|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 11th, 2003, 10:03 PM
|
#16 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 322
|
Why do you use the 3x more than the 16x?
|
|
|
|
March 12th, 2003, 12:30 PM
|
#17 |
|
Air China Pilot
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Posts: 2,389
|
If you shoot normally indoor or dramatic films, any wideangle is handier because of its aspect. You can get more in. You can frame more dramatically. Also handy for events.
__________________
-- Visit http://www.KeithLoh.com | stuff about living in Vancouver | My Flickr photo gallery |
|
|
|
|
March 13th, 2003, 02:53 PM
|
#18 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Sunderland, England (y Merida, Mexico)
Posts: 269
|
Dylan....Any idea what price those adapters are going for at Canvision?
|
|
|
|
|
March 13th, 2003, 09:31 PM
|
#19 |
|
Wrangler
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 8,314
|
I used to know, but I've since drank those brain cells away.
__________________
Need to rent camera gear in Vancouver BC? Check me out at camerarentalsvancouver.com |
|
|
|
|
March 16th, 2003, 08:11 PM
|
#20 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 322
|
Does the Canon 3x have focus hunting problems when it's on manual?
|
|
|
|
|
March 16th, 2003, 08:36 PM
|
#21 |
|
Obstreperous Rex
|
John -- I've used one quite a bit and have never known it to have this problem.
|
|
|
|
|
March 28th, 2003, 05:02 AM
|
#22 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 70
|
The only thing I have noticed with the 3x is that it is considerably softer than the manual 16x I have. I would like to ask if anyone else has noticed this, because if they haven't I will take my 3x to be serviced...
Thanks lots, Kai. |
|
|
|
|
March 28th, 2003, 05:56 AM
|
#23 |
|
Wrangler
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 1,933
|
I use and like the Century 0.6x adapter. I think I've posted on it here before.
__________________
All the best, Robert K S Search DVinfo.net for quick answers | The best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors |
|
|
|
|
May 22nd, 2003, 10:58 PM
|
#24 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 125
|
Is it possible to use the .7x with the 3x lens? If so, what would be the focal length?
|
|
|
|
|
May 23rd, 2003, 12:45 AM
|
#25 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Billericay, England UK
Posts: 4,711
|
Most certainly you can. The focal length on its own is 3.4 to 10.2 so a 0.7x wide-angle converter takes that down to 2.38 to 7.14mm. Very nice indeed.
tom. |
|
|
|
|
May 26th, 2003, 04:22 PM
|
#26 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 125
|
What is the equiviance in 35mm?
|
|
|
|
|
May 26th, 2003, 04:29 PM
|
#27 |
|
Warden
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Clearwater, FL
Posts: 8,287
|
About 17mm. The conversion factor for 1/3 inch chips is 7.2X.
__________________
Jeff Donald Carpe Diem Search DVinfo.net for quick answers | Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors |
|
|
|
|
May 26th, 2003, 05:12 PM
|
#28 |
|
Slash Rules!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 5,472
|
I'll second on the .6x century. I have it for use with my manual 16x lens. It's around $300, and it's supposedly 40% wider than the stock lens.
Cons that I've noticed are: Have to buy a matte box if you want to hood it No zoom (except with ISII lens and auto focus Some fisheye-ing around the edges |
|
|
|
|
May 26th, 2003, 05:14 PM
|
#29 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 125
|
Ive noticed with my .7x century optics, considerable distortion. It seems to squish things horizontally. Im a bit disturbed by this. Has anyone else had similar problems?
|
|
|
|
|
May 26th, 2003, 05:16 PM
|
#30 |
|
Slash Rules!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 5,472
|
I don't notice a squish so much as a bending of vertical edges, near the edge of the frame. Depending on the shot, sometimes less noticeable than others.
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
