72mm to 62mm Step Down Ring, Will i loose quality at DVinfo.net

Joel Corral · December 23rd, 2004, 04:27 PM

72mm to 62mm Step Down Ring, Will i loose quality using a 62 mm 2x telephoto lense on my HDR-FX1?

thanks

joel

Kenn Christenson · December 23rd, 2004, 05:22 PM

More than likely. Even if it was one of the more expensive Century Optics telephotos, you're going to be losing resolution. Any time you add more glass in front of the CCDs you're automatically going to lose resolution. Also, because you're using the step down ring, you'll have to watch out for vignetting.

Barry Green · December 23rd, 2004, 06:22 PM

A 72mm-62mm step-down ring isn't going to cause any loss of visual quality with a telephoto adapter, necessarily... but the telephoto adapter itself could most definitely cause a significant loss of quality. What 62mm lens were you thinking of using?

The FX1 is a high-def camera, so the quality of glass is crucial to maintain. I'd be very, very surprised if any teleconverter under about $1,000 would be worth even trying, except for Century's, and even then it's only a 1.6x magnification.

Joel Corral · December 23rd, 2004, 09:11 PM

Crystal Vision 2x Telephoto lens, i guess it runs for about $799, but i can get one off a friend of a friend used in good condt. for 100.00 bucks. thinking i can't afford a century optics telephoto lens right now this might be a good subsitution for now. and the project i will be using it for will be down converted to SD 16x9 so maybe the loss of quailty i might recieve from this telephoto lens won't be seen.???

thanks

joel

Barry Green · December 24th, 2004, 01:54 AM

(okay, I'm editing this because I was perhaps too harsh)

Search ebay, and you'll see that that same "crystal vision" lens is offered on ebay, under "crystal vision", "digital optics", or "crystal optics" brand names, for anywhere from $40 to $80. The only places that dare charge $799 for it are places like bwayphoto, royalcamera, and amphotoworld... and you can check resellerratings to get an idea of why they try to charge you $800 for a $40 lens (which, by all accounts, isn't worth $40 either).

You're free to do as you wish, but imho buying that lens for $100 would be a complete waste of $100.

To quote Ken Freed: "Never try to save money on anything that goes in front of your lens." Especially on an HD camera.

Betsy Moore · January 3rd, 2005, 08:17 PM

Barry, what would you say is the low end for a wide angle adaptor for the pal FX-1?

Barry Green · January 3rd, 2005, 08:46 PM

Low end meaning, what's the least-expensive quality wide-angle?

The problem is, without testing each one, it's so hard to know... you're talking about a high-def camera, so the "bar" is set a lot higher. What worked perfectly well for a standard-def camera may not be "up to snuff" for the demands of high-definition.

Sony is introducing a wide-angle specifically designed for the camera, I think Spot has used it, but it's only a .8x magnification so it's not a really wide wide-angle. But it's designed to work with the camera...

... the last thing in the world you want to do is shoot high-def video through a lousy wide-angle or cheapo teleconverter. I mean, what's the point... so I'd think the wisest thing to do would be to wait for some reviews from some qualified reviewers. Adam Wilt, Douglas Spotted Eagle, guys like that should be solving the puzzle for us soon. If you can't wait and need one now/soon, Sony's own is probably a safe bet.

Toke Lahti · January 4th, 2005, 07:55 AM

Loosing resolution might actually increase quality, considering the mpeg artifacts, if you have a lot of motion in the picture.

Zack Birlew · January 4th, 2005, 11:23 AM

Wait a sec, Barry. If the Sony wide angle lense is .8x, doesn't that mean it's a lot better than a cheaper .5-.7x wide angle lense? I know the cheap Optex wide angle lense I have on my GL1 is .6x, the Canon WD-58H is what? .7x? I figured that's why it would cost a lot more. Am I wrong? I thought .8x is supposed to be a good thing.~_^-?

BTW, I've seen the Sony wide angle lense and it's HUGE! It's like the size of a tea cup dish and is about an inch and a half to 2 inches deep, but then again, the FX1 is a pretty big camera itself.

Chris Hurd · January 4th, 2005, 11:44 AM

For what it's worth, .8x is not as wide as .7x -- and how wide the field of view is usually has no direct relation to the quality of the glass (and therefore the price) -- you can have a cheap .7x, a good .7x, and a cheap .8x and a good .8x. Several factors involved; quality of optics, field of view, etc.

