Aaron,
I don't know of a case with foam designed specifically for the GL2, but I suspect that you'll be able to craft your own pretty easily with a Pelican or Sorm case and pick-and-pluck foam.

The issues with the Canon hard case are, in my opinion, three-fold. First, it carries a premium price tag with little or no discounting. Second, its true sturdiness and design quality is really not commensurate with its premium price. Third, its shiny gaudiness and "Canon" label plate scream "Steal me! I'm bound to contain something of value!", like a 3-piece set of Louis Vuitton luggage.

Thank you again.

I agree with your observation re: the "steal me" factor.

The Pick-n-pluck foam comes from Pelican. Anyone else?

Which companies make the best bang for buck wide angles lenses???

Also, how important are additional filters???

Canon and Century are the two leaders in wide angle adapters for the GL1/GL2.

Re: filters, it depends on what problem you're trying to solve.

I use a BW Neutral Filter 102 (2 stops) in highlight. Small apertures above f5.6 tends to unsharp the image.

At about $240, the Century Optics .55x Reversible is a no brainer for any shooter using a camera with a 58mm screw-on thread mount.
http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/dv/3/55x_reversible_waa/#

Bear in mind that this is not a full zoom through wide-angle adaptor, meaning it will go out of focus once you zoom in past a certain point. This is no biggie though, as you would not want to always keep such a wide angle adaptor attached 24/7.

If you need a full zoom through, you will not get as pronounced of a wide angle effect. That's just the way it is in lens design. The Canon Wd-58 with the Tulip-shaped Sunshade (no vignetting at full wide) is a very good quality piece of glass and more than adequate for most handycam shooters. If you want ultimate quality and performance you will have to pay about double the cost. Century Optics offers some superb glass for the money.
http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/dv/1/1.htm

- don

I STRONGLY recommend the Century 0.65x bayonet mount zoom through lens, along with the associated FA-100 (I think that is the number) lens hood/shade.

Very good optical quality (important for anything put in front of a Canon L-series lens), and the zoom-though ability is very convenient.

Both the lens and lens hood are expensive, but well worth it! I bought mine from B&H.

Adam Wilt did a review of this lens (with a bayonet mount for a Sony PD-150) for DV Magazine. I think it is available at the DV magazine website.

Richard George
Lakewood / Denver
Beautiful Colorado

If using a wide angle lens, is it okay to use a soft effects filter under it? I know your supposed to remove the UV filter if using wide angle.
TIA,
Bob

Try it, and then be sure to view on a monitor that shows the entire frame. I've found that putting a filter between my lens and wide adaptor will cause vignetting in the corners since it increases the space between them. You mileage may vary ;-)

I have had my B+W F-Pro Haze Filter on with my WD58 and had no vignetting. It is usually different with different lenses.

You might also want to consider whether you trust a heavy wide angle lens screwed into a relatively flimsy filter....

Without having any plans to transfer footage to film, I am still very interested in producing footage with the “film” look. I have purchased a Canon wide angle adaptor, and I would like to know what effect it will have on creating depth of field (DOF). The follow-up question that I have is what effect placing a filter (Tiffen Soft/FX 3) in between my camera and adapter will have on the depth of field?

I have read every thread I could find on both subjects (DOF and filter use with wide angle adapter), and I would like to know more. Please feel free to comment on this filter if you have an opinion, as I have not purchased it yet.

Brad

Please note that not only have I read every thread I could find on DOF, but I have been thoroughly confused by many. If you are kind enough to respond to this thread, would you please clarify if using terms like "increased" or "greater" depth of field. I'm pretty comfortable with terms like "shallow", but many of the existing threads contained terms that added to my confusion (like the concept of turning up the air conditioner – what does that mean?).

The depth of field with a wide angle adapter gets really really deep. If you want a soft focus in the background do not install the WA adapter. The Tiffen filter won't make it better.

In general with 1/4" ccds it is really hard to get anything but very deep DOFs. A WA adapter will only make it worse.

Brad,
Since you have read so many of our lengthy, deep and (as you noted) often bewildering DOF threads and debates, I hereby confer you with the honorary degree of "Bachelor of DOF". You are now granted all rights and priveleges commensurate with this title. Congratulations.<g>

Hokay, increased depth of field refers to a deepening of the focus range, like a thickening of an imaginary ring around the camera. Conversely, a decreased depth of field thins that metaphorical ring and reduces the range of crisp focus around the camera.

