Decent Teleconverter for Z1

Graeme Fullick · October 28th, 2005, 02:49 PM

Meryem,

Any luck with the Centruy 2X? I have a chance to buy one, but won't unless I know that it works.

Meryem Ersoz · October 28th, 2005, 03:17 PM

i have a step ring on order at B&H, but since they've been closed, i'm not quite clear when it should arrive. i'll let you know when it arrives...as shawn mentioned, it is a bayonet mount, and the century 2x is a bayonet mount, so i'm not quite sure how this will work. or if it will work. any ideas on this?

Graeme Fullick · October 29th, 2005, 04:34 PM

Meryem,

Can you try it by holding the Century in front of the FX1/Z1 at full telephoto and see if there is any vignetting etc. I think that this will be the main problem. Please let us know what you find.

Your help is much appreciated.

Shawn Redford · October 29th, 2005, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meryem Ersoz

i have a step ring on order at B&H, but since they've been closed, i'm not quite clear when it should arrive. i'll let you know when it arrives...as shawn mentioned, it is a bayonet mount, and the century 2x is a bayonet mount, so i'm not quite sure how this will work. or if it will work. any ideas on this?

Okay Meryem - So you have the Century DS-20TC-GL (link here)? I just found out that Century has four versions of this 2x adapter (link here). B&H aslo carries the DS-20TC-00 (Bayonet Mount) (link here) and the DS-20TC-SB (Bayonet Mount) (link here), but I was thinking that you had the Century DS-20TC-58 2.0x Tele-Converter Lens - 58mm (Screw Mount) Mfr# DS20TC58 • B&H# CEDS20TC58 (link here).

If you ordered the 72-58 Step Down Ring (link here), then I cannot see how that would connect to the DS-20TC-GL, unless the GL version of the adapater also has threads on it - does it? The only 'end' Bayonet Step-Down Ring that B&H seems to carry is this B60-B50 adapter (link here). I have no idea what size bayonet the Sony FX1/Z1u has. What I was really hoping for was a Sony FX1 bayonet to 58mm step-down ring (similar to this link). Anyone know what size bayonet is on the Sony FX1/Z1u?

I think your best bet is to try to jury-rig something like Graeme is suggesting - maybe using an open book on a table with the FX1 behind it, or block of wood with a 'V' cut it in. That's such a bummer that you have the wrong mount! I hope something works out.

Also, B&H shipped an order for me very quickly once they re-opened. Typically, they send you a notification of shipment - hope you hear something soon.

Mick Jenner · October 30th, 2005, 12:30 PM

I posted this on another thread ( In your neighbourhood , wildlife thread ) I believe that the converters you are talking about will result in a considerable image quality loss . You will need converters with optics capable of capturing at HD quality. At this time the only one available is a 1.6 century. Check the above thead for its number. Why go HD and then loss image quality!!!!!!

Regards

Mick

Shawn Redford · November 1st, 2005, 01:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick Jenner

I posted this on another thread ( In your neighbourhood , wildlife thread ) I believe that the converters you are talking about will result in a considerable image quality loss . You will need converters with optics capable of capturing at HD quality. At this time the only one available is a 1.6 century. Check the above thead for its number. Why go HD and then loss image quality!!!!!! Regards Mick

Mick - They're both Century converters. Do you have some information indicating that the Century 1.6x for the FX1/Z1u is made to a higher standard than the 58mm Century 2.0x? There is nothing that I have found to indicate this on their website, and I would bet that Century manufactures their glass to the same standard no matter what. Ultimately the real test is to try it and see the difference. If you've done that, then let us know what you've found. If not, then hopefully Meryem's report of the Century 2x converter and the FX1 will be helpful. As far as the 'why' - it would be because some are interested in more than 1.6x and as you have noted - there are no other options. The Century 58mm 2.0x is also half the cost of the Century 72mm 1.6x so that helps too.

Mick Jenner · November 1st, 2005, 06:03 AM

The only information I have that the optics are designed HDV resolution is from the Century importers in the Uk.
They tell me the lens quality is to a higher standard (hence the diffence in price) to complement and take advantage of the Sony HDV lens. Of course this could just be sales talk. I have just completed some Red Deer rut filming with and with out the converter and there was no obvious quality loss.

