New 0.7 Raynox wideangle, HD-7062PRO, for V1U due in May

Ralph Roberts · August 2nd, 2007, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Piotr Wozniacki

Ralph, please post some grabs, and your impressions on the Raynox!

My Raynox was delivered yesterday and I shot a quick two-minute test with it, see:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...37309791032666

VERY pleased with the Raynox. At less than $200, it's a great deal.

--Ralph

Piotr Wozniacki · August 2nd, 2007, 07:40 AM

Ralph, thanks a lot! As far as barrel distorsion is concerend, I can see almost none. However, due to the quality of your clip, I can't assess its influence on colour fringing or picture sharpness in full tele... Please post some stills for this purpose!

Thanks again:)

Tom Hardwick · August 2nd, 2007, 07:53 AM

Good to see your test footage Ralph and I was most impressed by its lack of barrel distortion. Early on in your test you pan right and the vertical edge of the barn comes into view: dead straight, excellent.

Not so here with the Raynox 0.5x:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...18907112986893

Problem is the V1/FX7 doesn't have much wide-angle coverage right out of the box, so a 0.7x is pretty mild at the best of times. The 0.5x I use on the Z1 looks wildy wide, is devoid of barrel distortion, and there's a short clip here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNBi1XaEdtQ

tom.

Ralph Roberts · August 2nd, 2007, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Piotr Wozniacki

Ralph, thanks a lot! As far as barrel distorsion is concerend, I can see almost none. However, due to the quality of your clip, I can't assess its influence on colour fringing or picture sharpness in full tele... Please post some stills for this purpose!

Thanks again:)

Piotr, here are three stills... most frames in this test are perfectly acceptable... the third one (extreme telephoto) has some problems... I not sure at this point whether it was me or the lens... the cam was on autofocus which might have affected this.

In general, still very happy with performance.

Ralph Roberts · August 2nd, 2007, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick

Good to see your test footage Ralph and I was most impressed by its lack of barrel distortion. Early on in your test you pan right and the vertical edge of the barn comes into view: dead straight, excellent.

Not so here with the Raynox 0.5x:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...18907112986893

Problem is the V1/FX7 doesn't have much wide-angle coverage right out of the box, so a 0.7x is pretty mild at the best of times. The 0.5x I use on the Z1 looks wildy wide, is devoid of barrel distortion, and there's a short clip here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNBi1XaEdtQ

tom.

Yes, I see the difference, Tom... still, NICE beach! ;-)

--Ralph

Piotr Wozniacki · August 2nd, 2007, 09:39 AM

Thanks Ralph - it beats the Century 0.65x, no questions about that. Have you thought on fitting some lens hood on it?

Stu Holmes · August 2nd, 2007, 11:10 AM

In general it seems nice.

But that last close-up of the barn still.. shows significant softening and smearing at the edges. The center is fine, but the edges, particulalrly top right and bottom-left are really quite smeared.
- Look at the leaves of the green plant at bottom-left (on the enlarged 3rd pic). :-/

Also some chromatic aberration visible on the vertical plank on bottom right.
I'd really like to see 3 or 4 of these 0.65 to 0.8 WA lenses for the V1 compared on sam cam, fixed-tripod, same subject. I am starting to think that for all it's "mildness", the Sony VCL-HG0862K might perhaps be the best solution. It gives 29.9mm widest on V1, and everyone just needs to work out if that's wide enough for them. I think, for my purposes, it would be wide enough to be honest.

I have heard before that the Raynox is fine at wideangle, but suffers when you zoom in and i think these pictures largely bear that out. Of course, the whole point of these lenses are that you need them for the WA end of the range, and once you zoom in beyond a certain (fairly early) point, then of course you should just take the WA lens off.

But human nature being what it is, most people aren't going to be screwing and unscrewing the lens every 30seconds and are likely to just leave it on for a little while, whether they're zoomed in a bit or not..

just my 2 cents. Thanks to Ralph for the useful test.

Piotr Wozniacki · August 2nd, 2007, 11:40 AM

Absolutely Stu. The Sony's own 0.8x wa has absolutely no effect on picture quality except for a slight barrel distorsion; is fuly zoom-through with no clour fringing. Therefore I'm keeping it, but would like to have some stronger adaptor for those rare occasions...