Toke Lahti · January 4th, 2005, 12:42 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : For what it's worth, .8x is not as wide as .7x -- and how wide the field of view is usually has no direct relation to the quality of the glass (and therefore the price) -- you can have a cheap .7x, a good .7x, and a cheap .8x and a good .8x. Several factors involved; quality of optics, field of view, etc. -->>>

If you make one factor constant: quality (=eg.resolution and distorsion), then its more expensive to build .7 than .8.

Barry Green · January 4th, 2005, 12:52 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Jack Felis : Wait a sec, Barry. If the Sony wide angle lense is .8x, doesn't that mean it's a lot better than a cheaper .5-.7x wide angle lense? -->>>

Any good lens is better than a cheap lens, regardless of magnification, especially when you're talking about putting it in front of a high-def camera.

The .8x means it doesn't go as wide as the .5x or .7x, of course. So it's only a mild wide-angle, but I would expect it to be of quality good enough to provide good results with the FX1 and Z1.

Quote:

Loosing resolution might actually increase quality, considering the mpeg artifacts, if you have a lot of motion in the picture.

Interesting point! That's not the way I'd prefer to approach it though, and I think most people would want to have the best glass at all times... instead, you could do it through in-camera menus. The FX1 has a detail setting that you can crank down significantly (I think it defaults at +11 or +12, and it can go all the way down to zero) which will soften high detail in a much more predictable way (and controllable way) than using a lesser-quality lens. Perhaps shooting with less detail would indeed preserve "bits" in the bitstream and let the MPEG encoder do a better job on shots where higher detail overloads the codec. That's a very interesting thought, I'll have to try that.

Betsy Moore · January 4th, 2005, 07:07 PM

So I'm assuming this lens for sale online with the FX1 won't cut it?

Titanium .5X Wide Angle Lens - 72mm

Price: $599.99

When you can’t move the house back, add the wide angle lens and capture more of the image. Allows objects near and far to be in focus at the same time. This lens is phenomenal for cityscapes, panoramas, room interiors, group shots, and pure enjoyment. Don’t just take a picture of the corner, show the entire room. Not only does this wide angle lens make it easier to shoot because you don’t have to worry as much about exposure and focus, the pictures look really great.

Specifications:

-High Quality Digital Optics

-High speed Auto Focus

-Infrared compatible

-Ultra compact and light weight

-Great for all types of photographic situations

-Lens case included

-Made in Japan

-Brand new and includes and 10 year manufacturers warranty

Barry Green · January 4th, 2005, 07:18 PM

You can usually find those on ebay for about $40 to $60.

And no... optically that wouldn't cut it. :)

December 23rd, 2004, 04:27 PM	#1
Joel Corral Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Brea, CA Posts: 356	72mm to 62mm Step Down Ring, Will i loose quality 72mm to 62mm Step Down Ring, Will i loose quality using a 62 mm 2x telephoto lense on my HDR-FX1? thanks joel

January 4th, 2005, 11:23 AM	#9
Zack Birlew Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 613	Wait a sec, Barry. If the Sony wide angle lense is .8x, doesn't that mean it's a lot better than a cheaper .5-.7x wide angle lense? I know the cheap Optex wide angle lense I have on my GL1 is .6x, the Canon WD-58H is what? .7x? I figured that's why it would cost a lot more. Am I wrong? I thought .8x is supposed to be a good thing.~_^-? BTW, I've seen the Sony wide angle lense and it's HUGE! It's like the size of a tea cup dish and is about an inch and a half to 2 inches deep, but then again, the FX1 is a pretty big camera itself. __________________ "Babs Do or Babs Do not, there is no try." - Zack Birlew www.BabsDoProductions.com

January 4th, 2005, 11:44 AM	#10
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	For what it's worth, .8x is not as wide as .7x -- and how wide the field of view is usually has no direct relation to the quality of the glass (and therefore the price) -- you can have a cheap .7x, a good .7x, and a cheap .8x and a good .8x. Several factors involved; quality of optics, field of view, etc. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

December 23rd, 2004, 05:22 PM	#2
Kenn Christenson Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Medford Oregon Posts: 152	More than likely. Even if it was one of the more expensive Century Optics telephotos, you're going to be losing resolution. Any time you add more glass in front of the CCDs you're automatically going to lose resolution. Also, because you're using the step down ring, you'll have to watch out for vignetting.