Well, the only way to achieve DOF on a camera like that, is to shoot with an open iris, like f2.8 or lower. You have to have use quite a lot of lights indoors, more than suggested for video, and you probably even have to use an ND filter to prevent the highlights from blowing out, it's really all about lighting. No lights, no DOF, unless you are outdoors and the sun is blazing.

My new "Bachelor of DOF" feels good, but I still am left somewhat needy. I guess what I wanted to know is the most basic and fundamental tricks in creating a shallow DOF without having to go to NY for a digital video 3-day conference. The threads, while more informative than all 37 of my remaining brain cells had ever hoped, didn't clearly lay out the path the average GL2 owner might follow to remarkable shallow DOF footage.

While I am an engineer, I am an environmental engineer. Filling holes with trash is a far cry from understanding prismatic glass aberrations and the like. My people just need it straight and simple.

Thanks for the encouragement, the opportunity to vent, and your continued help.

Brad,
When the dust settled from all of the DOF threads of yore one fact remained: you can't get truly shallow, film-camera-like DOF from such small CCD (i.e. aperture) cameras by simple standard lens measures. It's even hard to accomplish on a 2/3" CCD camera. As Rick pointed out earlier, wide-angle lenses and adapters actually make the problem worse by deepening the apparent DOF. A 3-day conference won't help. You can prove this very quickly for yourself by setting your speed to, say, 1/60 opening your iris all the way (use the ND if needed) and judging for yourself. Try different zoom settings/distances to subject. That's as good as it gets.

You can try a practical effect such as "silking" the background to fake a shallow DOF. (If you had an XL1s with a manual lens you could try the macro setting trick, depending on the primary subject's size and location.)

Hiyah Brad! - Or should I say Prof. B. Higerd B.DoF. !

Maybe get the best you can and do your Film look in Post Prod? - After all if it aint in the can you aint gonna get to do anything. Yes?

Grazie - Sorry Chris, just can't kick my nickname habit - call it even more individuality.

Brad,

Keep in mind that depth of field has a lot to do with taste and fashion. Shallow DOF is popular today and is often overdone. Too often, at least to my taste, the camera wanders around a room with one narrow spot in focus and everything else a blur. Nothing approaching reality (unless you need to visit the optometrist.)

Orson Wells worked really hard to achieve deep depths of field in Citizen Caine. It was a break through. It has fallen out of fashion these days but that is the nature of taste and fashion.

A GL2 will not ever get really shallow depths of field because of its chip size. The one really fun, if overdone, DOF trick, rack focus is close to impossible to achieve because of the servo focus ring.

Personally, I think the best bet is to forget the "film" look and concentrate on shooting really good, compelling footage that effectively tells the story you want told. That is what people remember, not DOF or whether it looked like film.

Rick, stepping down off my soapbox now

Rick - Ditto - Big Time!

Grazie

I just wanted to provide this link again to a depth of field chart. Maybe if you see it in print, Brad, your keen engineering mind will accept what your filmmaker's heart wants to ignore:
http://www.panavision.co.nz/kbase/optics/calcFOVform.asp

Great chart, Wayne! Thanks.

(Whenever I have actually tried to calculate DOF I always end up falling into the circle of confusion myself.)

The whole DOF came by accident during an interview shoot on a local university campus. The sun was going down, and I was forced to open the iris all the way. It wasn't until I went to edit the footage sometime later that DOF first sparked and obsessive reaction. I liked it then, and I like it now. However, I do agree with Rick about the possibilities of overdoing it. The "Images" from Michael Pappas on the GL2 Watchdog website are still some of my favorites, and I really like the DOF of some of these images.

Thank you all again for you input. This site has become my favorite forum because of folks like you.

Brad

"Here's Lookin' at you kid!"

One technique that can be used to produce "narrow" or "shallow" DOF is to film your subject with a telephoto lens or in the case of the GL2 increase your distance to your subject and zoom in. The result will be a very shallow DOF. Another benefit will be that filming/photographing people in telephoto mode produces a very flattering image of the human face as a result of the lens ability to compress or flatten the field of view. By contrast wide angle filming exagerates facial features (read nose look bigger).