Ralph Roberts · August 2nd, 2007, 01:13 PM

Stu, yes I agree with your assessment but it only seems to occur at full out telephoto ... in other words, I find the Raynox usable over most of the zoom range... just have to remember don't go out all the way. ;-)

--Ralph

Seth Bloombaum · August 2nd, 2007, 02:59 PM

My experience with the Raynox is the same as Ralph's. What this has meant to me in practice is that the adaptor does *not* live on the lens, but only comes out when I need a wide-angle shot.

Still liking the Raynox a lot!

Ron Chau · August 2nd, 2007, 07:40 PM

As I said in my previous post's I really like my Raynox 7062, especially given the price, but I also agree with the others, that the lens does not stay on the camcorder and is only used when a wider angle is necessary.

As far as the Century vs. the Raynox, IMHO, Century optics should be embarrassed that the Raynox at less than half the price out performs it.

Piotr Wozniacki · August 2nd, 2007, 11:39 PM

OK, so here are 4 grabs from my V1E: the first is widest without any adapter, the second - widest with the Sony's own 'K' 0.8x, and the bottom two - fully zoomed with the Sony wa. The latter might not be focussed properly, but some of the leaves are sharp here and there around the whole picture area, without fringing - so there is no degradation. Like I said, the Sony VCL-HG0862K might no be wide enough sometimes, but at least it's not spoiling the picture. On close-ups like this, the Century 0.65x I tested couldn't produce really sharp pictures even in the frame centre, and the leaves' edges against the sky were outlined with ugly magenta halo.

Stu Holmes · August 4th, 2007, 02:35 PM

Thanks for posting those shots Piotr.

They are very useful to see.

Piotr Wozniacki · August 4th, 2007, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu Holmes

Thanks for posting those shots Piotr.

They are very useful to see.

My pleasure Stu. The VCL-HG0862K is really mild, but sufficient for most situations.

August 2nd, 2007, 07:40 AM	#62
Piotr Wozniacki Inner Circle Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Poland Posts: 4,086	Ralph, thanks a lot! As far as barrel distorsion is concerend, I can see almost none. However, due to the quality of your clip, I can't assess its influence on colour fringing or picture sharpness in full tele... Please post some stills for this purpose! Thanks again:) __________________ Sony PXW-FS7 \| DaVinci Resolve Studio; Magix Vegas Pro; i7-5960X CPU; 64 GB RAM; 2x GTX 1080 8GB GPU; Decklink 4K Extreme 12G; 4x 3TB WD Black in RAID 0; 1TB M.2 NVMe cache drive

August 2nd, 2007, 09:39 AM	#66
Piotr Wozniacki Inner Circle Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Poland Posts: 4,086	Thanks Ralph - it beats the Century 0.65x, no questions about that. Have you thought on fitting some lens hood on it? __________________ Sony PXW-FS7 \| DaVinci Resolve Studio; Magix Vegas Pro; i7-5960X CPU; 64 GB RAM; 2x GTX 1080 8GB GPU; Decklink 4K Extreme 12G; 4x 3TB WD Black in RAID 0; 1TB M.2 NVMe cache drive

August 2nd, 2007, 11:40 AM	#68
Piotr Wozniacki Inner Circle Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Poland Posts: 4,086	Absolutely Stu. The Sony's own 0.8x wa has absolutely no effect on picture quality except for a slight barrel distorsion; is fuly zoom-through with no clour fringing. Therefore I'm keeping it, but would like to have some stronger adaptor for those rare occasions... __________________ Sony PXW-FS7 \| DaVinci Resolve Studio; Magix Vegas Pro; i7-5960X CPU; 64 GB RAM; 2x GTX 1080 8GB GPU; Decklink 4K Extreme 12G; 4x 3TB WD Black in RAID 0; 1TB M.2 NVMe cache drive

August 2nd, 2007, 01:13 PM	#69
Ralph Roberts Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Alexander, NC Posts: 188	Stu, yes I agree with your assessment but it only seems to occur at full out telephoto ... in other words, I find the Raynox usable over most of the zoom range... just have to remember don't go out all the way. ;-) --Ralph __________________ --Ralph Roberts, CEO 1VIDeo / aBOOKS / Creativity, Inc.

