Wide Angle Adaptor for XH A1?

[Tom Hardwick]

David, it's a 0.52x converter sold by Bolex in Switzerland.
http://www.bolex.ch/NEW/?p=1
The Aspheron's no fisheye as you'll see if you click on the tinyurl I gave you above. There's *no* barrel distortion.

tom.

[Lou Bruno]

I have the Canon wide angle and I must say it has very little if any distortion or CA.

[Tom Hardwick]

This is a very quick way to check to see how much barrel distortion your lens combo gives.

http://www.fortvir.net/gallery/v/tom...test+.jpg.html

tom.

[Steven Glicker]

Earlier I mentioned three items on the down-side, here are three on the up-side: it works well (including zoom through), the price, and it looks impressive. (I definately get more comments and questions about the camera and what I'm doing when its on).

There is a short clip, where its put on and then removed, on this thread: http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.ph...hlight=wa+clip

Here is another thread with a little more info: http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=78929

[Tom Cambridge]

I have now tried the century optics compact hd 0.8x converter. The last wide-angle I tried was a zunow 0.7x which was terrible with 1/3 of the image soft around the edges and very bad abberations. Well I thought I would be safe with the century as it is only a 0.8x and century are said to be among the best you can buy and they are by no means cheap.

Unfortunately the edges are still soft although not as bad as the zunow at around a 1/5 of the width of the image being affected to some degree vs 1/3 on the zunow. The abberations are still there and to me are at an unacceptable level. The one good point about it is the size, it is light and is so small it does not block the instant af sensor.

Even when switched to sd the softness remains unchanged although the abberations are reduced significantly.

I have given up, and considering the cost of this wide-angle it is simply not worth the bother and in my opinion ruins the quality of the image from the stock lens which is excellent.

[Steven Dempsey]

The entire frame looks out of focus to me in that example you just posted.

[Tom Cambridge]

Sorry about the quality of the stills, this one is far better at showing the abberations- (Just look at the fencing, terrible)

[Tom Cambridge]

There are just vlc player snapshots is there a better method I can use on avid liquid 7?

[Tom Cambridge]

The stock lens is amazing

[Roger Beck]

That VFGadgets wide angle filter http://www.vfgadgets.com/RedEye.htm doesnt look like its made of glass but

"a durable and compact, high index, high clarity optical material"

still, the reviews here have given it a good rating. Plastic can have a higher refractive index than glass, which would make it thinner, but would a glass filter be that much bigger and heavier?

[Tom Cambridge]

I'd guess that if being made out of glass it would still not be that heavy. These interest me very much but I cannot see this adapter being any better than a mild 8x $700 century lens with abberations and soft edges and I have come to the point where I will accept nothing less than a solution with next to none or none at all. If heard good things about the canon wd72 and I would have not considered anything less if it weren't for the size and weight of the thing which ofcourse is what attracted me to the century compact. An inconspicuous, light as possible solution is what I need. I'd have to see some stills using an actuall xh-a1 to confirm the red-eye is suitable.

[Brent Graham]

I just purchased this cheapy.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...624224-4036848
We'll see how she turns out. Made in Japan, so should be alright. claims HD resolving glass.

Should have it this week.

Later..

[Steven Dempsey]

Brent, I hate to rain on your parade but I would not use this lens on the XHA1. It's been documented here and on DVXUser to avoid these so-called HD adapters at all costs. I bought one myself years ago and never used it. The optics are made of inferior parts so you will lose the sharpness of the picture and it will compromise the quality of your shots.

The "HD" part stands for Hugely Disappointing. Basically it comes down to "you get what you pay for" and, in this case, it's true.

Of course don't take my word for it, try it for yourself and let us know.

[Don Palomaki]

Brent: Good glass in 72 mm size is E X P E N $ I V E. Do not expect much from $95 hunk of glass.

[Tom Cambridge]

Originally Posted by Patrick Moreau

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

Patrick I'd really appreciate it if you could post some full res stills with the red-eye 0.5x so I can get a good idea of what to expect regarding levels of abberations and softness at edges, the video you posted gave me a good idea of how wide the lens was but was not high quality enough to accurately judge everything else, I assume it is the new Hd fx adapter?

Thanks.