Finally getting my C.O. 16x9 Lens... Yay! at DVinfo.net

James Connors · October 22nd, 2005, 07:24 PM

Just a couple of questions with regards to using it.. I'm buying it second hand so I'm going to presume there's no documentation (does it come with any anyway?)

1. What mode do i shoot in, standard 4x3 then capture it and tell my NLE its actually widescreen footage? (CO confirms the 4x3 part, so i'm guessing i'm right on this...)

2. Without one of those 16x9 magnifiers on the LCD, will it look pretty yucky, or is it still fairly easy to shoot with? Are those magnifiers worth buying or do they restrict angle of viewing etc?

3. I shoot very close to my subjects which I can't really help.. i have my 0.7x on pretty much constantly, and its made such a difference. Now obviously I can't have both on the camera, so just wondering how much extra width the 16x9 will give me... the size of the 0.7x makes me think it won't be that much :(

4. Is it just a case of screwing on the lens then rotating one of the sections... I've not seen how it works, I just see theres a part with rotation marked on it. This bit doesn't take ages does it, i'm guessing its just a case of aligning to a mark or something?

This is the original CO 16x9, not the new one with the zoom through feature. Can't afford that, it costs the earth here!

Tom Hardwick · October 23rd, 2005, 12:55 AM

What you're basically buying is a wide-angle converter James, but one that only sees wider in the horizontal plane. The CO anamorphic is 1.33:1 so it's pretty mild ~ like having a 0.75x wide-angle converter in place.

Of course this will distort the v'finder and side-screen image and you'll have to adjust to seeing long tall thin people. I find it harder to frame not seeing objects in their right perspective, but people do get used to it. It's one reason that Sony add masks when shooting in the w'screen mode (unlike Canon and Panasonic) - makes composition so much easier, but at the same time reduces the v'finder size yet again.

Shoot in the 4:3 mode, so using all the chip's area. This is the anamorphic's very reason for being.

As to fitting the lens, you must make sure the cylindrical elements are absolutely vertical. But of course you can twist it any which way for special, drug-fuelled effects.

Let us know how you get on with it and what condition it's in. What did you pay BTW?

tom.

James Connors · October 23rd, 2005, 05:08 PM

Hi Tom, thanks for the answer... excellent I'm relieved to know its going to add a decent chunk on the width.. all the images i've seen of it (and a quick clip) made it appear so, but you can never really tell if its just marketing or not :)

I paid £160 including insured delivery in the UK, imo I've got a pretty good deal as over here it retails for £500 or so. It's coming off ebay, but there's nothing about the seller that sets my alarms off, he might even be a user here! I shoot video for myself mainly (altho trying to put a few paid for things together now) so my budget is whatever I can scrape by, so buying stuff brand new generally isn't an option.. so I'm looking forward to receiving it and hopefully trying it out on the weekend!

I'll set my TVs widescreen mode so it mimics the viewfinder so I can get used to it hehe, will have to keep an eye out for one of those 16x9 magnifiers :)

Douglas Akers · October 24th, 2005, 01:22 PM

James,
I used the CO 16:9 adapter quite a bit.
My experience has been that you cannot get very close with this lens.
Of course I knew the zoom range was limited to about the middle 2/3rds but I also discoverd focus was difficult at close ranges.
Trying to get "tight" on something was impossible.
I would highly suggest a focus chart if you don't have on already.
Even with that, I still had a few soft shots.
All this is assuming that your getting the less expensive, non zoom through model that came out first.

James Connors · October 24th, 2005, 05:41 PM

Interesting, I don't really have much of a choice when it comes to shooting my subjects, I'm generally standing on the stage next to the band.. small venues so nowhere else to be. It should be here by the weekend and i have something like 10 bands to film (Ouch!)

Is there any way of telling on the lens itself if its the new or old one? I'd be very, very, very surprised if it was the new one mind!