Regards

Mick

Meryem Ersoz · November 1st, 2005, 08:10 AM

i'll let y'all know what i discover, if anything. off the top of my head, the 2x is a nice clean hunk o glass. we'll see what happens.

Mick Jenner · November 21st, 2005, 02:25 PM

If the tele converters aren't good enough you could always do your own convertion of the camera to take a tele photo lens see the follwing link
http://forums.dvdoctor.net/showthrea...&highlight=fx1

Regards

Mick

Boyd Ostroff · November 22nd, 2005, 10:33 AM

Some pictures of that (or a similar) hack were posted here long ago. If you don't mind spending a lot of time, voiding your warranty, possibly ruining your camera, and shooting with a Frankenstein monster then this might be just the thing for you... ;-)

Carl Ny · December 3rd, 2005, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meryem Ersoz

i'll let y'all know what i discover, if anything. off the top of my head, the 2x is a nice clean hunk o glass. we'll see what happens.

Have you tested the x2 Century Optics tele converter on the Z1 yet?
If so, can you please show how it looks.

All the best

Carl

Meryem Ersoz · December 3rd, 2005, 10:28 AM

hm, i thought did write a post about this a while back, but apparently it never posted. operator error, no doubt. here's a link.

http://ia300143.us.archive.org/3/ite.../parakeets.mov

you need H.264 QT7 to view it.

this is a hurry-up test, so the lighting is crummy, but you get the idea. this did not look so dark before i compressed it, but for some reason, it did not translate well to the web at all. i shot my local parakeets because i think birds give a good idea of resolution. you can also get an idea of how much distance is gained with the 2x. first shot is without the 2x, second is with the 2x.

with the 2x, the green bird on the left looks a bit soft, but i was focusing the lens on the bluebird. also because of the bayonet mount, i was only hand-holding the 2x in front of the camera. i think having it actually mounted would help a lot. my conclusion is that with a screw mount and real step rings, the century 2x would work at full zoom. vignetting occurred at around 85%-90%, if i recall correctly, so full zoom is the only option.

sorry this test is not ideal because of the lighting/compression issues, but i hope it gives some useful info.

i think we should lobby century optics to make a 2x with a 72mm mount. there are a lot of compromises here for the $$, but it is still better than nothing.

Carl Ny · December 3rd, 2005, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meryem Ersoz

hm, i thought did write a post about this a while back, but apparently it never posted. operator error, no doubt. here's a link.

http://ia300143.us.archive.org/3/ite.../parakeets.mov

you need H.264 QT7 to view it.

this is a hurry-up test, so the lighting is crummy, but you get the idea. this did not look so dark before i compressed it, but for some reason, it did not translate well to the web at all. i shot my local parakeets because i think birds give a good idea of resolution. you can also get an idea of how much distance is gained with the 2x. first shot is without the 2x, second is with the 2x.

with the 2x, the green bird on the left looks a bit soft, but i was focusing the lens on the bluebird. also because of the bayonet mount, i was only hand-holding the 2x in front of the camera. i think having it actually mounted would help a lot. my conclusion is that with a screw mount and real step rings, the century 2x would work at full zoom. vignetting occurred at around 85%-90%, if i recall correctly, so full zoom is the only option.

sorry this test is not ideal because of the lighting/compression issues, but i hope it gives some useful info.

i think we should lobby century optics to make a 2x with a 72mm mount. there are a lot of compromises here for the $$, but it is still better than nothing.

Thanks for the footage. Yes it would be lovely if CO could do a 2x converter for the 72mm:s.

All the best

Carl

Jim Rog · December 8th, 2005, 04:44 AM

Any good macro lens for the FX1?

Meryem Ersoz · December 12th, 2005, 01:46 PM

jim: awhile ago, i purchased a set of hoya 72mm screw-on macros, and they are not only inexpensive (the set cost $62), they work pretty well with the FX-1. i bought them for my XL2, but the lens is not high rez enough to get great images. but as it turns out, with the FX-1, they work very well up to +4mm. nice!

