How do you know this is the WD-H43 and not just the regular old WD-43? It looks like it is the stock SD lens and we are all waiting on the HD version.

Peace.

FYI: Some of you may have seen this in another post. Here is a test in which I used the HV20 and convertors on some of the shots, both telephoto, and wide. The wide is a .7 x Kenko on a 58mm mount, I bought to use with my VX2000. As Charles says, you can judge for yourself whether it does well enough. Telephoto is a 58mm mount Sony HG 1.7x I also bought for the VX2000. I have used it on my FX1 too, though I could only use it a full telephoto because of vignetting. At full telephoto, I notices some red fringing on the dark birds.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=XL96FDZ0

Just to reiterate, I have in my hands the WD-H43 from Zotz Digital. They have it in stock.

I had been asked to provide stills of the WD-H43. Here they are. The last one is the "well-dressed HV20" with H43 and DM-50 mike onboard.

The last two are frames from the camera itself showing field of view with and without the adaptor. Clearly there is a bit of barrel distortion as to be expected with a wide angle adaptor (there's even a touch of it on the shot without the adaptor!)

The adaptor is quite heavy compared to the body, it adds up to a bit of a handful (you'll want to use two hands to operate). The center of gravity is pushed up to the somewhere around the manual focus button, i.e. a bit over an inch from the front of the camera!

Can someone also give some advice on a pistol grip for the HV20?

Pretty impressive difference. Thanks Charles! This is exactly the shots I had hoped to see.

Hi Charles -
Am I correct in thinking that ceiling/wall line is straight in real life? Seems like quite a lot of "barrel distortion" offhand, bordering on fisheye. Nice field of view overall though!

DB>)

Whats the best way to protect the large glass element at the front of the WD-H43? The photos don't seem to show filter threads!



Jim

Dave:

Sure hope the ceiling is a straight line, we just remodeled last year!!

Yeah, that's a worst-case scenario that I put up, purposely so that you can see the amount of distortion. For most types of shots this won't be as noticeable of course. Wide angle adaptors tend to do this--I have compared the Canon adaptor for the A1 with the 6x wide zoom on the H1, and there is much more distortion with the adaptor.

James:

Being careful is the best way to protect the adaptor! I suppose it would be possible to tape a good quality clear filter to the front (it would have to be a larger diameter to avoid vignetting) but consider that most pros forego filters to maintain the best optical quality and just take extra care; and that this is a "relatively" inexpensive adaptor to begin with so a calamity wouldn't be nearly as painful as, say, scratching the front element of the built-in lens.

In terms of the added mass, I am finding that using the left hand to support the camera from underneath with thumb and forefinger resting against the collar of the wide angle is pretty comfy, and relieves quite a bit of strain on the right hand (which has to work pretty hard to hold the camera level as all of the weight is offset to the left). This also frees up the index finger of the right hand to operate the zoom more comfortably. This works equally well with and without the adaptor onboard.

I just tested the field of view between the still function on the camera and the video side of things. The still side sees quite a bit more than you would get shooting video, thus the barrel distortion is not as pronounced for the video frame (and you will not see as wide an image) because it is not using the edges of the lens where distortion is more pronounced. Hope this helps!

Based on the mfg part # "2072B001" I googled, and found some sort of canon dealer parts site. It says its "Wide-Converter WD-H43 High-def compatible Wide Conversion Lens..."

Rapo

The H and non-H versions are easily discernable by their appearance:
H: http://www.preistrend.de/img/picts/I189771.jpg (see also the photo's by Charles)
Non-H: http://216.25.78.123/pics/canon/7151a002.jpg

I happen to own the non-H and intend to try it on my HV20 as soon as it arrives. Charles wrote

Eye is king, I always say. I intend to pull some frame grabs with-and-without the adapter through a Photoshop hi-pass filter as a measure of sharpness. To be continued!

--OT: that is some impressive theatre setup you got there Charles! :o

hv20 sunshade?
 

last week, i saw a photo of an hv20 w/ either a black telephoto or wide angle lens attached w/ a sunshade. i'm trying to find that photo but no luck. also, any suggestions on a sunshade? i'll be using mainly the canon wide angle adaptor. thanks.

Enea, is the audio supposed to be very soft on the ATR25? I changed batteries just to be sure but it sounds like its only a quarter as loud as the built in mic for the HV20. When hooked up to a PC I expected it to boom or produce a lot of noise but it doesn't.

That's strange. No it's not supposed to sound weak. I just ran a quick test again and even though my old Panasonic 3ccd has got already very clean and quite loud audio output, the range, quality and the volume as well dramatically improved with the AT25. I remember that I even had to adjust (turn down) the audio gain in the camera, as the AT25 sometimes rendered the sound too loud and a little bit distorted. But that was happening only in extreme situations, for example when I shot rock concerts and got to close to an amp/speaker. As I use my cam as a deck for editing (firewire passthrough), I always have it hooked up to a Technics stereo amp and the footage recorded with the AT25 is very loud, when volume on the amp is set to level one (on a scale to 10).

I even used the mic one for Skype, directly connected to the PC and the quality and volume were excellent.

BTW, I only use high capacity NiMH rechargeable batteries, don't know what you used. But it should work as well with standard alkaline batteries.

Really an odd thing. I suggest you run some more tests, try a different battery type and adjust the in-camera audio settings. But maybe there's simply something wrong with the mic, as mine have definetely quite a high output.