December 23rd, 2004, 06:22 PM	#3
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	A 72mm-62mm step-down ring isn't going to cause any loss of visual quality with a telephoto adapter, necessarily... but the telephoto adapter itself could most definitely cause a significant loss of quality. What 62mm lens were you thinking of using? The FX1 is a high-def camera, so the quality of glass is crucial to maintain. I'd be very, very surprised if any teleconverter under about $1,000 would be worth even trying, except for Century's, and even then it's only a 1.6x magnification.

December 23rd, 2004, 09:11 PM	#4
Joel Corral Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Brea, CA Posts: 356	Crystal Vision 2x Telephoto lens, i guess it runs for about $799, but i can get one off a friend of a friend used in good condt. for 100.00 bucks. thinking i can't afford a century optics telephoto lens right now this might be a good subsitution for now. and the project i will be using it for will be down converted to SD 16x9 so maybe the loss of quailty i might recieve from this telephoto lens won't be seen.??? thanks joel

December 24th, 2004, 01:54 AM	#5
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	(okay, I'm editing this because I was perhaps too harsh) Search ebay, and you'll see that that same "crystal vision" lens is offered on ebay, under "crystal vision", "digital optics", or "crystal optics" brand names, for anywhere from $40 to $80. The only places that dare charge $799 for it are places like bwayphoto, royalcamera, and amphotoworld... and you can check resellerratings to get an idea of why they try to charge you $800 for a $40 lens (which, by all accounts, isn't worth $40 either). You're free to do as you wish, but imho buying that lens for $100 would be a complete waste of $100. To quote Ken Freed: "Never try to save money on anything that goes in front of your lens." Especially on an HD camera.

January 3rd, 2005, 08:17 PM	#6
Betsy Moore Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 444	Barry, what would you say is the low end for a wide angle adaptor for the pal FX-1?

January 3rd, 2005, 08:46 PM	#7
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	Low end meaning, what's the least-expensive quality wide-angle? The problem is, without testing each one, it's so hard to know... you're talking about a high-def camera, so the "bar" is set a lot higher. What worked perfectly well for a standard-def camera may not be "up to snuff" for the demands of high-definition. Sony is introducing a wide-angle specifically designed for the camera, I think Spot has used it, but it's only a .8x magnification so it's not a really wide wide-angle. But it's designed to work with the camera... ... the last thing in the world you want to do is shoot high-def video through a lousy wide-angle or cheapo teleconverter. I mean, what's the point... so I'd think the wisest thing to do would be to wait for some reviews from some qualified reviewers. Adam Wilt, Douglas Spotted Eagle, guys like that should be solving the puzzle for us soon. If you can't wait and need one now/soon, Sony's own is probably a safe bet.

January 4th, 2005, 07:55 AM	#8
Toke Lahti Major Player Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Helsinki, Finland Posts: 158	Loosing resolution might actually increase quality, considering the mpeg artifacts, if you have a lot of motion in the picture.

January 4th, 2005, 12:42 PM	#11
Toke Lahti Major Player Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Helsinki, Finland Posts: 158	<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : For what it's worth, .8x is not as wide as .7x -- and how wide the field of view is usually has no direct relation to the quality of the glass (and therefore the price) -- you can have a cheap .7x, a good .7x, and a cheap .8x and a good .8x. Several factors involved; quality of optics, field of view, etc. -->>> If you make one factor constant: quality (=eg.resolution and distorsion), then its more expensive to build .7 than .8.

January 4th, 2005, 07:07 PM	#13
Betsy Moore Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 444	So I'm assuming this lens for sale online with the FX1 won't cut it? Titanium .5X Wide Angle Lens - 72mm Price: $599.99 When you can’t move the house back, add the wide angle lens and capture more of the image. Allows objects near and far to be in focus at the same time. This lens is phenomenal for cityscapes, panoramas, room interiors, group shots, and pure enjoyment. Don’t just take a picture of the corner, show the entire room. Not only does this wide angle lens make it easier to shoot because you don’t have to worry as much about exposure and focus, the pictures look really great. Specifications: -High Quality Digital Optics -High speed Auto Focus -Infrared compatible -Ultra compact and light weight -Great for all types of photographic situations -Lens case included -Made in Japan -Brand new and includes and 10 year manufacturers warranty

January 4th, 2005, 07:18 PM	#14
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	You can usually find those on ebay for about $40 to $60. And no... optically that wouldn't cut it. :)