August 2nd, 2007, 11:39 PM	#72
Piotr Wozniacki Inner Circle Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Poland Posts: 4,086	OK, so here are 4 grabs from my V1E: the first is widest without any adapter, the second - widest with the Sony's own 'K' 0.8x, and the bottom two - fully zoomed with the Sony wa. The latter might not be focussed properly, but some of the leaves are sharp here and there around the whole picture area, without fringing - so there is no degradation. Like I said, the Sony VCL-HG0862K might no be wide enough sometimes, but at least it's not spoiling the picture. On close-ups like this, the Century 0.65x I tested couldn't produce really sharp pictures even in the frame centre, and the leaves' edges against the sky were outlined with ugly magenta halo. Attached Thumbnails __________________ Sony PXW-FS7 \| DaVinci Resolve Studio; Magix Vegas Pro; i7-5960X CPU; 64 GB RAM; 2x GTX 1080 8GB GPU; Decklink 4K Extreme 12G; 4x 3TB WD Black in RAID 0; 1TB M.2 NVMe cache drive Last edited by Piotr Wozniacki; August 3rd, 2007 at 02:34 AM.

August 2nd, 2007, 07:53 AM	#63
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Good to see your test footage Ralph and I was most impressed by its lack of barrel distortion. Early on in your test you pan right and the vertical edge of the barn comes into view: dead straight, excellent. Not so here with the Raynox 0.5x: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...18907112986893 Problem is the V1/FX7 doesn't have much wide-angle coverage right out of the box, so a 0.7x is pretty mild at the best of times. The 0.5x I use on the Z1 looks wildy wide, is devoid of barrel distortion, and there's a short clip here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNBi1XaEdtQ tom.

August 2nd, 2007, 11:10 AM	#67
Stu Holmes Major Player Join Date: May 2005 Location: Europe Posts: 844	In general it seems nice. But that last close-up of the barn still.. shows significant softening and smearing at the edges. The center is fine, but the edges, particulalrly top right and bottom-left are really quite smeared. - Look at the leaves of the green plant at bottom-left (on the enlarged 3rd pic). :-/ Also some chromatic aberration visible on the vertical plank on bottom right. I'd really like to see 3 or 4 of these 0.65 to 0.8 WA lenses for the V1 compared on sam cam, fixed-tripod, same subject. I am starting to think that for all it's "mildness", the Sony VCL-HG0862K might perhaps be the best solution. It gives 29.9mm widest on V1, and everyone just needs to work out if that's wide enough for them. I think, for my purposes, it would be wide enough to be honest. I have heard before that the Raynox is fine at wideangle, but suffers when you zoom in and i think these pictures largely bear that out. Of course, the whole point of these lenses are that you need them for the WA end of the range, and once you zoom in beyond a certain (fairly early) point, then of course you should just take the WA lens off. But human nature being what it is, most people aren't going to be screwing and unscrewing the lens every 30seconds and are likely to just leave it on for a little while, whether they're zoomed in a bit or not.. just my 2 cents. Thanks to Ralph for the useful test.

August 2nd, 2007, 02:59 PM	#70
Seth Bloombaum Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 3,420	My experience with the Raynox is the same as Ralph's. What this has meant to me in practice is that the adaptor does not live on the lens, but only comes out when I need a wide-angle shot. Still liking the Raynox a lot!

August 2nd, 2007, 07:40 PM	#71
Ron Chau Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: ny, ny Posts: 204	As I said in my previous post's I really like my Raynox 7062, especially given the price, but I also agree with the others, that the lens does not stay on the camcorder and is only used when a wider angle is necessary. As far as the Century vs. the Raynox, IMHO, Century optics should be embarrassed that the Raynox at less than half the price out performs it.

August 4th, 2007, 02:35 PM	#73
Stu Holmes Major Player Join Date: May 2005 Location: Europe Posts: 844	Thanks for posting those shots Piotr. They are very useful to see.