Top accessories for HV20

[Rapo Nazarko]

Well I went with the RODE NTG-2. I am sure I will enjoey it! Now my next question is how I should carry all the new gear? I have a Lowepro Mini Trekker for my Canon 10D and stuff, and I think it will do fine to carry both the HV20 and 10D, but I also want something small that I can cary only the HV20 and the basic accessories? I'd like to be able to carry the mic, but at nearly 11in long, it might be tough to do, and keep it compact?

Thanks in advance.

Rapo

[Charles Papert]

I met with Century Precision Optics (Schneider) today to examine the possibility of a wide angle adaptor from them for this camera. The Canon WDH43 is out there now but I have always been a fan of Century's adaptors. However, they do not have a stock 43mm HD unit that can be simply adapted to this camera--we tested a 37mm adaptor with a stepup, and it just made it without vignetting but only when the adaptor was centered just so, which would be hard to achieve given that it would have to be a screw-on adaptor. Thus it will be a matter of some months, if ever, before they would have a competitive adaptor to the Canon model (but it would probably be a .65 zoomthrough to the Canon .7x). Incidentally we had a bit better luck with their .55x adaptor which is as little as a screw-on filter--this is a non-zoom through and has noticeable distortion but could be useful for a low-profile point of view cam setup. They are machining me a prototype adaptor ring and I will report back on this. Their 2x adaptor will work with this camera (as vignetting is not an issue as it is with the wide lenses) and should be released first.

[Larry Horwitz]

I bought the .5X Raynox when the Sony HC3 came out, and was not really very happy with how it worked out. As stated above, the image was a bit soft, had slight vignetting, and also some very noticeable color fringing at the edges of the frame. The web site for Raynox made this adapter seem a lot better than it actually is. I would get a Canon or other name brand adapter for my new HV20 anbd forget the Raynox. I may have to use a .7X since I have not seen a Canon .5X.

Might I also suggest a shoulder and / or wrist strap for the HV20. The case is more than a bit slippery....and another person already reported dropping his HV20 on the forum and sent along a picture of the dented damaged case to prove it.....

Larry

[Mike Dulay]

Originally Posted by Enea Lanzarone

If anyone is looking for a good and cheap replacement for the built in microphone, I can recommend the Audio Technica ATR25. It's a AA battery powered stereo condenser mic, which comes with all cables and camera mounts you need. I've had very good results with all cameras I own and it's definetely far better than the built in mic.

http://www.microphones.com/microphone.cfm?URLID=ATR25

It's obviously not a shotgun mic and therefore doesn't have a very long pickup range. But I think that it's comparable with much higher priced Sony video microphones I dealt with.

In what kinds of environments have you used this in? The reviews I've read are mixed. Some call it great, one VX user said generated too much noise because of the plastic in its construction.

[Nelson Cole]

Originally Posted by Larry Horwitz

I bought the .5X Raynox when the Sony HC3 came out, and was not really very happy with how it worked out. As stated above, the image was a bit soft, had slight vignetting, and also some very noticeable color fringing at the edges of the frame. The web site for Raynox made this adapter seem a lot better than it actually is. I would get a Canon or other name brand adapter for my new HV20 anbd forget the Raynox. I may have to use a .7X since I have not seen a Canon .5X.

Larry

I have a .7 WA Rayvox 43mm lens that I use with my Panasonic AG-DVC30. Would I be correct in assuming that this would fit the HV20?

[Enea Lanzarone]

Originally Posted by Mike Dulay

In what kinds of environments have you used this in? The reviews I've read are mixed. Some call it great, one VX user said generated too much noise because of the plastic in its construction.

I've just compared those recordings from my Panasonic SD camera, with and without the AT25. Even though the camera's built in mic has a clean an high quality sound, it picks up a slight hum/hiss from the camera itself (probably the tape). The footage I recorded with the AT25 sounds at least just as clear, but without the noise.