Hi Val and Welcome to DV Info. Thanks for posting your thoughts on DOF and the compression abilities of telephoto lenses. However, you may want to take a look at the Ultimate DOF thread (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3926) for a more complete look at all of the factors and how they interact.

Jeff,
Thanks, for the welcome and the link to the ultimate DOF thread(still digesting the info). Fascinating to see people fiercely disagree about a subject but still maintain a cordial attitude.

Back to DOF. I am planning to do a side by side comparison of DOF with my GL2 and my Nikon F3 with a 300 mm telephoto lens. One difficulty will to accurately simmulate the equivalent zoom with the GL2...any thoughts?.

I've got several posts on that in the archives. Use the search function and search >chip size< and my name. It should turn up what your looking for. The factor is basically 9.x for the small chip. Multiply the focal length of the GL2 by 9.X to determine the approximate 35mm equivalent.

Ahh, the search for the "Holy Grail" for shallow depth of field with small chip cameras continues.

Val, if you will familiarize yourself with the Depth of Field guide from Panavision, you will get a lot of the answers to your questions.
http://www.panavision.co.nz/kbase/optics/calcFOVform.asp
For example, using your 35mm still camera with a 300mm lens at twenty feet at f/2.8, we calculate an effective depth of field of just over two inches. Very nice shallow depth of field.

Convert the 300mm lens to the one-quarter inch chip GL2 camera, by dividing 300 by 9.2, we end up with a 32mm lens on your GL2. Calculatin that on the guide, at twenty feet at f/2.8, we have a depth of field of almost five and one half feet! And remember; the focus gradually softens, rather than the more abrupt fall off you will get with the 35mm still camera format.

What you are saying is basically correct, Val; long lens equals shallow depth of field, but the narrow depth of field is nowhere near as dramatic on small chip cameras as on 35mm formats. It simply is not possible for the aspiring filmmaker to get the same shallow depth of field shots that we see in motion pictures. And with a wide angle lens that the original poster asked about, it is absolutely out of the question. The only "trick" that could be used is with a camera that has macro lens capability, but that is a different issue.

Jeff, Wayne,
Thanks for the links and comments. The information is overhelmingly convincing that shallow DOF is a near impossibility with a 1/4 chip. It is a real disappointment because I've widely used shallow DOF in my photography and wanted to widely(or narrowly) use it in filming with my GL2.

But all is not lost, as I've read numerous comments on this board, the use of aperture and ND's and even polarizing filters combined with other techniques may yield an acceptable level of shallow DOF.

The trick for shallow DOF is to always shot at the widest aperture (smallest numerical F number, F1.6, F2.0, or F2.8). This doesn't guarantee the results will be what you hope for. But rather, the shallowest given your choice of medium and equipment. Longer focal length lenses (telephoto) will have shallower DOF than shorter focal length lenses (wide angle). The further you are from your subject the larger the DOF, closer to subject the shallower the DOF.

Don't get caught in the trick of moving further away and zooming in. The DOF will stay the same.

Given the limits of our medium (small format video) the following will give you the shallowest or least amount of DOF.

1. Use the longest (largest) focal length lens.

2. Use largest lens opening (smallest numerical F number).

3. Get as close to your subject as possible.

Food for additional thought, see my post here (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9789).

Rob writes:

"But all is not lost, as I've read numerous comments on this board, the use of aperture and ND's and even polarizing filters combined with other techniques may yield an acceptable level of shallow DOF."

Of course I don't know what you consider "acceptable," but have you seen any pictures? Your camera will shoot at f/1.6 (I believe) at the wide end. As you increase the focal length, that f/stop will change to eventually f/2.9. You can add all the ND's and pola filters you want, you still can only shoot at the available maximum stop for the focal length. The only way that you can gobble up more light and narrow the depth of field, is to shoot at a higher shutter speed, and accept the motion effects this high rate will cause, which are unacceptable to almost everyone for normal shooting situations.

I am not trying to pick on you, Rob, but you are making it sound like there is some magic workaround for this limitation, and there really is not.

Wayne,
I didn't mean to imply there was a magic workaround. I was merely indicating that by using max aperture, ND filters and other techniques like Jeff and others suggested, one could achieve certain reduction of DOF and at this point ANY reduction of DOF would be acceptable given the limitations of the medium.

