You mentioned there was no vignetting when zoomed out, but is there any vignetting with the Sony Telephoto included lens hood when using the Sony Y Wideangle zoomed all the way in?

What about vignetting zoomed in and zoomed out with the Sony Y Wideangle and Cavision LH77 lens hood?

marc:

can you post a photo of the SONY telephoto hood?

thank you

I recommend you guys call them directly to order the lens hood. They were very helpful when I called.

By the way Laurence, I purchased the same adapter to attach the wireless set like yours, but I don't quite understand how you got it to hook like that. Do you think you could explain how you got it to attach like you did on the SpiderBrace?

Yeah, the adapter is theaded for a standard sized thread. I just got a bolt from the local hardware store and some lock washers to make up the extra length. I put it in a position where it would neither get in the way of changing tapes (with the bottom loading solution adapter) or be in the way of my hands and arms for shooting. The bolt head is on the inside with a lockwasher or two and it extends through the center box of the spiderbrace and gets threaded into the hotshoe adapter. I had to remove the front mounting screw from the Spiderbrace to do this, but I always use it in the rear position (so as to be closer to my eye) anyway.

...I've also found out the the hood provided with the Sony Telephoto lens fits the Sony WA lens and did not, in my tests, cause any vignetting of the video even when not zoomed...

Since I didn't see an "Edit" option for this (my) post, I will "Quote" it and make a correction, since the above info. is, sadly, not quite correct.

I spoke too soon based on the feedback from looking at the LCD while filming. The LCD does NOT appear to show all of the HD video being captured, as I finally downloaded the scenes I shot with the Tele hood on the WA lens and did get some minor vignetting in the 4 corners when viewing on my HD monitor.

Now the vignetting was minimal, but enough to ruin the non-zoomed shot. It might be possible to solve this by moving the hood further back on the lens or even cutting some material from the front of the hood, either reducing the total length or notching four corners, which would then require some form of registration marking to always get the hood back on in the same position.

Not having a spare and not knowing how much it would cost to replace it, I'm not quite ready to start butchering the Sony hood just yet. I will see if I can set the hood further back on the lens and avoid the vignetting. If it only cost $20 +/- to get a replacement and hack on it, I may do that route. Any more than that and the new Cavision "Y" hood would be the better choice, although it would still be nice if there was a single-solution hood for both Sony lens (WA and Tele).

There's never going to be a single hood solution, not unless we have motorised hoods in the same way as SLRs have motorised flash tubes that are linked to the focal length of the zoom being used.

Remember lens hoods are only designed for the widest angle of your zoom - at all other focal lengths the hood id pretty useless and the Flarebuster is a boon. Have a look at Wayne Orr's set-up here:

http://www.digitalprods.com/flare.htm

tom.

There are other lenses with superior coatings and performance out there. You can look for lenses that were designed for higher end cameras, with better glass, that may not fit the 37mm filter threads of the A1U/HC1 out of the box. All you have to do is attach an adaptor (step up) ring to use a better lens. The disadvantage of using bigger high-end lenses is that the filter threads are much larger which means you have to pay more for the filters.

I've read discussions here speaking positively about the Sony VCL-HG0737Y, but this lens has a few shortcomings too. For one, the lens doesn't have threads on the lens barrel to allow you to attach filters, etc., so if you purchase this lens, you would have to purchase a lens hood which allows you to attach filters to the hood itself. The Cavision LH77 Lens hood is made for the Sony VCL-HG0737Y lens, and allows you to attach 82mm filters to the inside of the lens hood.

I use a Raynox HD-7000PRO High Definition 0.7X Wide Angle Conversion Lens instead of the Sony VCL-HG0737Y 37mm 0.7x Wide Angle Conversion Lens for a number of reasons. First of all, the Raynox lens has superior glass and was designed for high-end cameras. The Sony lens is also a good lens, but has more aberration at the edges when zoomed to it's widest angle, and more red and green color shift than the Raynox lens.

The Raynox HD-7000PRO High Definition 0.7X Wideangle Conversion Lens requires the use of an 37 to 58 mm adaptor ring because it was made for 58mm lenses and designed for use with 1/3 inch ccds such as the VX2000/2100, PD-170/150, etc. It uses 82mm filters which cost more, but if you want to play, you've got to pay.

You can get a lens hood for this lens too. The Cavision LH100WP 3x3 Rubber Lens Hood for Wide Angle Lenses can be used with the Ranox HD-7000Pro Lens. You will also have to buy a step down ring, 100mm to 85mm (Cavision ARP485) to use this hood with the Ranox lens. Cavision also makes a French Flag MBF-3 for this lens hood which helps in outdoor shoots and also acts as a lens cover... Good Stuff!

In my humble opinion, the Raynox HD-7000PRO is a superior lens and costs the same as the Sony but requires a step up ring which costs another 5 bucks, and it supports a French Flag to boot!