Douglas Akers · October 24th, 2005, 08:27 PM

James check this site for the comparo of the two adapters.
The older, and less expensive one, is the non focusable unit.
http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/dv/camera/2.htm

James Connors · October 25th, 2005, 11:59 AM

Yep its definitely the older one, hehe i think there was a one in a billion it wouldn't be tho! Well i'll do some tests before i go out on saturday. I'll pack my 0.7x just in case ;) Cheers!

James Connors · October 28th, 2005, 08:46 AM

After being shafted by the postal service yet again, I finally have my lens :) One disappointment is the lack of lens caps (i don't have a rear cap for my WA and thats paranoia inducing enough!) but other than that it seems fine, altho i need to get used to it before tomorrow.

Just a few things

1. Only when i received it did i realise it was the bayonet mount.. whats the reasoning for the two different mount types for the same camera? I'm presuming its to do with other accessories... matte box perhaps? Which is the "better" one if there's such a thing.

2. I wa hoping the sunshade the PD150 comes stock with would fit over it, but this is not the case... is it worth investing in a Formatt style cheap mattebox or just trying to locate a bigger sunshade (that would fit my WA too) i know looks aren't everything, but with the 16x9 bolted on, its quite an ugly front, and a matte/sunshade just makes you look more professional.

Tom Hardwick · October 28th, 2005, 08:54 AM

The bayonet's by far the better fitting. It's quicker, safer and means you don't have to check on the vertical orientation of the cylindrical front element. As with any sort of lens attachment, a good efficient lens hood is the best accessory you can buy.

tom.

James Connors · October 28th, 2005, 09:52 AM

Cheers for that, nice to know i've got the better of the two then :D I'll have to hunt for a good lens hood in the UK, from memory they are few and far between and not exactly cheap for what its essentially a block of plastic. If I can find the WA one for the PD170 somewhere, hopefully that'll fit over both my lenses without a problem.

October 22nd, 2005, 07:24 PM	#1
James Connors Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Cardiff, UK Posts: 223	Finally getting my C.O. 16x9 Lens... Yay! Just a couple of questions with regards to using it.. I'm buying it second hand so I'm going to presume there's no documentation (does it come with any anyway?) 1. What mode do i shoot in, standard 4x3 then capture it and tell my NLE its actually widescreen footage? (CO confirms the 4x3 part, so i'm guessing i'm right on this...) 2. Without one of those 16x9 magnifiers on the LCD, will it look pretty yucky, or is it still fairly easy to shoot with? Are those magnifiers worth buying or do they restrict angle of viewing etc? 3. I shoot very close to my subjects which I can't really help.. i have my 0.7x on pretty much constantly, and its made such a difference. Now obviously I can't have both on the camera, so just wondering how much extra width the 16x9 will give me... the size of the 0.7x makes me think it won't be that much :( 4. Is it just a case of screwing on the lens then rotating one of the sections... I've not seen how it works, I just see theres a part with rotation marked on it. This bit doesn't take ages does it, i'm guessing its just a case of aligning to a mark or something? This is the original CO 16x9, not the new one with the zoom through feature. Can't afford that, it costs the earth here!

October 24th, 2005, 01:22 PM	#4
Douglas Akers Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wyandotte MI Posts: 47	James, I used the CO 16:9 adapter quite a bit. My experience has been that you cannot get very close with this lens. Of course I knew the zoom range was limited to about the middle 2/3rds but I also discoverd focus was difficult at close ranges. Trying to get "tight" on something was impossible. I would highly suggest a focus chart if you don't have on already. Even with that, I still had a few soft shots. All this is assuming that your getting the less expensive, non zoom through model that came out first. __________________ www.AboveGroundmovie.com www.LetsGoCOBO.com

October 24th, 2005, 08:27 PM	#6
Douglas Akers Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wyandotte MI Posts: 47	James check this site for the comparo of the two adapters. The older, and less expensive one, is the non focusable unit. http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/dv/camera/2.htm __________________ www.AboveGroundmovie.com www.LetsGoCOBO.com