Hi Guys
We had a terrable time trying to get a narrow depth of field on our canon g2(still camera)and our xm2. We were useing it for stopmotion animation purposes. As the g2 has a very lame 3x zoom lens everything was wide angle looking and all in sickening focus.
So we did lots of experimenting to try amd combat this. One way was to stick a magnifying glass in front of the lens making a macro lens which creates epic depth of field but only when you are 1 ft away from your subject. usable for some animation purposes but not something viable for live action shooting. It works with our xm2 aswell. But the best results we got were useing a homemade mini35 adaptor(same principles as the ps technik adaptor for the xl1-pd150) This consited of a 35mm stills lens mounted on a box which has a spinning ground glass about an inch from the back of the lens. This creates an epicly shallow depth of field on the surface of the ground glass with the 35mm lens cranked openf1.7. The only problem now is that the image created was upside down. But because we were useing out little g2 for the shooting of this image we just flipped the camera on the back of the box upsideown. Next problem was the g2 couldent focus on the ground glass as the rear projected image is only 35mm in size so we glued a 50mm stills lens on to a 58mm step down/ step up/stepdown ring. so now it screws onto the front of the g2. (thus creating an extream macro) Now we can shoot a 35mm image onto film resolution digital still. This technique works fine on the our xm2 aswell. As the 58mm thread fits the front of the xm2/gl2and our g2. The only reason we havent built a version for our xm2 is that we don't want our xm2 to be costantly upsidedown. Might hurt the camera(seeing it cost a sh*tload more than or g2)!! So the solution will be a parallex mirror setup to correct the upside down image (a fair bit of messing around) and we will have a xm2/gl2 that shoots with a 35mm dof. If anyone is interested in seeing some photos you can email me Mulesfilmworks@optusnet.com.au
Sorry if you found these technical detail boring!

Hi Miles,
Very interesting stuff. let us know when you have the xm2/gl2 working.

Brad's original question related to DOF using the WD58H adapter on his GL2. If anyone has anything to add specifically to this subject, please do so.

Otherwise, please start a new thread if you really have something new to add to the general, and enormous, body of depth-of-field information we already have on the boards.

Thanks again to you all, especially Jeff for summarizing the necessary steps to get the most DOF from the GL2. With no photography background, as many of you obviously have, the DOF that I have seen from the GL2 is impressive. Perhaps writers set the bar a little lower, or maybe ignorance truly is bliss.

Thanks again,

Brad

Brad,

it's apparent you are happy with the DOF you are achieving. Besides implementing Jeff's suggestions, are you using ND filters or polarizer?

Val,

I just received two ND filters, and our polarizer has been great. The DOF appears to be good when we take the time to work for it. My only major complaint is that I like the image stabilizer when used with the WD-58H, and I am a little disappointed that shallow DOF is achieved better without the adaptor attached.

I look forward to using the ND filters in the days ahead.

Brad

For those of you looking to save a few bucks, but still get good quality, I'm sure this is one of the points where we all ask ourselves -- "Is it really worth that much more?!"

In a nutshell, the answer is no. I shot identical video last week using my GL2 with both the Century Optics' $400 .65x bayonet W/A adapter and Canon's $170 0.7x screw-mount W/A adapter. The only difference was that the Century was imperceptibly wider and had a hair more barrel distortion all the way out (both have noticeable distortion, there's no getting around it).

The Canon was just as sharp all the way through to max zoom. There is a slight, but noticeable, drop-off in sharpness when zoomed all the way in while using the adapters as well. I reviewed the video on my new Sony HDTV monitor and the video was of the same subject using the same settings.

Best of all -- the Canon will used the same Century accessories! I am using the Century matte box fastened to the Canon WD-58 and it fits PERFECTLY! I will post a link to a photo later. Also, if you won't be using filters the Canon comes with a very nice, very usable HOOD that is an absolute necessity as both W/A adapters are HIGHLY flare-prone without adequate shading.

Just a quick FYI for those interested. Naturally, if you need a teleconverter/extender, a 16:9 adapter, or fisheye Canon has no options and you'll need either the Century or Optex, but in this case feel absolutely safe and free to save $200 and get the Canon over the Century. I went in thinking I was going to buy the Century and almost didn't even bother to test the WD-58, but I'm glad I did as it is a really impressive adapter -- regardless of price.