I don't have the same filtering problems you do though, since I use a wide angle Cavision 4x5.65" hard matt box system on 15mm rails with both my Z1U and A1U. This is an expensive solution ($800.00 plus with accessories and side flaps) for attaching filters but is the only way to get the most out of both of cameras (especially outdoors in bright sun) since matt boxes provide lots of light control and you can choose filters from the pro world of 4x4" and 4x5.65" filters. However, since both camcorders use the same matt box system, I get more bang for my buck.

I will use the A1U mainly for second unit work and will frequently shoot outdoors where matt boxes and filtering systems are a must (the A1U/HC1 has more problems in low light situations than the Z1U). Also, in available light situations indoors, the A1U/HC1 has more problems with filters since filters cut light levels down a bit and the A1U can use all the help it can get in available light. Indoors, the A1U definitely needs more light. More light, less video noise.

When I use the matt box with my Z1U, I insert the AR85-72 Conical Adapter Ring into the ARR1385 Rubber Adapter Ring in the matt box so it will fit on the Z1U lens. When I use the matt box with the A1U, I remove the AR85-72 Conical Adapter Ring and slip the A1U with the Raynox High Definition 0.7X Wideangle Conversion Lens (85mm lens o.d.) installed, directly into the matt box.

I also use the Cavision dual hand grips and shoulder pads with this system so I don't need the Spiderbrace that so many here rave about. However I do use a Spiderbrace with whichever camera isn't fitted with the matt box system, at the time. That would be the Z1U, in most cases, since I use the Z1U as the first unit camera (mainly indoors, but outdoors too if the second unit isn't using the matt box).

I don't like the Spiderbrace nearly as much as the Cavision shoulder mount system because the Spiderbrace is a little flimsy and is too thick, and hard to attach accessories to, unless you go to the auto store and buy radiator hose clamps (YUK!) to attach accessories, or drill holes in it as I did. The Spiderbrace front handles are also a little on the short side and angled too far out and away from you so it is difficult to attach a Lanc remote to the handle and still grip it. The Spiderbrace also has a substandard attachment system with thumb nuts from Home Depot, to mount the camera. The camera loosens up on the Spiderbrace and can swivel on its mount because it doesn't have a guide pin.

I still use it, though, because it was cheap. The Spiderbrace and HC1/A1U will probably be the number one combination for Hi-Def Porn Shooters, because it is very light, easy to handle, and cheap. But since I don't shoot porn, and mostly use tripods and dollies, I plan to buy another Cavision shoulder mount system to replace my Spiderbrace. The Cavision system attaches to a tripod with the handles attached so you can go from shoulder to tripod in a snap.

As a matter of fact, I also use the Cavision RPSHC - SPACER FOR SONY A1U / HC1 instead of the DeMaagd Accessories HC1-SHIM because the DeMaagd shim shifts the camera too far off center, too the right, in an attempt to accomodate bigger tripods. The Cavision shim is better for me because it works with high-end tripods, and also positions the A1U/HC1 tripod mount closer to the centerline to mount on pro rail systems for matt boxes etc. The DeMaagd HC1-SHIM is great and is priced right (actually the Cavision RPSHC shim is the same price as the HC1-SHIM, $25.00) but the HC1-SHIM can not be used with rails.

I did buy the DeMaagd Accessories HC1-SHIM and it works great on the Spiderbrace and my tripod but I don't need two shims to use with only one A1U. When I got the A1U, I didn't think it would work with the Cavision 4x5.65 matt box system, and like you, was thinking about how to solve my the filtering problems with a wide angle lens.

I discovered that the A1U would work with my matt box, quite by accident. When I got the Raynox lens and discovered that the lens o.d. was 85mm, I knew it would work on the Cavision matt box if I could find a shim that would allow the A1U to work with my matt box rails, and let me remove the tapes without taking the matt box system apart. After digging around a little on the web, I discovered that Cavision also makes a shim that allows the A1U/HC1 to be used with their rail systems (who'd a thought). Since I already had the matt box system for my Z1U, I ordered the Cavision RPSHC shim and tried using my matt box with my A1U. It worked great!

On another note: I'm planning to sell my Sony Z1U so I can buy a Canon XL-H1. My Cavision matt box system works on the Canon XL-H1 too so the matt box turns out to be a great investment and will be around long after all the first generation HDV camcorders have bit the dust.

You can obtain more information about the Raynox lens I use at this link:
http://raynox.co.jp/english/video/hdrhc1/index.htm

For samples of video shot on the HC1, with this and other Raynox lenses, visit this link: http://raynox.co.jp/comparison/video/comp_hdrhc1.htm

You can buy the Raynox lens at B&H Photo. Visit this link: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=292491&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

For more info on the Cavision LH100WP 3x3" LENS HOOD FOR WIDE ANGLE LENSES, visit this link: http://www.cavision.com/lenshoods/LH100W.htm

You can buy the Cavision LH100WP 3x3" LENS HOOD at B&H Photo. Visit this link:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=335935&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

For more info on the Cavision MBF-3 3x3" FRENCH FLAP for the 3x3 Lens Hood, visit this link: http://www.cavision.com/matteboxes/more/MBF3.htm

You can buy the Cavision MBF-3 3x3" FRENCH FLAP for the 3x3 Lens Hood at B&H Photo. Visit this link:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=310701&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

If you want to use the Cavision LH77 Lens hood so you can use filters with the Sony VCLHG0737Y 0.7x Wide Angle Converter Lens, visit this link for more info: http://www.cavision.com/lenshoods/LH77.htm

You can get information on glass filters at the following links:
http://www.cavision.com/filters/cavision.htm
http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/filters/index.htm.

