Anyone use this lens?

Tom Hardwick · June 23rd, 2006, 02:29 AM

Or 3.7x the resolution to be more exact.

Christopher Cruz · June 23rd, 2006, 01:47 PM

I have both the Century .6 and the Sony Wide Angle Adapter. I used the Sony Adapter once to test it out and now it's been sitting in its box for months now. The Sony Adapter is too heavy and is a pain to twist on for the slight bit of extra coverage you get.

The Century Adapter is good and I use it for stationary shots during weddings for cakes, venues, and the dance floor. It might be good for showing off rooms because from a high enough angle, it can make a room look bigger and larger than it really is which might help in selling a home?

Tom Hardwick · June 23rd, 2006, 02:00 PM

Don't think you'll be selling many homes with bendy walls, floors, doors and window frames Chris. Too much barrel distortion for my liking.

Christopher Cruz · June 23rd, 2006, 04:57 PM

Yea probably not. It's a good thing i'm not in the house selling business. hehe

Richard Iredale · June 28th, 2006, 01:04 AM

One thing to keep in mind is that the Sony cameras are already pretty wide-angle to start with, due to the 16:9 aspect ratio. I bought the .8x Sony adapter, and while it's heavy, it's also very sharp and I'm happy with it.

Tom Hardwick · June 28th, 2006, 01:56 AM

The 0.8x is a bayonet fit and comes with that rather good looking petal hood, right? What news on the Z1's inherrent barrel distortion dwon the wide end - does your 0.8x make this condition worse?

tom.

Heath McKnight · June 28th, 2006, 09:01 AM

It's not just that--pretty much all cameras (DV, HDV, etc.) with 1/3 inch CCDs need to have wider lenses to help out.

heath

Nick Hope · July 10th, 2006, 01:25 PM

Has anyone tried the 0.7x multi-element Century ($799 at B&H)?

By the way I seem to remember that Premiere 6.5 had a filter or at least a method for "reverse barrel distortion". Don't know about Premiere Pro or other programs. Some people used it for removing vignetting (black corners) from underwater footage.

Nick

Tom Hardwick · July 11th, 2006, 12:57 AM

The problem with using software based post production correction of distortion is the loss of resolution that accompanies such processing Nick. Much better to buy a lens that doesn't distort in the first place, and I hear good things about the newer Century designs. The old 0.65x was pretty poor in this respect, so I hope things are looking better today.

tom.

Nick Hope · July 11th, 2006, 02:00 AM

Thanks Tom, and I understand that such processing will affect the quality.

By "newer Century designs" are you talking about the 0.6x, 0.7x, 0.8x that we've discussed? As far as I understand they're all spherical, so surely they're going to give just as much increase in barrel distortion for a given FOV.

Nick

Tom Hardwick · July 11th, 2006, 03:56 AM

Generall you can take it that a zoom-through is a spherical-elemented assembly, but some (like the Raynox 6600PRO) use what I believe is an aspherical element to control the barrel distortion. The snag with such lenses is that they're not very sharp at telephoto, but as it's wide-angle you're after, I've never seen this as a disadvantage.

The Z1/FX1 has most noticeable barrel distortion down the wide end and this makes the camera unsuitable for a lot of work. But a single aspherical element widie (not the Redeye, BTW) zoomed in just a little will increase your field of view dramatically while at the same time keeping straight lines straight.

tom.

Alex Horvath · July 11th, 2006, 06:30 AM

At a shooting an accessoriebag got "lost", unfortunately with my Century 0.6 Wideangle inside.
By chance I got the opportunity to buy a 0.7 from16x9inc
What makes me now wondering is, that no one mentions this adapter.
It is a zoom through Adapter, with slightly less barreldistortion than the Century, I couldn´t compare them side by side, but to my feeling the 16x9 gives sharper results at the edges.
Disadvantage: no bayonet, but at the end using them both, now I would decide for the 16x9.

alex

Nick Hope · July 16th, 2006, 08:34 AM

Does anyone know what the field of view of the Z1 in full wide is in terms of degrees?

I am interested in a comparison between it and my existing VX2000. The VX2000 has a limited FOV and really needs a wide angle adaptor, but reading the previous posts makes me think that perhaps it's much less necessary for the Z1/FX1.

Nick

Boyd Ostroff · July 16th, 2006, 08:46 AM

Using 35mm still camera terms, the wide end of the Z1 lens would be 32.3mm. The wide end of the VX-2000 zoom is 43.2mm. So a little quick math says:

(43.2 - 32.3) / 43.2 = .2523

Therefore the Z1 has about a 25% wider field of view than the VX-2000 at full wide. Looking at this another way, if you put a .75x wide angle converter on your VX-2000 then the field of view would match the Z1 at full wide (43.2 x .75 = 32.4).

I will leave the field of view calculation in terms of degress as an "excercise for the reader" :-)

Tom Hardwick · July 16th, 2006, 08:50 AM

You're right - the FX1 has a much wider-angle 12x zoom than the VX/PD range. In 35 mm film terms the FX1 has a 32.5 mm focal length whereas the VX has a 43.2 mm. Of course if you shoot with the FX1 in the 4:3 mode they're a lot closer.

Many people find the FX1 is 'wide-enough', but I feel that it makes the 0.5x converter even better value for money. Shots can look very wide indeed, whereas on the VX they just look so-so wide.

tom.

