-1+footage

and i plan to take it out for butterflies this spring, where it will no doubt outperform....

but if i had to shoot a mama bear and her cubs, gimme that 100-400 L series, hands down!

i lived in eugene for three years while i was in grad school, and i can't ever remember having a sun tan or anything remotely resembling it in january or february. but hey, that might have been a grad school thing, and not eugene thing at all!! lovely place, though, truly spectacular, but only if you don't mind a moldy neck.

I lived in Eugene for 3 years when I was in grad school, and i can't ever remember having a sun tan or anything remotely resembling it in january or february. but hey, that might have been a grad school thing, and not eugene thing at all!! lovely place, though, truly spectacular, but only if you don't mind a moldy neck.

Actually, last Winter was unusual, as we were having a drought. Seasonal Affective Disorder (S.A.D.) is more common here during the off-season, than suntans. It's a good idea to apply a little anti-mold spray, after you shower. If you spent 3 years here, we'd probably recognize each other, as I've been all over that campus, since I was 4 years old. I've likely taken more video footage of the university and its events than anyone. I'm going to shoot a short piece on the wildlife of the campus, this Spring. With the river and the undeveloped parklands, this subject matter is almost unlimited. I assume you've been over to the old Condon School and seen as many as 25,000 Vaux's Swifts go down the big chimney. I just used a shot I got, showing a Sharp-shinned Hawk standing on the rim and doing a one-foot grab of one, as they came past. I was an Adaptive P.E. instructor there for several years and a career student before that.

Right now, I'm watching a National Geographic show on PBS, featuring Ken Balcom, a researcher of Killer Whales. He's being shown using a VX2100 with a Sony 1.7X telextender. He's shooting off a tripod from a high point of land, a long ways from his subjects, out at sea.

Hi from England.

I have a similar history, though I guess I am older than you. We, (Cicada) got a second in 1988, or was it 1987, anyway, I was specialist program advisor and occasional cameraman on a C4 series. The bug bit me too, but fifteen years of advertising and stills studio photography kept me away from my passion, which of course is wildlife.

So, last year I set up using an XL2 with adapters and long lenses, all brand new with an editing package on a Mac using FCP. I had some advice, but came down upon the XL2 configuration as the most practical and qualitative for the money.

The switch to video from film is interesting to say the least. There are things that are quite disconcerting, but you have to get your head around the fact that you are not shooting the physical medium of film. I am still coming to terms with some of the differences - for instance, wasting really valuable subject time producing very sharp, but seriously moired images - apparently due to a wrong combination of frame rate 25p and aperture - see 'Canon Fires a Broadside', www.showreel.org/memberarea/article.php 23. The viewfinder has also come in for some stick, as has the standard lens - all of which is understandable to me, but the shortcomings don't represent a major drawback, at least not to start with. I quess 'super eight' had a similar depth of field to the 1/3 inch chips on the XL2, personally, after using stills medium format cameras, I couldn't wait to have the problem of getting everything in focus. However, the depth of field using a 400mm lens on an XL2 adapter = 2800mm on 35mm, is wonderful in isolating a subject. When I shot film I was using a 16mm Eclaire, which had a decent reflex finder, but with an aerial image. We mostly used 50mm Micro Nikkors close up - so not so much of a problem. On the XL2 I use a 100mm SLR Canon macro, (which is too long really), but Canon also do a genuine SLR macro lens for 1-1 and greater, which I would think better than any of the normal 35mm camera derived macro's. All these adapted SLR lenses have to be used carefully and I guess trial and error will inform you, as it has me, about the right apertures you need to use in combination with shutter speed adjustments. As I said earlier, I try to think what the camera is doing electronically when processing the physical image I am shooting - I almost always use manual settings and I keep the gain control off unless absolutely necessary. Watch out for the autofocus lens as well, make sure it's either on when you want it on, or off when you want it off. Sounds strange, but it can be annoying to lose focus when the subject moves in the frame. Pans have to be careful and well controlled, I use the Canon 'wired' control on the pan handle of my Vinten tripod. It works well, but the Canon accessory will not fit a fat pan handle straight from the box and has to be modified. The unwired remote control which Canon include is useful if you are working on a really remote subject, such as a bird's nest, It saves you touching the rig and therefore disturbing the setup.