For more info on the Cavision RPSHC SPACER FOR SONY A1U / HC1 camcorders, visit this link:
http://www.cavision.com/rods/A1Uspacer.htm

For more info on the DeMaagd Accessories HC1-SHIM FOR SONY A1U / HC1 camcorders, visit this link: http://dm-accessories.com/HC1-SHIM.php

This is a link to a system much like the one I use with my Z1U and A1U. The difference is that my system does not use a follow focus and does not use 4x4 bellows but uses the 4x5.65 wide angle hard shade instead. Visit this link to see a system configured similarly to mine: http://www.cavision.com/pictures/SonyHDV/RS1580_1.htm

This is the link to the Cavision Shoulder Mount system: http://www.cavision.com/rods/RS1580.htm

I will upload some photos that of my system and provide links to it soon.

Also, the best way to deal with Cavision is to call them. They accept orders over the phone and are very helpful.

--Dave

Hi Laurence!

I have a quick question for you..

I just purchased the Rode NTG-2 mic and was wondering how you got it to fit in Sony's mic mount. I havent recieved the mic yet, but I've heard that it's not exactly a good fit. Thanks!

Just take the rubber wrapping around the including Sony mic off, wrap that rubber wrapping around the Rode mic, and you're good to go. You can also stick the Rode SM5 shockmount directly into the Sony shockmount, and then stick the Rode mic into the Rode shockmount.

Just take the rubber wrapping around the including Sony mic off, wrap that rubber wrapping around the Rode mic, and you're good to go. You can also stick the Rode SM5 shockmount directly into the Sony shockmount, and then stick the Rode mic into the Rode shockmount.Alex - have you got the SM5 yet? If so, can you post a picture of the SM5 mounted on the A1 please? Or ... Laurence??

Problem I have is that I sold my NV1 to buy the Rode NRG-2 :-P

And the SM5 mount, which was on the B&H photo site this morning is now disappeared and I have no idea where to buy one...?

I don't have one myself, but I've seen pictures posted by someone of it once. Basically, the SM5 is the SM3 with a different mounting system. Instead of the shoe mount on the SM3, the SM5 has a cylinder (similar to the shape and size of a microphone) that extends out from the bottom. You just stick that cylinder mount into the Sony shockmount, and attach the mic the same way you would on the SM3 (into the rubber bands).

Alex - have you got the SM5 yet? If so, can you post a picture of the SM5 mounted on the A1 please? Or ... Laurence??

You can find a picture of SM5 with Rode NTG1 in here: http://www.aavekammari.com/a1.html

I got my SM-5 here:

http://www.fullcompass.com/Products/pages/SKU--89070/index.html

You can find a picture of SM5 with Rode NTG1 in here: http://www.aavekammari.com/a1.html

Cool picture. The only problem is that if you use the light with the mic in that position it will cast a shadow across the frame. Just rotate the SM-5 so that it stands out horizontally instead of vertically when you use the light and this is no problem.

Actually for tripod mount I use a set of shop lights. I just use the camera light (with Stofen diffusor) for handheld stuff.

One thing that this picture shows is how pro you can get for very little money. A setup like this is right around three grand and in addition to looking pro, it produces absolutely incredible footage.

Cool picture. The only problem is that if you use the light with the mic in that position it will cast a shadow across the frame. Just rotate the SM-5 so that it stands out horizontally instead of vertically when you use the light and this is no problem.

Actually I've been using SM5 horizontally lately. Rode is so light that horizontal position doesn't make handheld shots uncomfortable. I also have that Stofen diffusor for light but I wanted picture look cooler, so I left it out :D

Do you think you can repost a link to the pictures of the custom a1u on page 1. The link brings up a page that says the picture is no longer available.
Thanks

Good to see the shots of your kit Poppe. I have that Manfrotto 128 head on my second tripod, and much admire the fluidity of all its movements. The 503 head is better, but so it should be considering the price.

Looks like you have a Cavision hood fronting the wide-angle converter - is that a Cavision one too? I have the same light (the 20-DW2 that takes the bigger NP-F battery) and velcro on a Lumquest diffuser. With both filaments lit and the diffuser in place, it's bye-bye to harsh shadows and squinty eyes.

tom.

.. I have that Manfrotto 128 head on my second tripod, and much admire the fluidity of all its movements. The 503 head is better, but so it should be considering the price.

Looks like you have a Cavision hood fronting the wide-angle converter - is that a Cavision one too? ... tom.

