|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 29th, 2004, 06:09 PM | #1 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London UK
Posts: 51
|
MX500 is coming, what about the rest?
Hi,
Thanks for all the help, the decision is made the money was paid, it is coming. The rest of the message is about the rest of the gear, so Frank, push it where it belongs if not here. Have a PC with P2.5Ghz, and standard 4:3 TV. What DVD set-up you guys and girls are happy with? I plan to shoot a lot and than cherry-pick and edit the best moments for DVD and VHS distribution, non commercial. Ease of use and quality is what I am after. I want to watch rented DVDs on it as well.
__________________
ayosha |
January 29th, 2004, 06:23 PM | #2 |
Outer Circle
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hope, BC
Posts: 7,524
|
Just leave this posted here, but post your DVD/VHS questions here:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisp...?s=&forumid=37 or on the PC editing forum. With your cam, I strongly suggest the following:
|
January 29th, 2004, 06:33 PM | #3 |
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Ashford, AL
Posts: 937
|
Congratulations, Ayosha!! I look forward to hearing about your MX500 experience.
|
January 29th, 2004, 06:56 PM | #4 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London UK
Posts: 51
|
Here is my shopping list:
MX500 £1060 Battery D28 £60 20 Sony tapes £60 1 Sony Cleaning tape £19 3 year guarantee & insurance £179 Case Free Still to get list, nowhere to find on UK web scene, will have to order specially from maybe Jessops UV multicoated Polariser ND4 ND8 Raynox HD6600PRO43 Hood Large bum bag Silica gel (have site) What is the difference between linear and circular polariser, could the effect be seen on MX screen? What is best for snow, and best for sea?
__________________
ayosha |
January 29th, 2004, 07:25 PM | #5 | |
Outer Circle
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hope, BC
Posts: 7,524
|
What is best for snow, and best for sea? A linear or circular polarizer. I would just get the linear. The difference? That would be best explained by Bryan B. I'll see if I can find a link for you later.
Okay, Bryan writes: Quote:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...ular+polarizer And here's even a better one: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...ular+polarizer |
|
January 31st, 2004, 02:52 PM | #7 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London UK
Posts: 51
|
How about those?
Hi,
You are right that cleaning tape was a ripoff. Thanks for DVD links. Update: ordered Cyberhome CHDVD505 It looks like the only online shop offering anything 43mm here in UK is amazon.co.uk. Pathetic. Sometimes I realy envy you US guys. Hundreds, no, thousands shops over there, over the pond. OK found some. Now help me out, what of these are rubbish? Tiffen MegaPlus .75x wide angle lens £90 Canon WD-43 WIDE CONVERTER (0.7x) £120 Kodak 43mm Ektanar Wide Angle £50 Hama filters £8 to £30 Hama lens hood £8 BW filters UV and circular £20-£60 Hoya skylight and polarising filters £15 - £20 Kood NDx4 filter £20 Jessops UV £20 Canon FS-43U 43MM FILTER SET (ND and MC protective) £35 Thanks a
__________________
ayosha |
January 31st, 2004, 08:06 PM | #8 |
Outer Circle
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hope, BC
Posts: 7,524
|
Even here (Vancouver), cleaning tapes are not cheap. :-((
The good news is that a cleaning tape will last a very very long time---probably longer than the life of the cam. :-)) Guy, thanks for the polarizer link! |
January 31st, 2004, 09:03 PM | #9 |
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Ashford, AL
Posts: 937
|
Ayosha,
Looks like a pretty good list of quality accessories to me. I think someone on DV Info did an article/review on the Canon wide angle...you might do a search. Actually, I have been eyeing the Kodak wide angle. It is available for less than $40US which is a no brainer, and the quality should be pretty good because Kodak put them on their top-of-the-line digital cams. I don't know anything about Kood and Jessops since we don't seem to have them on this side of the pond. Hoya makes very good filters and, of course, you can't go wrong with Canon. Here's the review I remembered... http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...3mm+wide+angle Hey, Frank, that was quite an article...hard to read, eh. |
January 31st, 2004, 09:35 PM | #10 |
Outer Circle
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hope, BC
Posts: 7,524
|
Guy, I haven't read it yet. PDF files take a while to come up on my old computer. Later, when I have some time, I'll download it, print it, and then read it over a cup of coffee.
|
February 1st, 2004, 08:50 AM | #11 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London UK
Posts: 51
|
Step up 43/49 for MX500?
Hi,
It looks like much more is available for size 49mm than 43mm. The prices are the same. If I attach first 43/49 step-up ring and than Raynox .66xpro will there be a problem with vignetting or focusing? What if I stack filters between the MX500 and Raynox, like: MX500 - step-up 43/49 - circular - Raynox - 72mm UV If that works I would need only one set of filters, all 49mm plus protective 72mm for Raynox. And save that 43mm thread on MX from wearing out. Raynox .66x pro £110 at Jessops for 43mmm or 49mm. Question about BW ND filters, described as ".3" and ".6". Does that mean ".3" version lets through 30% of light? How does that compare with 4ND and 8ND, from other makes. The answer to that last one is here: http://www.schneideroptics.com/filte...nsity_filters/
__________________
ayosha |
February 1st, 2004, 10:43 AM | #12 |
Outer Circle
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hope, BC
Posts: 7,524
|
Yes, pro filters usually start at 49mm (& up).
PS: the filters screw on to the front of the adaptor, not in-between. Before you decide on filter sizes, check the front threads on the Raynox, to find out the filter size. Regarding which Raynox, do a search on Tom Hardwick's adaptor reviews (posts); also check out Allan's posts. |
February 1st, 2004, 11:12 AM | #13 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London UK
Posts: 51
|
I see Raynox as a just another filter (OK, multi-layered, complex and pricey), something you stack if front of camera lens to change the quality of light coming in, in this case the angles.
The question is, does it have to be the first, next to the original lens or could we have a filter (or two or three) in between. From my half forgotten past I seem to remember a bit about optics that says it doesn't matter. But then I can almost remember the reasons it might. Something I plan to try out as soon as the kit is in.
__________________
ayosha |
February 2nd, 2004, 10:25 AM | #14 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 42
|
In the same boat here
Also just purchased an MX500B (£999 from Jessops, but no bag included)
A lovely camera, although I'm already wondering if I did the right thing.... This low-light performance issue really is a bugger. Comparing the MX500B to my old Hi-8 Sony TRV820, one is left with the conclusion that the MX500B simply doesn't work indoors at night unless the lights are turned up to a rather disconcerting level. I hope to join you in the purchase of a Raynox 0.66x WA converter from Jessops. What's the situation regarding rubber hoods to go on the front? Also wondering if a tight-fitting leathery cover is available so that I can afford to be a bit rough with it. Also, if I can make the leather cover look tatty, then it would reduce the attractiveness of the camera to theives... By the way, looks like you paid over the odds for tapes - have you discovered KVJ Fairdeal yet? Also a good source for batteries, with D28's @ 51.99 (I guess the same price as your supplier)
__________________
Alex |
February 2nd, 2004, 01:29 PM | #15 |
Wrangler
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,415
|
Alex, isn't the TRV820 a Digital8?
Yes, low light performance is so overlooked these days in place of cramming more pixels and smaller CCDs into shrinking cams. I think its humorous that when you look in a magazine these days and a camcorder's short description is dominated by its email or still capabilities. Or even better its 1500x digital zoom. |
| ||||||
|
|