Anyway, just a few reflections - I hope it all goes well cobber.

Rod Compton

UK

p.s look at the CANON XLH1

Rod - have you read the latest article on the H1 in Showreel? - Positive or negative vibes in the report?

Tony

Where can I find Newsreel is it on this site?

Rod

Sorry Rod...I meant to say the last edition of "Showreel magazine"!

Hi Tony

Thanks for that, I will try and find Newsreel on Sunday.

You seemed hesitant about HDV. I must admit to being very tempted to buy the XLH1, since it seems so compatible with what I already use, and being an ex stills man, image quality dominates my outlook. I think though that all the talk I have heard about compression bandwidth ratios on some of the other forums makes me slightly more cautious than I was when I bought the XL2, (which I admit was something of a leap of faith). At that time when I spoke to my pals about uncompressed footage they looked at me very strangely indeed as if it was not an issue. Now hearing what I have from some of the other forums, it obviously is an issue, but one that portable field equipment of the type we are talking about simply can't solve.

Incidentally, this evening QVC were demonstrating exactly the moire effect I was complaining about earlier. It is an inconsistent jagged effect on the moving edge of highlight areas. I wonder whether the program was live or recorded and had been broadcast because a retake was too expensive to run. Any ideas - I might float it on the tech forum to see if anyone else saw it.

Rod

Steve,

thank you for your link to Raynox, the zoom in on the ferris wheel looked sharp. I wonder how sharp it would have been if the wheel had been turning?

Any more to say about your VX2100 and wildlife in motion/action, please? and as I can't seem to find it, being a bit thick, I'd be glad to get a link to its specifications etc.

Steve,

thank you for your link to Raynox, the zoom in on the ferris wheel looked sharp. I wonder how sharp it would have been if the wheel had been turning?

Any more to say about your VX2100 and wildlife in motion/action, please? and as I can't seem to find it, being a bit thick, I'd be glad to get a link to its specifications etc.

Brendan, I've been out in wildlife areas the last two afternoons with my VX2100 and I've been getting the usual good results, especially when it gets near dark. On a foggy day Monday, I set my shutter at 1/500th and flying birds came through without much flickering in their wing action. Yesterday, in bright sun, I set it to 1/750th and switched on the ND1 filter for even better bird action. When it was right at official sunset, I was still catching usable footage, although at normal shutter and no ND filter, by this time.
Some Trumpeter Swans have been reported for the first time ever just west of here and tommorrow I hope to find them with this camcorder. My 1.7X and 2.2X telextenders will come in handy for this.

As usual, I clicked off a number of still shots onto the Memory Stick. These are very good for sending on the Internet and the VX2100 produces the best-looking 640 X 480 stills I've seen. I can capture very sharp and unblurred stills from its videotape, even though it's from interlaced footage, sometimes at normal shutter. I can't explain why it's able to do this so much better than any other camcorder I've had. All my previous models would produce recordings that only rarely would allow for a sharp still capture of a flying bird.

Since Sony isn't making or directly selling the VX2100 any longer, I assume they don't have it listed on their website. If you go to the websites of some of the online dealers, they may still have it for sale and show its specs. It isn't much different from the PD170, which is still sold by Sony. The PD170 has XLR audio inputs, does both DV and DVCam recording and has a few extra control features, which set it apart from the VX2100. There's probably some used VX2100s out there for sale, if you want to take a chance on one that way. If I needed one right now, I'd probably spend a bit extra for a new PD170, rather than buy a used VX2100. It's a shame that it's on the way out, as there's nothing to replace it, that has anything close to its low-light capabilities, which for me are very important. I hope that in a few years, they're producing HD camcorders that can pull in wildlife shots that are as good near dark, but I wonder if this will ever be possible.