Manfrotto 128 is good when you have to carry things all around, it's SO light. But it's too much front balanced with heavy wide lense.
Yep, my hood is Cavision LH77 (with Hoya HMC Pro1 UV).

Which Hoya filter is the Pro 1? Is it this one:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?ci=1&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=productlist.jsp&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t&shs=Hoya+82mm+UV&image.x=0&image.y=0

I am looking for an UV filter to use with the LH77 and I am not sure which quality I am looking at to match the image quality without the filter (or at least come very close to that image quality).

You should get the most coating layers as possible, so the Hoya Super-Multicoated (12 layers) UV filters if you want a filter.

And what's the wide-angle converter you're using Poppe?

Floris - are you sure you really need a UV filter? OK, if you're off on a dusty safari or you're about to film sticky-fingered, inquisitive children, go ahead - fit one. Otherwise any filter you fit generally lessens the effective hooding of the front element as well as introducing more flare. It's mighty hard keeping both surfaces of the glass spotless. We're working at very short focal lengths indeed and it's all too easy to bring imperfections into near focus.

tom.

Which Hoya filter is the Pro 1? Is it this one:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?ci=1&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=productlist.jsp&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t&shs=Hoya+82mm+UV&image.x=0&image.y=0

I'm not sure which one of those is Pro1. Maybe Pro1 name is used only in Europe market, don't know. I ordered it here: http://www.maitolaituri.tv/product_info.php?products_id=272&language=en
It is a good filter, but quite hard to clean. But so are all other multi-coated filters too.

Edit:
>> And what's the wide-angle converter you're using Poppe?
It's a Sony VCL-HG0737Y lense. I really like it, but still A1's picture quality is best without any extra lense.

Ok, so I guess I won't need an UV filter then. I am also looking at a polariser, which I think is very difficult to achieve in post, am I right?

I am currently debating about which Lens Hood I should get. I have a HDR-HC1E with the Sony Wide-Angle lens like almost everyone else. If I buy the Cavision LH77, how do I protect my front element when I do not use the camera? Another problem is that the shipping costs to The Netherlands for the Cavision LH77 are $45, which almost doubles the prize.

Maybe there are other alternatives?

I am going on a two-week trip to Italy in two months and I want to make sure I have a proper setup. At this moment I have a:

- Sony HDR-HC1E
- Sony VCL-HG0737Y
- Rode NTG-2 Directional Microphone
- Spider Brace 2
- Manfrotto tripod
- Sony NP-QM71D battery
- Sony NP-FM50 battery

I need information on:

- Lens Hood
- Cleaning Kit
- Charger
- Bag for in the field (comfortable to carry, but big enough for most of my stuff, one that I can carry for like 6 hours on my back/shoulders.

I am not sure if I need any filters but considering the sunny weather in Italy (especially the golden fields in Sicilly), I am almost 100% confident that I need a polarising filter. Furthermore, I am not sure if I agree with all of you that filters really degrade the image quality noticeably. Professional photographers like Ansel Adams and many others after him have always used a wide-array of filters and that appearently has not degraded their work to a big extend. I agree that I do not necessarily need an UV filter, and that many classic filters have been replaced by post-production. But when exposing, I think it is nice to see the effect of a polariser.

But maybe I am wrong so please fill me in. I will only put the filters on when needed of course, otherwise it does not make any sense.

I hope everyone can answer my questions. This is one of the best topics I have encountered on any forum. Keep the discussion going!

I am not sure if I need any filters but considering the sunny weather in Italy (especially the golden fields in Sicilly), I am almost 100% confident that I need a polarising filter. Furthermore, I am not sure if I agree with all of you that filters really degrade the image quality noticeably. Professional photographers like Ansel Adams and many others after him have always used a wide-array of filters and that appearently has not degraded their work to a big extend. I agree that I do not necessarily need an UV filter, and that many classic filters have been replaced by post-production. But when exposing, I think it is nice to see the effect of a polariser.
Well I, for one, agree with you. I use polariser very often on my DV cam and in the right sunny bright conditions it can really add amazing punch to your footage. Almost ALL still photos that you see in travel brochuers to sunny places are shot using polarisers. I use polarisers for my still cams too. You can choose the amount of pol.effect you want by rotation. Max. effect is when you are physically oriented so that you are shooting approx. 90degrees to the ray's of light. Not much pol.effect at all when light is coming from directly behind you or directly in front of you.

Also it helps cut through water reflections, which helps saturate seas / lakes to nice green / blue hues.

I'd take one, and take a UV filter too, and hang the purists..
Use them, check the footage, if you like it, then do it. Simple as that. Better to have them with you and not use them, than not to have them with you and wish you'd got them.

You're right - polarising filter effects are very difficult and time consuming to replicate in post, and sometimes (the reflection in water issue) impossible. But what travel brocures etc show you are snatches in time, and your movie will be a running timeline - two quite different things.

I've used a polarisor and simply turning 90 degrees for your next shot will bring continuity headaches galore (you know how polarisors work?). Talent won't be best pleased at all the life and shine being taken out of her hair, and skin tones take on an unnatural dullness. Removing the sheen from things isn't always a good idea.

