telephoto for canon xh-a1 at DVinfo.net

Steve Porchet · September 19th, 2007, 02:11 PM

Ok, I've had a bunch of "salesman" try to sell me a telephoto for my XH-A1 so now I'm turning to those of you that really know. I'm currently filming wildlife for hunting videos and need to know which one will be the best for my application.

Bill Pryor · September 19th, 2007, 04:01 PM

I know that 16X9 sells one for under 900 bucks that looks pretty good. I'd be careful of anything much cheaper than that.

Steven Dempsey · September 19th, 2007, 04:28 PM

Even using the more expensive teleconverter such as the one mentioned above will still degrade your image somewhat, particularly around the edges. Also chromatic abberation is increased substantially.

The stock lens is the 35mm equivalent of 650mm, which is pretty impressive and adequate for most applications.

Eric Muehling · September 20th, 2007, 07:49 PM

I shoot some wildlife, and I'm very pleased with my
Century Pro Series HD 1.6X Tele-Converter 102mm.

I see no vignetting when zoomed in. When you
zoom out it's like looking into a train tunnel, so
know that you'll only be using it when zoomed in.

I find it's sharp enough for video.

Some thoughts: I recently started shooting video,
but I worked as a still photographer for print publication
for years. The required lens sharpness and pixel resolution
needed for high-quality printing (ink on paper) are greater
than the lens sharpness and resolution required for
display on a 1080i display.

I know this may be more detail than this post calls for, but
here's an example. For a four-inch high image printed on paper
to look sharp (glossy magazine, not newspaper rag), then
I'd want to start with 1200 pixels high (300 pixels per inch).
That four-inch high image in print rquires a greater resolution
than my Canon XH-A1 (1080i) can produce. I carry a 10+
megapixel still camera for still images, just because acceptable
still images cannot be made from the XH-A1 for my print purposes.

Yes, I know some newspapers are requiring their photographers
to shoot with HD video cameras (for web content), and video
frames are converted into still shots for print publication, but the
quaity in print is compromised. Oops, sorry, I'm off topic again.

Bottom line for video: I think the sharpness of the Century Pro
(and probably other high-quality video add-on lenses)
exceed the sharpness needed to look great on a HD display.

September 19th, 2007, 02:11 PM	#1
Steve Porchet Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Jonesboro, Arkansas Posts: 28	telephoto for canon xh-a1 Ok, I've had a bunch of "salesman" try to sell me a telephoto for my XH-A1 so now I'm turning to those of you that really know. I'm currently filming wildlife for hunting videos and need to know which one will be the best for my application.

September 19th, 2007, 04:28 PM	#3
Steven Dempsey Disjecta Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Seattle, Washington Posts: 937	Even using the more expensive teleconverter such as the one mentioned above will still degrade your image somewhat, particularly around the edges. Also chromatic abberation is increased substantially. The stock lens is the 35mm equivalent of 650mm, which is pretty impressive and adequate for most applications. __________________ Try my Digital Therapy: http://www.pinelakefilms.com/digital_therapy.html Films on ExposureRoom: http://exposureroom.com/members/disjecta.aspx/videos/

September 19th, 2007, 04:01 PM	#2
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	I know that 16X9 sells one for under 900 bucks that looks pretty good. I'd be careful of anything much cheaper than that.

September 20th, 2007, 07:49 PM	#4
Eric Muehling New Boot Join Date: May 2007 Location: Fairbanks Alaska Posts: 20	I shoot some wildlife, and I'm very pleased with my Century Pro Series HD 1.6X Tele-Converter 102mm. I see no vignetting when zoomed in. When you zoom out it's like looking into a train tunnel, so know that you'll only be using it when zoomed in. I find it's sharp enough for video. Some thoughts: I recently started shooting video, but I worked as a still photographer for print publication for years. The required lens sharpness and pixel resolution needed for high-quality printing (ink on paper) are greater than the lens sharpness and resolution required for display on a 1080i display. I know this may be more detail than this post calls for, but here's an example. For a four-inch high image printed on paper to look sharp (glossy magazine, not newspaper rag), then I'd want to start with 1200 pixels high (300 pixels per inch). That four-inch high image in print rquires a greater resolution than my Canon XH-A1 (1080i) can produce. I carry a 10+ megapixel still camera for still images, just because acceptable still images cannot be made from the XH-A1 for my print purposes. Yes, I know some newspapers are requiring their photographers to shoot with HD video cameras (for web content), and video frames are converted into still shots for print publication, but the quaity in print is compromised. Oops, sorry, I'm off topic again. Bottom line for video: I think the sharpness of the Century Pro (and probably other high-quality video add-on lenses) exceed the sharpness needed to look great on a HD display.