Wide Angle Adaptor for XH A1?

Eric Weiss · April 11th, 2007, 08:19 AM

They may have. However, it clearly says XL1/XL2 right on it.

The blur happens during zoom through on the 16X and goes right back in focus, but the shot is useless.

I also have the 3x which is simply amazing. It was just frustrating in situations where I would need to zoom on something, so I purchased the Century. I almost upgraded to a 20X as I heard that it worked better on that one.

I had to use it for a while and just learned its points of distortion.

Ultimately, I just decided to get an A1 and I'm purchasing the Canon WA this week.

The RedEye .5X seems like a decent choice for a non-zoom in extreme situations. It's light too.

Patrick Moreau · April 11th, 2007, 10:01 AM

I have the 0.5 red eye and am very happy with it. There is some distortion and softness on the edges but very acceptable levels in my opinion. I also purchased the Cavision wide angle, the 0.6x with zoom through and was very unimpressed. The edges were very soft and the chromatic aberration was huge. Not to mention that the lens hood vignettes at full wide. I returned that and will be try the 16:9 INC 0.7 wide angle shortly.

Patrick

Eric Weiss · April 11th, 2007, 10:07 AM

patrick, could you post "before and after" shots using the red eye?
i'd really appreciate it.

i figured as much on the Cavision. Let us know how the INC works out.

Tom Cambridge · April 11th, 2007, 10:24 AM

My solution for my requirements has been to buy a century 0.8x compact hd converter which will cover most shooting situations, it seems a better option than the canon because it's half the size and even less than half the weight of the canon, however is likely to produce a picture of equal quality, so it just makes sense at the same price. I realise that 0.8x is not very wide, although it will cover most situations and for extreme wide shots I am likely to purchase a red-eye 0.5x hd lens, so I too would appreciate some example shots please Patrick. I am happy with this solution because it keeps the bulk and weight down which is important to me. I certainly did not like the idea of a 720g century 0.7x on the front of a already front heavy camera.

Patrick Moreau · April 11th, 2007, 01:35 PM

Okay, I made a quick comparision with the stock lens, 0.5x red eye lens and a modded 0.3 $100 clip-on raynox. I should also note that I had problems using instant AF with the red-eye only (it pulses frequently when turned on). I use this on a steadicam so most of the time the AF is a helper. Normal AF works with the red eye though.

Hope that helps.
http://smcouples.com/Samples/wideangle.mov

I've been working on getting Vfgadgets to send me a couple more wide angle lenses so I can do a comparision with all of them, but they are too busy with NAB right now. If you call them, please mention that it would be nice to have a comparision video with all the different options shown.

Patrick

Paul Lashmana · April 11th, 2007, 01:53 PM

Sometimes I wish I had chosen a less price-demanding line of interest/work. Like painting with fries from McDonalds or something...

Eric Weiss · April 11th, 2007, 02:07 PM

Thanks for doing that Patrick.

I think I'm just going to stick with the Canon WA. I ordered it earlier today.

Coming from an Xl1-s with a stock 16X of 5.5mm-88mm
the A1 lens is already wider at 4.5mm. For my needs, .8 should be fine and I know the image will be at its best.

Daniel Epstein · April 11th, 2007, 05:41 PM

For those of you who are hoping for something that is inexpensive and zoom thru which is wider than a .8X you are bucking a lot of trends. Frankly the manufacturers have almost never gone past .8X with a zoom thru although technically it is possible. There is a technical and cost reason the wider adaptors are not zoom thru and that is because it is very hard to hold the focus over the whole range and relatively easy to just deal with the wide lens. Size and weight also come into play as most zoom thru adapters end up being heavier. If the Canon XH-A1 isn't wide enough with a .8X for you then you might have to sacrifice zooming for wideness or try a different camera. Don't expect any adapters to be the magic bullet anytime soon

Rob Hatcher · April 11th, 2007, 05:50 PM

I saw a .5x on ebay that is supposedly made by Tokina for around 190.0 It looks like one element group. I wonder what sort of quality that might be? Obviously not zoom through but if it were sharp at all that's pretty inexpensive.

Don Palomaki · April 11th, 2007, 07:54 PM

One can often get away with a sloppy converter/adapter if shooting material where the sloppiness is masked by image content. The problems become appaent in stills and side-by-side comaprisons. But they becomes painfully apparent if shooting difficult material, like test charts, resolution charts, etc.

Any adapter that is not equal to or larger than front glass on the camcorder lens is going to have some issues.

Good glass is not cheap, and great glass is expensive. You pays your money and takes your choices.