Now to Mr Ansel Adams. He was working with ''chips'' that measure 10" x 8". Your 1/3" CMOS measures 4.4 mm x 3.3 mm (think 1/8th inch and you're there). THAT's why using filters is so different for us both. We're using focal lengths of 3 mm, Ansel was using more like 250 mm. Guess which filter will be more in focus?

OK, grads are probably more useful than polarisers, though with such short focal lengths you'll have to be careful over hard and soft grad choices. Also I'd say don't use filters at all when you use the wide-angle. Yo'll be adding three extra elements to the Zeiss line-up - so don't add yet another.

But then again you don't want to allow your HC1 to shoot at a smaller aperture than f/4 if you can help it. The automatic internal ND will soak 3 stops, but if it gets brighter the aperture blades will close down to f8. Not good for sharpness. To avoid this in sunny Italy it might be best to invest in a super multi-coated ND8.

Lens hoods will get in the way of your pop-up flash, but then again, so what? Try and get an aspect ratio hood - especially if you'll be shooting 16:9.

Will the Rode NGT-2 plug in ok? As the internal mics are so difficult to wind-shield, a small stereo unit fitting that special shoe might be an idea for out-and-about footage. You can then wind-sock it more easily.

tom.

I am planning on buying the Rode Deadcat Wind Muff. So that will solve all my outdoor audio problems.

With the Cavision LH77, how to I protect my front element? Does it come with a cap or something like that or do I need to take it off all the time?

Finally, does anyone have recommendations for a good bag for field-use, which can be carried comfortably for like 6 hour walks in Italy.

About filters, I have been looking at these:

Tiffen 82mm Special Effects DV Kit (Color Graduated ND.6, Pro Mist 1/4, Enhancer, Gold Diffusion F/X 1/2 and Soft Pouch)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=248589&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

Hoya 82mm Neutral Density ND 8x (HMC) Multi-Coated Glass Filter
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=146978&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

The Polarisers are really expensive. If I would go for the best, I am looking at around $329. I am not sure if that's worth it.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=151186&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=181592&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=181594&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

Is it also possible to use a filter system on the HDR-HC1E/A1, so you can use 3x3 filters or something in that direction and up to four of them at a time?

Edit:

I forgot to ask if other camera's like the XLH1, VX-200 etcetera also take 82mm filters? If am paying so much for filters, I want to make sure that it is for a long-time.

Hello,

You are offering the Cavision LH100 as a special order. I suppose you order this from Cavision. I am looking for the Cavision LH77, for the Sony wide-angle lens. As the shipping for me from Cavision is $45, and they do not have other products I am interested in, I would prefer to order it through B&H and combine it with some other products I need.

Can you please tell me if this is possible.

Thanks. Floris.


From: nospamhere@gmail.com
To: consumervideo@bhphotovideo.com

Our Answer:


Thank you for you interest in B&H and the products we have to offer.

We can get the lh77 (39.95) it is now in our system(skew # CALH77) for phone order only . It will take a while to get it on the web.



I think many of us will find this interesting. It is cheaper as well as at B&H, so you do not need to go through Cavision.

Dang, I'm always too early. First I get my Sony Y lens for $40 too much, and now the LH77 for too much (just arrived yesterday).

In any case, my review of the LH77 is pretty negative. Frankly, I'm kind of tired of many people toting their new product as "oh, it's so great," confusing readers like me. Then when I actually get the product, turns out its not so great.

The LH77 I got is deformed. Looking at the rubber, I can tell there was some manufacturing defect and it seems like the rubber was a bit melted or something (slightly, but it's there). Furthermore, the rubber is bent so that it's not a rectangle, but more like a shape with three straight edges and a top that cuves down. Finally, the screw-on system is horrible. You have to screw it on pretty tight for it to stay on the Y lens. I had it fall off while shooting yesterday. The problem with tightly screwing it on is that the screw pushes in more, which pushes the lens hood AWAY from the Y lens. This creates a gap/hole on one side, which looks ugly. It also slightly distorts the shape of the lens hood as well; I'm not sure if screwing on a filter will work well (though it might, haven't tried it). If you look at Adam's custom A1 thread, there is one picture that actually shows this gap between the lens hood and the Y lens.

But which other options do we have? Only the Century Optics hood, which is $159 and thus a lot more expensive, plus it requires a step-up ring.

True, but still I wish I would have known about these problems beforehand. Sure, overall, it might be a good product and especially for the price, but that's what's annoying - people think they made the best buy in the world and are so pleased with themselves that they only tell others the good points, leaving out all the negative aspects.

Another thing about the LH77 - you can't use a lens cap/protector with it. You can attach 82mm filters, but then your filter will be unprotected.

You're right - polarising filter effects are very difficult and time consuming to replicate in post, and sometimes (the reflection in water issue) impossible. But what travel brocures etc show you are snatches in time, and your movie will be a running timeline - two quite different things.

