Wide Angle 'Converter' or 'Adapter'? at DVinfo.net

Michael Middleton · May 21st, 2003, 08:03 AM

I'm looking for a wide angle lens for my PDX, and am not sure what, if anything, is the diffrerence between a "converter" and an "adapter." I want something that will still allow me to utilize the full zoom range, and I've mostly seen this associated with the "converter". Is that the difference?

I'd greatly appreciate a suggestion on a good/economical WA lens.

Michael

Michael Middleton · May 23rd, 2003, 09:31 AM

Does this mean that nobody else knows either, or that it's just a silly question? :-)

Tor Salomonsen · May 23rd, 2003, 10:58 AM

I think of an adaptor as something that makes two things fit together (by going between them), while a converter is something that changes the ability of one thing to fit with another.
What the marketing departments of various lens producing companies believe may be something else entirely.

Boyd Ostroff · May 23rd, 2003, 11:20 AM

I don't think there's any difference. Either way it's an add-on lens that attaches in front of the existing one. Just two different names for the same thing. I got one from a company called "digital" which is a .45x wide adaptor and seems pretty nice, although I've never shot a test shot with it. It has an interesting feature; unscrew the front element and it becomes a macro lens. It also has 48mm threads on the front to accept filters.

Bob Lake · May 27th, 2003, 08:49 PM

Michael

You want a "w/a converter", I use this on my VX2000 and hardly ever remove it. Have you any experience with a trv950? We use three VX's to video fireworks shows and are looking for something smaller that has three chips to maximize color. We intend to use these as backups.

Thanks

Bob

Michael Middleton · May 28th, 2003, 10:10 AM

Thanks Bob. Which w/a converter do you have for your VX?

I haven't used the TRV950, but it is very similar to my PDX10. I think the only significant differences are DVCAM format, "true" 16:9, and the included XLR adapter.

Michael

Bob Lake · May 28th, 2003, 10:49 AM

Michael

We use Canon WD-58 w/a lenses, screw-on with a lens cover that fits snug. They are zoom thru and have been very sharp for us in all instances. It seems everyone is interested in how much zoom a camera comes with, sometimes, my biggest problem is getting back far enough to get the shot I want, this lens works well for us. The TRV 950 seems pretty hard to get out here in California.

Good Luck

Bob

K. Forman · May 28th, 2003, 10:54 AM

Boyd- What wide angle did you get, and what did it cost? I liked the ability to do macro! Let me know how the lens works :)

Boyd Ostroff · May 28th, 2003, 12:27 PM

On the box it says:

Digital Optics
0.45x
Night Vision High Resolution
Video Recording
Item #7401T-37

Subjectively I like the results but haven't done any tests with a resolution chart. You get a bit of barrel distortion at full wide zoom, but no vignetting. Personally I sort of like that look in panoramic shots, where the horizon curves a bit, especially for 16:9. But I guess that's a personal preference. If you use the additional wide lens hood that Sony supplies with the PDX-10 it works great, still no vignetting at full wide.

It has 49mm filter threads on the front. I picked up an ND filter and UV filter for it; don't use a filter between the camera lens and the wide adaptor because then it does vignette, although not enough to show in the viewfinder (which I learned the hard way after making some shots where I needed the full frame).

I haven't really used the macro feature, except to look through the viewfinder and note that it worked at close range. I don't have the exact cost handy, but probably didn't get that good of a deal really. It was in the neighborhood of $100-$120 however.

May 21st, 2003, 08:03 AM	#1
Michael Middleton Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Paris, TX Posts: 71	Wide Angle 'Converter' or 'Adapter'? I'm looking for a wide angle lens for my PDX, and am not sure what, if anything, is the diffrerence between a "converter" and an "adapter." I want something that will still allow me to utilize the full zoom range, and I've mostly seen this associated with the "converter". Is that the difference? I'd greatly appreciate a suggestion on a good/economical WA lens. Michael

May 27th, 2003, 08:49 PM	#5
Bob Lake Tourist Join Date: May 2003 Location: Cerritos, CA Posts: 4	Michael You want a "w/a converter", I use this on my VX2000 and hardly ever remove it. Have you any experience with a trv950? We use three VX's to video fireworks shows and are looking for something smaller that has three chips to maximize color. We intend to use these as backups. Thanks Bob __________________ Bob Lake Pyroboy Video

May 23rd, 2003, 09:31 AM	#2
Michael Middleton Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Paris, TX Posts: 71	Does this mean that nobody else knows either, or that it's just a silly question? :-)

May 23rd, 2003, 10:58 AM	#3
Tor Salomonsen Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Stavanger, Norway Posts: 265	I think of an adaptor as something that makes two things fit together (by going between them), while a converter is something that changes the ability of one thing to fit with another. What the marketing departments of various lens producing companies believe may be something else entirely.

May 23rd, 2003, 11:20 AM	#4
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	I don't think there's any difference. Either way it's an add-on lens that attaches in front of the existing one. Just two different names for the same thing. I got one from a company called "digital" which is a .45x wide adaptor and seems pretty nice, although I've never shot a test shot with it. It has an interesting feature; unscrew the front element and it becomes a macro lens. It also has 48mm threads on the front to accept filters.

May 28th, 2003, 10:10 AM	#6
Michael Middleton Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Paris, TX Posts: 71	Thanks Bob. Which w/a converter do you have for your VX? I haven't used the TRV950, but it is very similar to my PDX10. I think the only significant differences are DVCAM format, "true" 16:9, and the included XLR adapter. Michael

May 28th, 2003, 10:49 AM	#7
Bob Lake Tourist Join Date: May 2003 Location: Cerritos, CA Posts: 4	Michael We use Canon WD-58 w/a lenses, screw-on with a lens cover that fits snug. They are zoom thru and have been very sharp for us in all instances. It seems everyone is interested in how much zoom a camera comes with, sometimes, my biggest problem is getting back far enough to get the shot I want, this lens works well for us. The TRV 950 seems pretty hard to get out here in California. Good Luck Bob __________________ Bob Lake Pyroboy Video

May 28th, 2003, 10:54 AM	#8
K. Forman Capt. Quirk Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Middle of the woods in Georgia Posts: 3,596	Boyd- What wide angle did you get, and what did it cost? I liked the ability to do macro! Let me know how the lens works :)

May 28th, 2003, 12:27 PM	#9
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	On the box it says: Digital Optics 0.45x Night Vision High Resolution Video Recording Item #7401T-37 Subjectively I like the results but haven't done any tests with a resolution chart. You get a bit of barrel distortion at full wide zoom, but no vignetting. Personally I sort of like that look in panoramic shots, where the horizon curves a bit, especially for 16:9. But I guess that's a personal preference. If you use the additional wide lens hood that Sony supplies with the PDX-10 it works great, still no vignetting at full wide. It has 49mm filter threads on the front. I picked up an ND filter and UV filter for it; don't use a filter between the camera lens and the wide adaptor because then it does vignette, although not enough to show in the viewfinder (which I learned the hard way after making some shots where I needed the full frame). I haven't really used the macro feature, except to look through the viewfinder and note that it worked at close range. I don't have the exact cost handy, but probably didn't get that good of a deal really. It was in the neighborhood of $100-$120 however.