Alex Leith · April 15th, 2007, 04:55 AM

I don't know if anyone else has had this experience. When zoomed in PUSH AF seems to focus (reasonably) well on target, but if you're zoomed out and PUSH AF and then zoom in, you find that PUSH AF has come up short of the mark?

For me PUSH AF on wide seems to focuss on random stupid distances well in front of the target.

And yes I'm on a tripod, with the same results on variety of targets, all well illuminated with clear vertical lines, and no I don't have AF on.

Anyone else care to let me know if they have similar experiences?

Boyd Ostroff · April 15th, 2007, 06:13 AM

Well I don't own an A1, but this behavior is similar to my Sony cameras and is probably unavoidable. The problem is that when you zoom way out to a wide shot, the depth of field is huge. It's possible that everything from 10 feet to infinity is all in focus, so autofocus isn't very critical. Then when you zoom in your depth of field become considerably less, so the focus point you set on the wide shot isn't accurate.

Maybe there's something different going on with your camera, but I suspect this is the phenomenon you're seeing...

Piotr Wozniacki · April 15th, 2007, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boyd Ostroff

Well I don't own an A1, but this behavior is similar to my Sony cameras and is probably unavoidable. The problem is that when you zoom way out to a wide shot, the depth of field is huge. It's possible that everything from 10 feet to infinity is all in focus, so autofocus isn't very critical. Then when you zoom in your depth of field become considerably less, so the focus point you set on the wide shot isn't accurate.

Maybe there's something different going on with your camera, but I suspect this is the phenomenon you're seeing...

I can confirm - this is a normal behaviour (on both the A1 and V1).

Alex Leith · April 15th, 2007, 06:57 AM

Thanks guys, at least I know it's not a fault with my model.

Richard Seccombe · April 23rd, 2007, 06:01 PM

Hi Everyone,

I looked high and low and can't find much in the way of any information on the WD-72 aside from a .75 magnification factor. Does anyone know whether it is a "Zoom Through" lens? Long ago I had a Century Optics adapter for another camera and it would not allow you to zoom all the way through the zoom range with the adapter mounted.

Also, does anyone own one of these, and if so, what are your impressions of it with respect to loss of resolution, CA, etc.

Thanks very much,
Richard

April 11th, 2007, 07:54 PM	#175
Don Palomaki Wrangler Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Northern VA Posts: 4,488	One can often get away with a sloppy converter/adapter if shooting material where the sloppiness is masked by image content. The problems become appaent in stills and side-by-side comaprisons. But they becomes painfully apparent if shooting difficult material, like test charts, resolution charts, etc. Any adapter that is not equal to or larger than front glass on the camcorder lens is going to have some issues. Good glass is not cheap, and great glass is expensive. You pays your money and takes your choices. __________________ dpalomaki@dspalomaki.com

April 15th, 2007, 04:55 AM	#176
Alex Leith Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Northampton, England Posts: 500	Push AF Is Innacurate On Wide Shots? I don't know if anyone else has had this experience. When zoomed in PUSH AF seems to focus (reasonably) well on target, but if you're zoomed out and PUSH AF and then zoom in, you find that PUSH AF has come up short of the mark? For me PUSH AF on wide seems to focuss on random stupid distances well in front of the target. And yes I'm on a tripod, with the same results on variety of targets, all well illuminated with clear vertical lines, and no I don't have AF on. Anyone else care to let me know if they have similar experiences? __________________ Alex

April 15th, 2007, 06:57 AM	#179
Alex Leith Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Northampton, England Posts: 500	Thanks guys, at least I know it's not a fault with my model. __________________ Alex

April 23rd, 2007, 06:01 PM	#180
Richard Seccombe New Boot Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 16	Canon WD-72 Wide Angle Adapter Hi Everyone, I looked high and low and can't find much in the way of any information on the WD-72 aside from a .75 magnification factor. Does anyone know whether it is a "Zoom Through" lens? Long ago I had a Century Optics adapter for another camera and it would not allow you to zoom all the way through the zoom range with the adapter mounted. Also, does anyone own one of these, and if so, what are your impressions of it with respect to loss of resolution, CA, etc. Thanks very much, Richard

April 11th, 2007, 08:19 AM	#166
Eric Weiss Major Player Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Philly,PA Posts: 360	They may have. However, it clearly says XL1/XL2 right on it. The blur happens during zoom through on the 16X and goes right back in focus, but the shot is useless. I also have the 3x which is simply amazing. It was just frustrating in situations where I would need to zoom on something, so I purchased the Century. I almost upgraded to a 20X as I heard that it worked better on that one. I had to use it for a while and just learned its points of distortion. Ultimately, I just decided to get an A1 and I'm purchasing the Canon WA this week. The RedEye .5X seems like a decent choice for a non-zoom in extreme situations. It's light too.