I've used a polarisor and simply turning 90 degrees for your next shot will bring continuity headaches galore (you know how polarisors work?). Talent won't be best pleased at all the life and shine being taken out of her hair, and skin tones take on an unnatural dullness. Removing the sheen from things isn't always a good idea.

Now to Mr Ansel Adams. He was working with ''chips'' that measure 10" x 8". Your 1/3" CMOS measures 4.4 mm x 3.3 mm (think 1/8th inch and you're there). THAT's why using filters is so different for us both. We're using focal lengths of 3 mm, Ansel was using more like 250 mm. Guess which filter will be more in focus?

OK, grads are probably more useful than polarisers, though with such short focal lengths you'll have to be careful over hard and soft grad choices. Also I'd say don't use filters at all when you use the wide-angle. Yo'll be adding three extra elements to the Zeiss line-up - so don't add yet another.

But then again you don't want to allow your HC1 to shoot at a smaller aperture than f/4 if you can help it. The automatic internal ND will soak 3 stops, but if it gets brighter the aperture blades will close down to f8. Not good for sharpness. To avoid this in sunny Italy it might be best to invest in a super multi-coated ND8.

Lens hoods will get in the way of your pop-up flash, but then again, so what? Try and get an aspect ratio hood - especially if you'll be shooting 16:9.

Will the Rode NGT-2 plug in ok? As the internal mics are so difficult to wind-shield, a small stereo unit fitting that special shoe might be an idea for out-and-about footage. You can then wind-sock it more easily.

tom.Some good points there I think Tom. Yes i know how polarisers work but i hadn't I admit thought about continuity issues with 'proper' films and yes i can see that is going to be a real PITA ! But for Floris' purpose, she's basically shooting holiday footage so continuity isn't really an issue there.
Rode NTG2 or NTG1 will plug straight onto the A1U with XLR module, and the DeadCat is one-size-fits-all for the Videomic, NTG1, NTG2.
One thing Floris - windshields won't *entirely* solve wind-noise. If the wind is strong enough you will still get wind-rumble, just a lot less of it. Something to be aware of. Can't remember which mic you're taking (guess it's NTG1 or NTG2) but i'd advise to use the low-cut filter (if they have one, Videomic does) all the time outdoors to reduce handling noise and wind-rumble. I think the Rode's are anyway *slightly* bass-heavy (if anything) so the low-cut filter is no bad thing at all.

floris - i tend to use 37mm pol.filter and attach it between the camera and the WA lens. A LOT cheaper than 82mm for sure as you've found out looking at the prices of an 82mm hi-quality pol.filter. Bit of a tough pill to swallow that one, so i'd go for a 37mm one. I don't see why you can't put it between camera and lens.

Polariser's secondary effect is that it absorbs about 1 - 1/5stops of light so that's no bad thing in very bright sun, as Tom remarked, it'll keep the aperture getting too small and getting diffraction effects. Also a pol or ND filter can help you get a larger aperture for shallow DOF effect for portrait shots etc. which can look very nice. (Portrait Program AE mode good for this).

Having said all that, i have to now agree with Tom i think as 2 days ago i was shooting a late afternoon (bout an hour or two before sunset) stuff in semi-light / semi-shadow with a 0.7x WA lens and i'd left the pol.filter on (forgot to take it off to be honest). When i finally remembered to take it off, i could actually see that the shot was higher contrast and a bit more punchy without it - it was a pretty subtle difference i have to say, but i think it was there. I actually lost my original multi-coated polariser and so i had to get what i could at the time and got a rather cheaper one simply cos that's all that was available that day and i needed one immediately. Next time i'm passing a decent photo-store i will try to get a Hoya or B+W multi-coated one to replace my current 37mm one (Maruami ?! something like that..)

Back to the late-afternoon thing : It wasn't a not-enough-light-with-the-polariser-on issue as it was still pretty bright, and i checked Data Code and the numbers were fine, no gain or anything. - but definitely a slight contrast reduction with polariser on. First time i've seen that i think. I'll still defnitely use it in bright sunny conditions but remember to take it off when you don't need it.

True, but still I wish I would have known about these problems beforehand. Sure, overall, it might be a good product and especially for the price, but that's what's annoying - people think they made the best buy in the world and are so pleased with themselves that they only tell others the good points, leaving out all the negative aspects.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=65497
I tried to tell you about this but I didn't mention the gap on one side. Sorry for that. I inserted a little piece of black fabric (about 3cm) under the screw side and there is no visible hole anymore.
I definitely agree with you that LH77 is pretty "toyish", but I still think it's worth of money and the only real way to add filter to Y-lense.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=65497
I tried to tell you about this but I didn't mention the gap on one side. Sorry for that. I inserted a little piece of black fabric (about 3cm) under the screw side and there is no visible hole anymore.
I definitely agree with you that LH77 is pretty "toyish", but I still think it's worth of money and the only real way to add filter to Y-lense.
Floris
First off do a little preparation. I suggest reading Barry Braverman's book "Video shooter". Video has very little exposure lattitude, 3 stops max. Don't even compare video to Ansel Adams. As Barry says" avoid midday if at all possible ". If you chose not to do so, then you must use filters. I carry ND .3, .6,. 9 , a polarizer, and a UV as standard equipment. I use the Cokin matt box with adaptor that will fit your Sony lens. Believe me, you must get good video first before post, otherwise you will have great problems.
Dkane

floris - i tend to use 37mm pol.filter and attach it between the camera and the WA lens. A LOT cheaper than 82mm for sure as you've found out looking at the prices of an 82mm hi-quality pol.filter. Bit of a tough pill to swallow that one, so i'd go for a 37mm one. I don't see why you can't put it between camera and lens.