October 28th, 2005, 02:49 PM	#16
Graeme Fullick Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Newcastle, Australia Posts: 337	Meryem, Any luck with the Centruy 2X? I have a chance to buy one, but won't unless I know that it works. __________________ Graeme

October 29th, 2005, 04:34 PM	#18
Graeme Fullick Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Newcastle, Australia Posts: 337	Meryem, Can you try it by holding the Century in front of the FX1/Z1 at full telephoto and see if there is any vignetting etc. I think that this will be the main problem. Please let us know what you find. Your help is much appreciated. __________________ Graeme

October 28th, 2005, 03:17 PM	#17
Meryem Ersoz Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 3,015	i have a step ring on order at B&H, but since they've been closed, i'm not quite clear when it should arrive. i'll let you know when it arrives...as shawn mentioned, it is a bayonet mount, and the century 2x is a bayonet mount, so i'm not quite sure how this will work. or if it will work. any ideas on this?

October 30th, 2005, 12:30 PM	#20
Mick Jenner Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: West Sussex England Posts: 843	I posted this on another thread ( In your neighbourhood , wildlife thread ) I believe that the converters you are talking about will result in a considerable image quality loss . You will need converters with optics capable of capturing at HD quality. At this time the only one available is a 1.6 century. Check the above thead for its number. Why go HD and then loss image quality!!!!!! Regards Mick

November 1st, 2005, 06:03 AM	#22
Mick Jenner Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: West Sussex England Posts: 843	The only information I have that the optics are designed HDV resolution is from the Century importers in the Uk. They tell me the lens quality is to a higher standard (hence the diffence in price) to complement and take advantage of the Sony HDV lens. Of course this could just be sales talk. I have just completed some Red Deer rut filming with and with out the converter and there was no obvious quality loss. Regards Mick

November 1st, 2005, 08:10 AM	#23
Meryem Ersoz Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 3,015	i'll let y'all know what i discover, if anything. off the top of my head, the 2x is a nice clean hunk o glass. we'll see what happens.

November 21st, 2005, 02:25 PM	#24
Mick Jenner Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: West Sussex England Posts: 843	If the tele converters aren't good enough you could always do your own convertion of the camera to take a tele photo lens see the follwing link http://forums.dvdoctor.net/showthrea...&highlight=fx1 Regards Mick

November 22nd, 2005, 10:33 AM	#25
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	Some pictures of that (or a similar) hack were posted here long ago. If you don't mind spending a lot of time, voiding your warranty, possibly ruining your camera, and shooting with a Frankenstein monster then this might be just the thing for you... ;-)

December 3rd, 2005, 10:28 AM	#27
Meryem Ersoz Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 3,015	hm, i thought did write a post about this a while back, but apparently it never posted. operator error, no doubt. here's a link. http://ia300143.us.archive.org/3/ite.../parakeets.mov you need H.264 QT7 to view it. this is a hurry-up test, so the lighting is crummy, but you get the idea. this did not look so dark before i compressed it, but for some reason, it did not translate well to the web at all. i shot my local parakeets because i think birds give a good idea of resolution. you can also get an idea of how much distance is gained with the 2x. first shot is without the 2x, second is with the 2x. with the 2x, the green bird on the left looks a bit soft, but i was focusing the lens on the bluebird. also because of the bayonet mount, i was only hand-holding the 2x in front of the camera. i think having it actually mounted would help a lot. my conclusion is that with a screw mount and real step rings, the century 2x would work at full zoom. vignetting occurred at around 85%-90%, if i recall correctly, so full zoom is the only option. sorry this test is not ideal because of the lighting/compression issues, but i hope it gives some useful info. i think we should lobby century optics to make a 2x with a 72mm mount. there are a lot of compromises here for the $$, but it is still better than nothing.

December 8th, 2005, 04:44 AM	#29
Jim Rog Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: PAL Zone Posts: 188	Any good macro lens for the FX1?

December 12th, 2005, 01:46 PM	#30
Meryem Ersoz Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 3,015	jim: awhile ago, i purchased a set of hoya 72mm screw-on macros, and they are not only inexpensive (the set cost $62), they work pretty well with the FX-1. i bought them for my XL2, but the lens is not high rez enough to get great images. but as it turns out, with the FX-1, they work very well up to +4mm. nice!