June 28th, 2006, 09:01 AM	#22
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	It's not just that--pretty much all cameras (DV, HDV, etc.) with 1/3 inch CCDs need to have wider lenses to help out. heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

July 10th, 2006, 01:25 PM	#23
Nick Hope Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Bangkok, Thailand Posts: 189	Has anyone tried the 0.7x multi-element Century ($799 at B&H)? By the way I seem to remember that Premiere 6.5 had a filter or at least a method for "reverse barrel distortion". Don't know about Premiere Pro or other programs. Some people used it for removing vignetting (black corners) from underwater footage. Nick __________________ Bubble Vision Underwater Video \| YouTube Channel \| Facebook Page

July 11th, 2006, 02:00 AM	#25
Nick Hope Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Bangkok, Thailand Posts: 189	Thanks Tom, and I understand that such processing will affect the quality. By "newer Century designs" are you talking about the 0.6x, 0.7x, 0.8x that we've discussed? As far as I understand they're all spherical, so surely they're going to give just as much increase in barrel distortion for a given FOV. Nick __________________ Bubble Vision Underwater Video \| YouTube Channel \| Facebook Page

July 16th, 2006, 08:34 AM	#28
Nick Hope Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Bangkok, Thailand Posts: 189	Does anyone know what the field of view of the Z1 in full wide is in terms of degrees? I am interested in a comparison between it and my existing VX2000. The VX2000 has a limited FOV and really needs a wide angle adaptor, but reading the previous posts makes me think that perhaps it's much less necessary for the Z1/FX1. Nick __________________ Bubble Vision Underwater Video \| YouTube Channel \| Facebook Page

June 23rd, 2006, 02:29 AM	#16
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Or 3.7x the resolution to be more exact.

June 23rd, 2006, 01:47 PM	#17
Christopher Cruz Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 45	I have both the Century .6 and the Sony Wide Angle Adapter. I used the Sony Adapter once to test it out and now it's been sitting in its box for months now. The Sony Adapter is too heavy and is a pain to twist on for the slight bit of extra coverage you get. The Century Adapter is good and I use it for stationary shots during weddings for cakes, venues, and the dance floor. It might be good for showing off rooms because from a high enough angle, it can make a room look bigger and larger than it really is which might help in selling a home?

June 23rd, 2006, 02:00 PM	#18
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Don't think you'll be selling many homes with bendy walls, floors, doors and window frames Chris. Too much barrel distortion for my liking.

June 23rd, 2006, 04:57 PM	#19
Christopher Cruz Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 45	Yea probably not. It's a good thing i'm not in the house selling business. hehe

June 28th, 2006, 01:04 AM	#20
Richard Iredale Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 67	One thing to keep in mind is that the Sony cameras are already pretty wide-angle to start with, due to the 16:9 aspect ratio. I bought the .8x Sony adapter, and while it's heavy, it's also very sharp and I'm happy with it.

June 28th, 2006, 01:56 AM	#21
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	The 0.8x is a bayonet fit and comes with that rather good looking petal hood, right? What news on the Z1's inherrent barrel distortion dwon the wide end - does your 0.8x make this condition worse? tom.

July 11th, 2006, 12:57 AM	#24
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	The problem with using software based post production correction of distortion is the loss of resolution that accompanies such processing Nick. Much better to buy a lens that doesn't distort in the first place, and I hear good things about the newer Century designs. The old 0.65x was pretty poor in this respect, so I hope things are looking better today. tom.

July 11th, 2006, 03:56 AM	#26
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Generall you can take it that a zoom-through is a spherical-elemented assembly, but some (like the Raynox 6600PRO) use what I believe is an aspherical element to control the barrel distortion. The snag with such lenses is that they're not very sharp at telephoto, but as it's wide-angle you're after, I've never seen this as a disadvantage. The Z1/FX1 has most noticeable barrel distortion down the wide end and this makes the camera unsuitable for a lot of work. But a single aspherical element widie (not the Redeye, BTW) zoomed in just a little will increase your field of view dramatically while at the same time keeping straight lines straight. tom.

July 11th, 2006, 06:30 AM	#27
Alex Horvath Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Innsbruck,Austria Posts: 45	At a shooting an accessoriebag got "lost", unfortunately with my Century 0.6 Wideangle inside. By chance I got the opportunity to buy a 0.7 from16x9inc What makes me now wondering is, that no one mentions this adapter. It is a zoom through Adapter, with slightly less barreldistortion than the Century, I couldn´t compare them side by side, but to my feeling the 16x9 gives sharper results at the edges. Disadvantage: no bayonet, but at the end using them both, now I would decide for the 16x9. alex

July 16th, 2006, 08:46 AM	#29
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	Using 35mm still camera terms, the wide end of the Z1 lens would be 32.3mm. The wide end of the VX-2000 zoom is 43.2mm. So a little quick math says: (43.2 - 32.3) / 43.2 = .2523 Therefore the Z1 has about a 25% wider field of view than the VX-2000 at full wide. Looking at this another way, if you put a .75x wide angle converter on your VX-2000 then the field of view would match the Z1 at full wide (43.2 x .75 = 32.4). I will leave the field of view calculation in terms of degress as an "excercise for the reader" :-)

July 16th, 2006, 08:50 AM	#30
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	You're right - the FX1 has a much wider-angle 12x zoom than the VX/PD range. In 35 mm film terms the FX1 has a 32.5 mm focal length whereas the VX has a 43.2 mm. Of course if you shoot with the FX1 in the 4:3 mode they're a lot closer. Many people find the FX1 is 'wide-enough', but I feel that it makes the 0.5x converter even better value for money. Shots can look very wide indeed, whereas on the VX they just look so-so wide. tom.