Does anyone else have experience with this? If I am correct, the Sony Y conversion lens manual states that they advice not to place a filter between the camera and the lens because it iss less durable (I guess more pressure on the filter thread of the camera and the lens). But hey, Sony does say other thigns that makes no sense so I prefer some feedback from users. I also thinkt hat with a filter between the lenses, there is less chance on dirt and glare because the fitler is not the front element in the line.

Furthermore, I am still puzzled about the lens hood. I was about to purchse the LH77 but no I am not sure if it is the best option. I heard about this matt box in combination with a step-up ring, but I guess this won't work with the wide-angle lens as it has no filter thread. I just wished sony had given the Y lenses a filter thread, which would have solved so many problems.

I might sell the official Sony lens and get Raynox conversion lenses instead which do have a filter thread. But I would like to get more feedback on Raynox lenses as only one person mentioned them in this entire topic.

I am looking forward to your responses.

Floris
I carry ND .3, .6,. 9 , a polarizer, and a UV as standard equipment. I use the Cokin matt box with adaptor that will fit your Sony lens. Believe me, you must get good video first before post, otherwise you will have great problems.


I have read many books on cinematography, shooting video and the lower lattidue of video compared to film and film compared to the human eye. However, I need to learn more about filters and how to get the most out of my video but that will need to go through practice.

I have heard that I can use the Cokin matt box on the 37mm thread of the HDR-HC1 with a step-up ring, but what about my wide-angle lens? It has no filter thread or it takes 82mm filters with the LH77 lenshood. But it appears to me that it is thus simply not a workable solution.

Sorry double post.

Dennis nails it: You've got to get good footage up front to even consider doctoring it in post. Beware of in-field filtration as it can be mighty hard to unfilter later. Grads are usually good because they contain the vast exposure difference between sky and a shadowed wall, for instance. With video you don't have many stops to play with.

I've owned a Raynox 6600PRO and tested various other Raynox lenses. I've found them all to be good, if not the best out there. The 0.66x PRO had amazingly little barrel distortion - far less than the 3x more expensive Century 0.6x, for instance. So I give Raynox the thumbs up, and their range is huge.

http://raynox.co.jp/english/video/hd7000pro/index.htm

tom.

Tom, I have a few questions for you. First of all, how does the Raynox HD 7000 Pro compare to the Sony Y lens (which I own)? For one, it has a filter thread which I think is very welcome.

Another question I have. I am thinking about buying the HD 7000 Pro and HD 2200 PRO (Telephoto). However, the front filter threads are a little bit different (82mm and 62mm I believe). Can I use a step up ring from 62mm to 82mm or will this cause vignetting problems?

I am planning on buying the slim multi-coated Hoya filters.

Another question I have: will it cause any problems if I use filters between the HDR-HC1 and the Sony Y wide-angle lens?

Although it has a 'filter thread' I'd warn against using it as such. Look on it as a hood thread instead.

I haven't tested the HD7000PRO Raynox but I'd hazard a guess and say it was a fine lens, if only because it carries a proper maker's name and comes from a stable of fine lenses.

You'll always be safe from vignetting if you fit a filter that's too big for the front element, and use a step-up ring. The downside is the increased cost and it tends to look a bit silly on the smaller thread.

So why do you want to add more glass? Modern coatings are much more resistant to damage than coatings of old, and more glass is always more flare.

There should be no problem using filters between the zoom's front element and the converter lens, but I wouldn't. It moves the converter lens further away and it's then more likely to vignette the corners of the (full) frame. Don't forget you're not seeing the full frame in the v'finder or on the side-screen.

tom.

So why do you want to add more glass? Modern coatings are much more resistant to damage than coatings of old, and more glass is always more flare.So you're saying to skip the UV/ND, etc, filter altogether? Back in my SLR days we always had a protection glass up front unless I was in the studio. Even on my Sony F707 digicam I have one.

Of course, if I've read the other threads correctly, one can't fully use the hood with anything inbetween it and the lens. Granted, I don't have the cam yet and have never even held or seen one in person. Just a few more weeks though, fingers crossed :).

Back in your SLR days (and back in mine too, Darren) we were using huge 36 mm x 24 mm 'chips'. We used focal lengths in the region of 50 mm. Now we have tiny 4.4 mm x 3.3 mm chips with 7 mm focal lenths giving us the same angle of view.