I used it for my feature film in dialogue scenes (closeup shots), simply putting it on a small table tripod (not the best solution, but worked like a charm). I used it for action shots for picking up a nice noisefree ambient sound and I did some rock concert videos - all of them came out very nice. And I'm a musician, too, so I can be delicate and picky when it comes to sound! ;)

I couldn't make out any particular noise pickup either. It's not internally shielded (handling noise protection), but that's not the kind of mic you would use by hand anyway (even though you can, just handle it with care). And unlike I read in some review, the AT25 is completely made of metal, it may be thin but it's definetely not plastic (both the upper and lower part). It may have some plastic parts inside, but I can't see a problem with that. It's a lightweight mic, but it seems sturdy and both mics I've got are still working after 3 years (one had a slight battery contact problem once, but I could fix it easily by myself).

[Charles Papert]

Originally Posted by Nelson Cole

I have a .7 WA Rayvox 43mm lens that I use with my Panasonic AG-DVC30. Would I be correct in assuming that this would fit the HV20?

Remember, any wide angle adaptor that was designed for an SD camera will not be able to resolve for an HD camera. Hence Canon's introduction of the WD-H43 after the WD-43.

[Pieter Jongerius]

Hi Charles,

do you know this for a fact? Any sources backing that up? I happen to have a WD43 that I intend to use with my (upcoming) HV20. The optical quality of that lens seems very good -- to the naked eye anyway. I wouldnt want to spend another EUR180 just because Canon thought the introduction of the H would mean a nice addition to their revenue...
tnx
Pieter

[Nelson Cole]

Originally Posted by Charles Papert

Remember, any wide angle adaptor that was designed for an SD camera will not be able to resolve for an HD camera. Hence Canon's introduction of the WD-H43 after the WD-43.

Thanks, Charles. What if I shoot the HV20 in SD mode? Would it work then?

[John Jay]

I just wanted to add this to the infobase, since I own & recommend the c-8 43 and its big brother c-8 67, two exceptional pieces of glass used in cine 8 land, and easily picked up at the world auction place.



Canon C-8 WIDE ATTACHMENT 43

Special supplementary lens (spectra coating) for the Canon 514XL and 514XL-S movie cameras or any camera with 43mm filter thread for super wide-angle cinematography. When the camera is set to wide-angle macro filming and this lens is used, the focal length is fixed at slightly over 4mm, the shortest focal length in the world for 8mm movie camera. Because of this short focal length, the depth of field is so deep that, in good lighting conditions, there is no need for focus adjustment between the closest filming distance and infinity.


find the manual for the 67 threaded version here (the 43 is identical)
http://www.super8.no/Manuals/Canon_C...0languages.pdf

ps they are not zoom through

[Charles Papert]

Originally Posted by Nelson Cole

Thanks, Charles. What if I shoot the HV20 in SD mode? Would it work then?

That should be fine...the thing to remember is that the better the image going in regardless of format, the better the result. Even an SD image will improve with the best possible optics.

Pieter, it is known that the H version of that lens has a matched resolution for the HV20 while the earlier version will soften the image when used on that camera. It's not just a renaming of the same piece of glass. I can't give you quantitative numbers nor resolution charts, but that is the word that I have heard through Canon channels. I had the same conversation with the Century Precision folks, who have a 43mm SD wide angle adaptor but said there's no point in even trying it on the camera as it defeats the purpose.

[Pieter Jongerius]

Charles, thanks, that's clear language. Still I think I'm going to be a little bit stubborn and try first :))

[Charles Papert]

Certainly worth trying, as it may be "good enough" depending on what yardstick you use. I've never been one to insist on shooting resolution charts and ripping apart test images--if I like the look of a camera, I use that camera! My recommendation would be to shoot a demanding scene with lots of detail (make sure there is something with fine lines if you don't have a chart) without the adaptor, then with--make sure to set the field of view of both shots to as close as you can so it is a fair comparison. Probably easiest to compare stills taken with the camera as they will represent the highest possible resolution.

[Rapo Nazarko]

If anyone is interested - BH has the WD-H43 in stock. Its part #2072B001. It is on thir site as a WD-43.

Rapo

[Charles Papert]

Just received my WD-H43 from Zotz Digital today (where I also bought my camera). They are one of our site sponsors here, and I thought I'd give them a try. I got great personalized service and the prices are very competitive. Give Brian a call at Zotz for a quote if you are considering buying online.