Thank you Steve for that update on VX2100.

The specs for the PD170 make no mention of interchangeable lens so I'm wondering how useful you found the telextenders on the VX2100 and how much you'd miss them on a PD170? Or can telextenders be used without interchangeable lens facility?

Thank you Steve for that update on VX2100.

The specs for the PD170 make no mention of interchangeable lens so I'm wondering how useful you found the telextenders on the VX2100 and how much you'd miss them on a PD170? Or can telextenders be used without interchangeable lens facility?

Brendan, the two models have the same 12X, permanently-attached lens. You're stuck with this basic lens, but you can make the best of things with some good attachments. They have a 58mm outer filter thread. The exact same attachments can be used on both. I wouldn't go anywhere without my Sony 1.7X telextender and I use it most of the time. On certain occasions, I go with only the basic lens, when I need to zoom back for a wide shot. Even less frequently, I put on the Raynox 2.2X telex, for an extra-long shot. They both cause vignetting, if you pull back to wider angles, but this isn't a problem if you remember where those points are. The 1.7X starts vignetting at about 45% of full zoom and the 2.2X vignettes at any point below 85% full zoom. I use both these telexes effectively on my largest digital still camera.

The VX2100 and the PD170 can use both thread-mounted and bayonet-mounted lens accessories. The excellent lens hood that comes with them is bayonet-mounted. Some accessories can be thread mounted, while the bayonet-mounted hood is in place. The Sony 1.7X telex can be ordered with either type of mount. I chose the thread-mounted version, as this makes it usable on my other cameras. One advantage of the bayonet-mounted version, is that it can be quickly removed. The threaded model takes about twice as many turns to remove as most such telexes and this can be annoying.

I also have a solid .5X, 58mm wide-angle lens, with the brand name Telesor. It doesn't vignette at any point in the zoom range of any camera on which I've used it. It also does not cause any distortion, even at the outer margins.
I know little about this WA lens, except that it was made in Japan and the "Telesor" name is apparently one of several brand names used by a large company. I haven't been able to find any more of them or more than a few deadend references to that brand name. I've had it for 17 years and the only way anyone will get it from me, is to pry it from my cold, stiff fingers. It's about the best accessory I've ever had.

I usually wear a sturdy nylon parka that has 4 deep pockets and am always popping lenses and filters in and out of them. In warm weather, I use a large waist pack for the same purpose. It has multiple pockets and I wear it turned to the front. One pocket for each lens accessory, to avoid grinding them together. If the weather and wind in your part of Ireland is like my family's home on the Isle of Lewis, you could use such a parka. The old folks say that the cold North Wind blew so hard and steady there, that one day when the wind unexpectedly stopped for awhile, everyone fell down. Good Luck.

At last I understand that telextenders are front-mounted if there's a suitable thread on my XM2 (GL2 to you) Steve, thank you. Vignetting is also clearer to me now. What I don't understand is How much loss of picture occurs? I copied the description below from www.centuryoptics.com and while the term "porthole effect" makes good sense it doesn't tell me at what zoom the picture is reduced by, say, 50%. And if as they say below a 2x "provides doubling of the indicated focal length", what would 1x achieve? Until I know this there's not much point in getting a 2x to find that it only gives a clean image up to 1x. Please tell me would a 1x actually increase the 20X of my XM2 to 40x or 30x? (58mm is my current filter diameter).

Of course as you say a .5x would be even safer (assuming it zooms me towards 30x) until I can learn to stop my pulse beating for that moment when the vulture hovers to blow his nose right in front of me. Would you also comment on loss of sharpness or image softening caused by telextenders, please?

Quote from Century Optics <<
"The 2X Tele-Converter is a front-mounting accessory that provides greater telephoto reach. Available in popular bayonet and 58mm screw mount, the 2X Tele-Converter instantly shifts the focal length range in the telephoto direction.