October 23rd, 2005, 12:55 AM	#2
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	What you're basically buying is a wide-angle converter James, but one that only sees wider in the horizontal plane. The CO anamorphic is 1.33:1 so it's pretty mild ~ like having a 0.75x wide-angle converter in place. Of course this will distort the v'finder and side-screen image and you'll have to adjust to seeing long tall thin people. I find it harder to frame not seeing objects in their right perspective, but people do get used to it. It's one reason that Sony add masks when shooting in the w'screen mode (unlike Canon and Panasonic) - makes composition so much easier, but at the same time reduces the v'finder size yet again. Shoot in the 4:3 mode, so using all the chip's area. This is the anamorphic's very reason for being. As to fitting the lens, you must make sure the cylindrical elements are absolutely vertical. But of course you can twist it any which way for special, drug-fuelled effects. Let us know how you get on with it and what condition it's in. What did you pay BTW? tom.

October 23rd, 2005, 05:08 PM	#3
James Connors Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Cardiff, UK Posts: 223	Hi Tom, thanks for the answer... excellent I'm relieved to know its going to add a decent chunk on the width.. all the images i've seen of it (and a quick clip) made it appear so, but you can never really tell if its just marketing or not :) I paid £160 including insured delivery in the UK, imo I've got a pretty good deal as over here it retails for £500 or so. It's coming off ebay, but there's nothing about the seller that sets my alarms off, he might even be a user here! I shoot video for myself mainly (altho trying to put a few paid for things together now) so my budget is whatever I can scrape by, so buying stuff brand new generally isn't an option.. so I'm looking forward to receiving it and hopefully trying it out on the weekend! I'll set my TVs widescreen mode so it mimics the viewfinder so I can get used to it hehe, will have to keep an eye out for one of those 16x9 magnifiers :)

October 24th, 2005, 05:41 PM	#5
James Connors Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Cardiff, UK Posts: 223	Interesting, I don't really have much of a choice when it comes to shooting my subjects, I'm generally standing on the stage next to the band.. small venues so nowhere else to be. It should be here by the weekend and i have something like 10 bands to film (Ouch!) Is there any way of telling on the lens itself if its the new or old one? I'd be very, very, very surprised if it was the new one mind!

October 25th, 2005, 11:59 AM	#7
James Connors Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Cardiff, UK Posts: 223	Yep its definitely the older one, hehe i think there was a one in a billion it wouldn't be tho! Well i'll do some tests before i go out on saturday. I'll pack my 0.7x just in case ;) Cheers!

October 28th, 2005, 08:46 AM	#8
James Connors Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Cardiff, UK Posts: 223	After being shafted by the postal service yet again, I finally have my lens :) One disappointment is the lack of lens caps (i don't have a rear cap for my WA and thats paranoia inducing enough!) but other than that it seems fine, altho i need to get used to it before tomorrow. Just a few things 1. Only when i received it did i realise it was the bayonet mount.. whats the reasoning for the two different mount types for the same camera? I'm presuming its to do with other accessories... matte box perhaps? Which is the "better" one if there's such a thing. 2. I wa hoping the sunshade the PD150 comes stock with would fit over it, but this is not the case... is it worth investing in a Formatt style cheap mattebox or just trying to locate a bigger sunshade (that would fit my WA too) i know looks aren't everything, but with the 16x9 bolted on, its quite an ugly front, and a matte/sunshade just makes you look more professional.

October 28th, 2005, 08:54 AM	#9
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	The bayonet's by far the better fitting. It's quicker, safer and means you don't have to check on the vertical orientation of the cylindrical front element. As with any sort of lens attachment, a good efficient lens hood is the best accessory you can buy. tom.

October 28th, 2005, 09:52 AM	#10
James Connors Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Cardiff, UK Posts: 223	Cheers for that, nice to know i've got the better of the two then :D I'll have to hunt for a good lens hood in the UK, from memory they are few and far between and not exactly cheap for what its essentially a block of plastic. If I can find the WA one for the PD170 somewhere, hopefully that'll fit over both my lenses without a problem.