Think on this. If you'd fitted a 7 mm focal length lens to your 35 mm SLR, can you imagine what the dof would be? Even at max aperture it could easily encompas both surfaces of any filter you'd attached, especially if you were doing close-up work.

Now look at your HC1 (to be). If you fit a 0.5x wide-angle converter you're shooting at focal lengths of 2.5 mm. 2.5 mm! Hold your fingers this far apart (1/8th inch) and just realise what we're saying.

At these focal lengths you'll need filters that are quite literally spotless (an impossibility, of course), otherwise you're going to see the dust, finger prints, whatever in your footage. You'll also start to lose definition at anything smaller than f/4 because of diffraction.

Now to the question of the hood. It's a sensible 16:9 design that shields the front element the best it can. Fit a filter and what happens? Just when you need the hood the most (because you've added another piece of glass with its two reflecting surfaces) you find you cannot use it.

Filters are fine, don't get me wrong. But they're not fine (or practical) when using short focal lengths on camcorders with tiny chips. Your F707 probably has a chip 4x the area of the one in the HC1, remember.

tom.

Now to the question of the hood. It's a sensible 16:9 design that shields the front element the best it can. Fit a filter and what happens? Just when you need the hood the most (because you've added another piece of glass with its two reflecting surfaces) you find you cannot use it.


Which hood are we talking about?

Also, Stu, can you tell me if you have encountered any vignetting problems with your HC1 and 37mm filters?

Very, very good points Tom. Thanks for the info!
So I suppose one can assume those are the reasons for Sony's decision to put a lens cover in the hood (BTW, I'm talking about an A1 that I hope to get in a few weeks).

The lens cap in the hood idea (PD170, Z1, A1 etc) is really a seller's delight. It compromises the efficiency of the standard hood (look at the PD150's to see what I mean) because you lose the shadowed interior, but I'm pretty much always this fussy. The 'snap-snap' hood demo on the shop counter will have buyers pushing aside the Panasonic and Canon and JVC, just to give this Sony gizmo a go.

But back to UV filters. If Sony thought the lens would be 'better' by adding another element in the line-up then they'd have added it. The front zoom lens element of the Canon GL2, the VX2100, the PD170 (to name but a few) are all 'protected' by the plane-parallel glass that forms the VAP OIS assembly, yet folk want to add yet ANOTHER piece of glass to protect that. And another to protect the very expensive S-HMC UV Hoya? When will it all end?

tom.

Yes Tom's right - DOF on these cams is inherently pretty huge.
The camera can and will actually focus on the surface of the front-element at WA settings if it's dusty and you're shooting into the sun and the dust flares. You can get round that a little by shooting in Program AE Landscape mode, but far far better is to regualrly (start of every day and occasionally thru the day) check the front-element for dust / debris.

Floris - *slight* vignetting at extreme corners but *only in the photo mode*. Video mode is fine, no vignetting. Photo mode doesn't bother me as i have a 'proper' digicam.

It will end when there is a transparent, good front element that can act as a lens protector by being cheap. In other words, I'm not going to protect a $100-150 lens with a $100 filter. It makes absolutely no sense, almost protecting something dollar for dollar. I want something around $20-50 (but still good quality) to protect something worth $100-150.

It will end when there is a transparent, good front element that can act as a lens protector by being cheap. In other words, I'm not going to protect a $100-150 lens with a $100 filter. It makes absolutely no sense, almost protecting something dollar for dollar. I want something around $20-50 (but still good quality) to protect something worth $100-150.

That's what I figured. I did contact BH with the filter question and they recommended the following to me:

Hi Floris van Eck: ok here are the model # of the filters that we recommend
fo the circular Polarizer # BWKCP37 $ 89.95
for the neutral density # BW10237 $ 24.95
for the uv BWUVMC37 $ 39.95

I might skip the UV as I figured it is not really needed, and if it is needed, only at the front element of the wide-angle lens, thus on the LH77. I might get a $35 UV filter to protect the wide-angle lens, which I will take off when I am going to shoot footage, so it is only for protection purposes. But I guess that with a good bag, and the way I handle products, there is a small chance that the lens will get seriously damaged. But you never know.

Can someone tell me if you can leave a filter attached to the LH77 and then take it off the camera or do you need to remove the filter first?

Yes Tom's right - DOF on these cams is inherently pretty huge.
The camera can and will actually focus on the surface of the front-element at WA settings if it's dusty and you're shooting into the sun and the dust flares. You can get round that a little by shooting in Program AE Landscape mode, but far far better is to regualrly (start of every day and occasionally thru the day) check the front-element for dust / debris.

Floris - *slight* vignetting at extreme corners but *only in the photo mode*. Video mode is fine, no vignetting. Photo mode doesn't bother me as i have a 'proper' digicam.

1) Which front element do you mean, that of the camera, filter or of the wide-angle lens? Does manual focus solve this (I guess so)?

2) Ok. That's good to know. I never use the photo mode because I, like you, use a digital still camera for that -- much better quality.