Unlike typical rear-mounted telephoto extenders, the Century Tele Converter provides doubling of the indicated focal length (through the higher end of the zoom range) without light loss, along with front-mounting convenience.

Note: Vignetting will occur from mid zoom range to wide angle producing a porthole effect which is common with all tele-converters." >>

Brendan, I may have made a mistake in saying that the Sony 1.7X telex can be bought with either a thread or bayonet-mount. I believe it's the Century 2X, with a 58mm thread, that is the one also available with a bayonet mount.
This bayonet mount on the Century model, was made mainly with the Canon GL1/GL2 and XM1/XM2 in mind. However, some people have reported they didn't get perfect clarity at some points in the zoom range, with this Century lens. I know nothing firsthand about its performance.

Generally, I've gotten good clarity all through the zoom ranges with the telexes I've described. A 2X telex will double the focal length and your XM2
would have its magnification doubled with it, although the zoom range stays the same at 20X, going from 2X at the bottom to 40X.

Not all telextenders fit on the outer end of a lens. Some removable pro lenses have a built-in, switchable extender at the base. The Canon LX and XL series of camcorders can use extender lenses that mount under the bases of their main removable lenses.

The tunnel effect of vignetting will make any images taken in the part of the zoom range that shows them, to be of little use. Sometimes, a camcorder will seem not to be vignetting, but later, on certain monitors, dark corners can appear. This is due to more of the outer safety margin being shown on some monitors than others. I try to keep my zoom a bit outside the vignetting range when I use a telex, to avoid this. Unless you're near a large city, it's unlikely you could find a Century 2X extender for sale locally, so you wouldn't be able to try one before you bought it. I've told you what to expect from a Sony VX2100/PD170 in regards to vignetting with the telexes I previously mentioned. I am guessing that the Century 2X would cause a VX2100 to vignette around the 50% zoom point or it could start even farther out in the range. You could go to the GL1/GL2 Son of Watchdog forum on this group and probably find someone who could give you specifics about how your XM2 would perform with a telex. I hope that someone who has the Century 2X will chime in and give us review of it, regarding its use on either the Sony or Canon cameras.

Duplicate message deleted

I use the XL1s, but the XL2 would be better. The larger LCD and flip lense will make a big difference, along with 16:9. I find the 1.6X extender invaluable to bring shots in a little closer. I haven't managed to afford and EOS lense and adapter, but that would certainly have some applications (you said under $10 k). ................... !

Phil

Please tell me more about your 1.6X extender. I don't mean more high tech; I really want to know simple facts like: (a) its full name (b) does it thread on or is it bayonet or both (c) do you use a filter behind or infront of it (d) what are you doing with it when you're bringing "shots in a little closer" ... please take time to describe this to me e.g. are you always using a tripod in such a situation (e) what's its diameter [would it thread onto my 58mm XM2] (f) do you leave it on your lens all or most of the time (g) is the 1.6X an example of using more glass in front of your lens and thereby softening your images (I'm not certain what this means but I've read it in other posts and it seems to be something I would rather avoid). And what EOS lens and adapter would you go for?

Thank you Steve for all that clarification.

okay, brendan, here i am chasing you around with more info!

i posted footage of my GL2 with and without the century optics 2x extender. you can find the link to the link here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=51442&highlight=2x+century+optics

not many folks had much to contribute to the conversation in the link, but 60 or so people have downloaded the footage, so i think it contributed something.

the 2x is a nice hunk o' glass! and you can pick them up used pretty inexpensively....unlike the breath-taking almost-$900 for a 1.6x for an FX-1. still reeling from the sticker shock of that one.

while you're at it, brendan, you might want to check out this link as well:

http://ia300133.us.archive.org/3/items/Century_Optics_2x_test_for_chromatic_aberration/CenturyOptics2xaberration.mp4

at full zoom, the 2x does show some serious chromatic aberration (purple fringing....), but on the other hand, full zoom is where you will primarily use it...classic rockandahardplace....

this won't show up in every instance, which is why it is not in the climbing footage, but does occur in fine detail circumstances (like the trees, the bird feathers, etc.).