April 11th, 2007, 10:01 AM	#167
Patrick Moreau Still Motion Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,186	I have the 0.5 red eye and am very happy with it. There is some distortion and softness on the edges but very acceptable levels in my opinion. I also purchased the Cavision wide angle, the 0.6x with zoom through and was very unimpressed. The edges were very soft and the chromatic aberration was huge. Not to mention that the lens hood vignettes at full wide. I returned that and will be try the 16:9 INC 0.7 wide angle shortly. Patrick

April 11th, 2007, 10:07 AM	#168
Eric Weiss Major Player Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Philly,PA Posts: 360	patrick, could you post "before and after" shots using the red eye? i'd really appreciate it. i figured as much on the Cavision. Let us know how the INC works out.

April 11th, 2007, 10:24 AM	#169
Tom Cambridge New Boot Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: England Posts: 24	My solution for my requirements has been to buy a century 0.8x compact hd converter which will cover most shooting situations, it seems a better option than the canon because it's half the size and even less than half the weight of the canon, however is likely to produce a picture of equal quality, so it just makes sense at the same price. I realise that 0.8x is not very wide, although it will cover most situations and for extreme wide shots I am likely to purchase a red-eye 0.5x hd lens, so I too would appreciate some example shots please Patrick. I am happy with this solution because it keeps the bulk and weight down which is important to me. I certainly did not like the idea of a 720g century 0.7x on the front of a already front heavy camera.

April 11th, 2007, 01:35 PM	#170
Patrick Moreau Still Motion Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,186	Okay, I made a quick comparision with the stock lens, 0.5x red eye lens and a modded 0.3 $100 clip-on raynox. I should also note that I had problems using instant AF with the red-eye only (it pulses frequently when turned on). I use this on a steadicam so most of the time the AF is a helper. Normal AF works with the red eye though. Hope that helps. http://smcouples.com/Samples/wideangle.mov I've been working on getting Vfgadgets to send me a couple more wide angle lenses so I can do a comparision with all of them, but they are too busy with NAB right now. If you call them, please mention that it would be nice to have a comparision video with all the different options shown. Patrick

April 11th, 2007, 01:53 PM	#171
Paul Lashmana Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Brakel, Belgium Posts: 64	Sometimes I wish I had chosen a less price-demanding line of interest/work. Like painting with fries from McDonalds or something...

April 11th, 2007, 02:07 PM	#172
Eric Weiss Major Player Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Philly,PA Posts: 360	Thanks for doing that Patrick. I think I'm just going to stick with the Canon WA. I ordered it earlier today. Coming from an Xl1-s with a stock 16X of 5.5mm-88mm the A1 lens is already wider at 4.5mm. For my needs, .8 should be fine and I know the image will be at its best.

April 11th, 2007, 05:41 PM	#173
Daniel Epstein Trustee Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: New York, NY Posts: 1,267	For those of you who are hoping for something that is inexpensive and zoom thru which is wider than a .8X you are bucking a lot of trends. Frankly the manufacturers have almost never gone past .8X with a zoom thru although technically it is possible. There is a technical and cost reason the wider adaptors are not zoom thru and that is because it is very hard to hold the focus over the whole range and relatively easy to just deal with the wide lens. Size and weight also come into play as most zoom thru adapters end up being heavier. If the Canon XH-A1 isn't wide enough with a .8X for you then you might have to sacrifice zooming for wideness or try a different camera. Don't expect any adapters to be the magic bullet anytime soon

April 11th, 2007, 05:50 PM	#174
Rob Hatcher New Boot Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: BG KY Posts: 12	I saw a .5x on ebay that is supposedly made by Tokina for around 190.0 It looks like one element group. I wonder what sort of quality that might be? Obviously not zoom through but if it were sharp at all that's pretty inexpensive.

April 15th, 2007, 06:13 AM	#177
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,800	Well I don't own an A1, but this behavior is similar to my Sony cameras and is probably unavoidable. The problem is that when you zoom way out to a wide shot, the depth of field is huge. It's possible that everything from 10 feet to infinity is all in focus, so autofocus isn't very critical. Then when you zoom in your depth of field become considerably less, so the focus point you set on the wide shot isn't accurate. Maybe there's something different going on with your camera, but I suspect this is the phenomenon you're seeing...