PS. I can post screen shots of each zoomed all the way in if any wish them. It'll take me a few days as I'm still reviewing the video we shot at the Rain Forest in Olympic Nat'l Park, Ruby and Second Beaches, Eagle Creek, Punch Bowl, and Cape Flattery.

==========
REVISED
==========

I thought I would add a couple of important notes. The first would be regarding the use of the optical image stabilizer and any W/A adapter. The use of any W/A adapter on either the GL2 or the VX2000 seriously degrades the stabilizer's performance in either of these cameras. I have the Sony 0.7x W/A adapter on the VX2000 and both the Canon WD-58H and Century 0.65x with the GL2. Using the adapters renders the IS on both cameras virtually ineffective, so be aware and take this into account if you're shooting handheld.

The second point is to emphasize the optical abberations that all of these adapters introduce. No matter how good the optics of the adapter are you're still putting a lot more glass in front of the stock lens. Not only is the barrel distortion pronounced and readily visible when zoomed all the way out (widest), but when shooting either horizontal or vertical lines they really advertise the distortion to even the untrained eye. It's not fisheye, by any mean, but as the old saying goes "you need to give a little to get a little." Also, all of these adapters visibly reduce sharpness at the long end (max zoom) -- there's just no avoiding it. If you don't have anything to directly compare it to, then it looks pretty sharp, but if you compare identical, full-zoom shots with and without an adapter you can see some image softening. It's not dramatic, but if you're a stickler for ultimate sharpness you need to know that there is degradation.

Thanks for the info. I was looking at that choice for the next month or so. I'll save my money.

I have this wide angle lens, but when I got it there was not the small hood that I was told that comes with it now. Has anybody picked this lens up with the hood, and where did you get it. I would like to see if I can get just the hood.

Mark

Just did that myself, through B&H in NYC (I bought on-line). It was about $39USD and I had to phone to get a part # to search with as I couldn't find the item offered anywhere on the site.
I'm probably the only poor sap who would do this but I'll mention that while it fits in any position there's only one right way to mount it. Viewing my footage after first using it I discovered I had caught edges both left and right in full wide, because I had it at 90 degrees to the correct position. The tightening screw should be at 3 o'clock, like the hood that comes with the camera - I should have seen that as a clue.

David Hurdon

Mark,

if you bought it as "WD-58H" the hood should definititely be in the package. Otherwise you bought the "older" version, the WD-58 and you'll have to order the hood seperately.

Chris

I bought the lens about a year ago and it did not have the "H"on it, so unless I hear back from someone else with a better place to get the hood, I'll just contact Canon.

Kind regards,

Mark

A year ago the hood wasn't available. It wasn't introduced until the GL2 came out last July. The hood is always available as a separate item from any authorized Canon dealer. I urge you to consider purchasing from any of our DV Info Net Community Sponsors (http://www.dvinfo.net/sponsors/index.php), as you'll be supporting this message board when you buy from them. Hope this helps,

Chris, what happened to Lyle Pendy's post with the B&H URL for buying the WD-58 lens hood? I no sooner read it than it disappeared, when yours arrived with the comment about forum sponsors.

David Hurdon

David, it's my policy to point readers to our sponsors. I removed the B&H link because it's detrimental to the folks who are paying for these boards... our site sponsors, who are dealers every bit as good as the "Big & Huge." I promote small businesses because I myself am a small business. Many of our members are small business people. B&H is not going to suffer in the interim. Meanwhile, our site sponsors have the same item in stock at the same price. I've stated before many times, and will state once again now, that as the owner of the boards, I reserve the right of having the final say on all where-to-buy questions. Hope this helps,

Recently, I purchased a .3 Raynox wide angle clip on lens for my Gl2 for $100. I could of gotten a more expensive one but recently, all I have been shooting is shots for my upcoming rollerblading video and I really don't need the "best". Anyway, people have been saying that the clip on is a bad lens but I really don't see a problem with it. I just found out they made a screw on .3. I had heard about it a while ago but I just found it a few days after I got my clip on. What is better about the screw on then the clip on. Since I will be getting closer shots, I think its good to have the clip on incase someone hits my camera, that way only the lens would come off. Reply back, thank you. :)