Thank you for the links, Meryem

Were you much more than 400 yards from the climber?

The magpie detail is disappointing, even if you were 100 yards away?
The light or contrast seems to have been slightly washed out as well. What caused that?

I am still amazed to see how much detail Chris Hurd picked up (in his FoV Comparisons) with his XL2 + 70-300mm lens ... I realize they were stills and stationary but he must have been more than 200 yards away from the tractor.

i was on the other side of a canyon from the climber, so pretty far away....i'm guessing about 300 yards?

as for the other test, it was shot at dawn (white sky), and i was testing at least one other camera at the same time, so i was kind of jumping around and there was a band of happy joggers running back, then forth through my two-camera set-up, freaking me out... (i thought i was going to be out there all alone with me and my cameras, but hey, this is boulder!), so i was sort of attending to multiple issues....

on this day, i was doing some comparison testing between GL2 with a teleconverter and XL2 with a long lens, to see how much reach was gained by the 70-200mm long lens v. the teleconverter. no contest. the long lens had some CA too, but it wasn't as pronounced. i did tweak the footage to fix the blown-out highlights, but these are just the test fottages, which i tend to run on out-of-the box auto, because the condition is easy to re-create, the problem easiest to observe....so some of it is fixable, but you want to know up front what it is that needs fixing......

steven macdonald and i had some prior discussion about long lens v. teleconverters, and i have both. there is really no contest, being able to stand eyeball-to-eyeball with a hawk using a long lens versus getting a long or medium shot with a teleconverter. just my opinion, of course.

I'm at a loss Meryem. Each time you wrote "no contest" I failed to identify the winner.

i'm just giving you my opinion only. i don't have side-by-side footage to post of that morning shoot because the testing was for myself, just me looking through lenses trying to ascertain the difference in reach between two different camera set-ups, and not necessarily pressing the record button. i only posted that bit of GL2 footage because i was surprised at the level of CA when i reviewed it, and i was still trying to understand the uses/limits of the 2x, which was brand new...

the climbing footage was on a different day entirely, for a different purpose, to test for vignetting.

if you find this stuff is not helpful, feel free to disregard it. i'm not intending to add to the confusion!

Phil

Please tell me more about your 1.6X extender. I don't mean more high tech; I really want to know simple facts like: (a) its full name (b) does it thread on or is it bayonet or both (c) do you use a filter behind or infront of it (d) what are you doing with it when you're bringing "shots in a little closer" ... please take time to describe this to me e.g. are you always using a tripod in such a situation (e) what's its diameter [would it thread onto my 58mm XM2] (f) do you leave it on your lens all or most of the time (g) is the 1.6X an example of using more glass in front of your lens and thereby softening your images (I'm not certain what this means but I've read it in other posts and it seems to be something I would rather avoid). And what EOS lens and adapter would you go for?

Hi Brendan - sorry I took so long to get back to you. My extender will not work for you. It is an extender which goes between the lense and and camcorder body on my XL1s. It's made by Canon (I think it's called simply an "XL 1.6X").

I do some video of larger subjects such as deer etc., but I do a great deal of bird videography. What I actually meant by bringing in shots closer is filling the viewfinder or screen with the subject. I believe in filling the screen as much as possible when shooting wildlife . I might go up to 300mm if I purchased an EOS zoom lense, though I'm sure 210mm would be plenty. I believe the focal length is 7.2X what it would be if I put the same lense on an SLR. Then I'd have to lug around a heavy tripod to keep the footage steady.

Very helpful Phil, thank you.
I'm glad to get those facts before I disappear for a week.

Hi Brendan

Go to this link http://www.xyris.tv/%20%20%20pages/diary.htm and look at the still of the bird. Imagine this area cropped right into the bird and that's exactly what I got on film using an XL2 with an EF adapter.

Rod C

Go to this link http://www.xyris.tv/%20%20%20pages/diary.htm and look at the still of the bird. Imagine this area cropped right into the bird and that's exactly what I got on film using an XL2 with an EF adapter.

Rod C

Thanks for the link Rodney. 3 questions please.

Did you superimpose (e.g import using Photoshop) a still of the owl on to a still of the trellis?
About how far were you from the bird?
Did you use a tripod or was your XL2 handheld?

Hi Brendan

No of course I didn't superimpose the owl, but it's an interesting question. That sort of separation is due to the 700 mm lens effect =(400x1.6), plus a halo of back lighting.

Interestingly I am an expert at superimposition, or comping as we used to call it and I have been working on Photoshop since version 3. Before that I did transparency comping and dye transfer printing, from which we get the term 'unsharp mask'. Have you ever wondered why an unsharp mask tool increases sharpness? It's because, in traditional comping - with film overlays, there was a thick masking film material that was exposed soft, and overlayed with the film separations to reverse tone - allowing detail to be printed in when the final comp or transparency dupe was exposed. It used to take a whole day to do one dye transfer print, but I remember that Benson and Hedges paid £30000 for one multi-part image; the most I ever got was £3000 for one comp image. Incidentally, Tecnicolor, which was the standard for Movie Film colour, was based on Dye Transfer or the Imbition process back in the 1940's-50's. The Cameras held three spools of black and white negative stock which was exposed simultaneously through beam splitters and separation filters then recombined as a dyed up colour film positive- all in register. We use the same concept in our modern three chip video cameras, but the recombination is done electronically - hence the superb colour quality.

The camera was tripod mounted - I have been a professional for thirty years and have about six good tripods for all eventualities. If you are selling your work, it has to be either deliberately sharp or deliberately fuzzy, sometimes both, but rarely neither of these options.

I have hand held that 135-400 lens though and got sharp results, but usually in bright light and with an increased ASA/ISO speed. When I started I would not have given you tuppence for a long or zoom lens - you guys don't know how lucky you are.

Rod C

The camera was tripod mounted - I have been a professional for thirty years and have about six good tripods for all eventualities. If you are selling your work, it has to be either deliberately sharp or deliberately fuzzy, sometimes both, but rarely neither of these options.

I have hand held that 135-400 lens though and got sharp results, but usually in bright light and with an increased ASA/ISO speed. When I started I would not have given you tuppence for a long or zoom lens - you guys don't know how lucky you are.

Rod C

Good points Rodney, thank you.

I'll be looking for help in due course setting up the odd link to the odd still or video snippet. No hurry at all, but the sooner I have some basic info the better e.g. Do I have to have a website to provide a link? If so what's the simplest way to set up a website, without commercial strings attached? There may well be a thread on this subject, but where is it?

John Hewat asked the following question on the DV Challenge thread ...

<<< How to find webspace to host the video - is it easy?

Hello,

If and when I complete the video I will need to find some webspace to host it but haven't a clue how to go about findind it.

Is it easy? Costly? >>>

The answers offered to that question by several experienced members were most helpful to me and I'm sure others too. Search for that thread if you're hunting for answers like I was ...

I just went through this process and bought the following. Total comes to $8474. This is an HDV set-up, since, as folks have noted, networks want HD content.
JVC GY-HD100A
JVC Tripod Plate
Anton Bauer Gold mount for JVC camera
Anotn Bauer Dionic90 Battery
Anton Bauer Titan Twin charger
Anton Bauer Ultralight
PortaBrace CTC-3 camera case
PortaBrace RS-HD100 Rain Slicker
Sachtler DV 4 II/2 Tripod System
Anotn Bauer Multi Power Tap

Audio I would rent until you find out what works best for your situations.
The GY-HD100A captures stunning pictures in HDV and kicks Bootie in DV.
Have Fun and two things to remember....1 By the time you purchase the EQ it will already be obsolete. 2 NAB is right around the corner so look for b-stock equipment to start showing up in May.