Teleconverters at DVinfo.net

Brendan Marnell · March 26th, 2006, 02:53 AM

Dale Guthormsen posted this on GL2 Son of Watchdog > Century 2x Teleconverter ....

<<<<I just recently purchased a 2x from a member on the classifieds on this list, a fellow canadian, Francois. I had the lens in a couple days, impressed.

I took it out in the field and having had a tiffen on my sony and tossing the tiffen in the garbage 150 dollars wasted), I was still leary as to expectations.

If you are considering one of these converters you will not likly be dissappointed!!

With the gl2 telephoto out all the way and then with the 2x on it I could fill the bulk of the Frame with a hungarian partridge (about 6 inches tall) at 75 to 100 yards out. A 1000 mm lens or better on a 35 mm slr. the detail was much better than i expected as duplexes have a reputation of destroying the image!! >>>>

We will never have enough reports of wildlife field tests like this.

Alan Craven · March 26th, 2006, 05:16 AM

This is a copy of my response to Brendan's post in the GL2 forum.

I have an abundance of footage taken with an XM1 and the Sony 1.7X convertor, plus some new footage with an XM2. I have just begun acquisition with a Century 2x on the XM2.

There is a gallery available on this site, but I am unable to post on it, and requests for information as to what is required have not been answered.

I too have looked at ourmedia, but have not yet taken the plunge.

As a result I have been emailing stills to people.

If one could post on the gallery here, life would be a lot simpler.

Boyd Ostroff · March 26th, 2006, 05:46 AM

Note: the above comments reference the following thread: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=63642

Brendan Marnell · March 26th, 2006, 07:19 AM

I was hoping somebody would tidy me up. A new thread was the way to go; my post-primary education continues apace. Thank you Boyd.

I hope Dale comes in with more insight from outdoors on his GL2 (XM2) ?

Alan, I would be glad to study your stills or footage, outdoor especially. Please keep tapping at Ourmedia ... they go quietly in the end. If I could inspire you the way Meryem inspired me I would, but there are, well, some basic, you know what I mean, sort of fundamental, well it's obvious isn't it, I mean to say.... in a nutshell, I may be more prone to feminine influence than you, but please give it another try and share your loot with the rest of us.

Alan Craven · March 26th, 2006, 08:39 AM

You wouldn't be trying the blarney on me, now would you, Brendan?

Seriously, to me, getting involved with my own web page is just that bit too daunting. It's one thing batting jpeg stills around, but video is a different league.

Interestingly the first thing I used my new Century convertor on was a colony of rooks nesting in a Sycamore at the end of the garden. I expected to see the chromatic aberration that Meryem showed us a while ago, in http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...hlight=Century
as it was a very similar shot, but blessedly my example of the lens seems to be much better in that respect.

Incidentally, I think that the asymmetric vigetting is due to faulty alignment in the camera rather than the convertor lens as my old Sony convertor displays different asymmetry with my XM2 to that with the XM1.

Tom Hardwick · March 26th, 2006, 08:55 AM

We keep meeting up on different forum boards, Alan.

Meryem Ersoz · March 26th, 2006, 10:17 AM

alan, just for the record...i think the Century Optics 2x is a great product and a great addition to the GL2 arsenal. the CA footage i posted was more in the spirit of "here's what it looks like when it crops up." there's been several occasions--not just with the century optics teleconverter--when CA which is not visible in the viewfinder as i shoot, is visible in the footage. (or, perhaps, it is there, but i'm not attending....). i didn't post that footage to discourage anyone from purchasing what is undoubtedly the best converter out there for the GL2, but, rather, to offer an example of what can happen.

same goes for the vignetting example i posted. it wasn't intended to discourage anyone from purchasing a CO 2x--it was just something which had been extensively discussed but no one had posted any actual footage, and it's always helpful to see an example instead of trying to visualize based on someone's text-based descriptions in these discussion threads.

Alan Craven · March 26th, 2006, 10:54 AM

You certainly didn't put me off, Meryem, I bought the Century after seeing your posts.

The vignetting, as I say, is inevitable with this type of convertor. To reduce it, so that you can zoom out further before it starts, the lens diameter would have to be considerably larger. To maintain the quality of the lens, it would become prohibitively expensive, and very heavy.

My one regret is that the 2.0X is now 58mm screw mount, rather than fitting to the lens hood bayonet, which older brochures describe. I asume this is a question of economics.

Meryem Ersoz · March 26th, 2006, 12:32 PM

i have the bayonet mount, and a big disadvantage is that it can't be used with a step ring, which requires the screw-in mount. i'll tradeja! if i had the screw-in variety instead of the bayonet mount, then i could use it with my FX-1 for more reach, which the FX-1 sorely needs.

Alan Craven · March 26th, 2006, 12:54 PM

Trading is an interesting idea. The nearest I ever get to Boulder is LA twice a year as a break to my annual commute to New Zealand. This 12000 mile commute gives me two each of Northern hemisphere May, June, July! Wonderful!

I suppose we probably overfly Colorado?

Having had a further look at both the Century site and the UK suppliers, I think that the 58mm thread pattern is the only one that is imported to the UK now. Presumably because it fits both Canon and Sony (and I think some JVC models).

Dale Guthormsen · March 27th, 2006, 09:39 PM

meryem,

Yesterday the gl2 went on the fritz, remove cassette and it could not even get the cassette out!! It is off today

I am considering getting an fx1 for a second camera. How do you find yours for wildlife shooting???

Has anyone tried using a wide angle infront of a converter to reduce the degree of vinetting???

I shoot a lot of flight of raptors from slow stuff to 200mile per hour dives/stoops.

The greatest problem with the gl2 is focusing while using the zoom!!

The auto focus is out and change the zooom and the whole things is over and you have no image.
With the zoom+ a concerter I always focus on a distant object first with the zoom max where I want it, then draw back until I lose focus then nudge it forward. When you are searching blue sky it is just plain hard to find and manual focus. Once you got them it is much easier to keep them enlarged and when the start to come down I draw back on the zoom trying to keep the size relatively the same coming down, if you let them get to big you will lose them due to the excessive speed. I shoot a lot of footage for some usable footage!!
When I either get another camera or my gl2 back I could post some still shots at different distances to show the detail.

dale guthormsen

Dale Guthormsen · March 27th, 2006, 09:53 PM

Allan,

this is an interesting point!! I found with 2 and 3 plexes on cameras (nikon, canon, and pentax) that the same one would effect each camera different. I have seen them where the actual lens is made incorrectly and the actual point of focus of the camera and the lens is different. when this occurs the 2x can never actually focus properly. I think this is one of the biggest problems with cheap converters. think of the compexity of getting the glass perfect, mounting it is a threaded housing so it is 100% 90 degrees to the housing, the threads are cut perfectly enough to not throw the lens into a cant of .002 of a an inch. No wonder good lenses are so expensive!!!

I bought the century because I looked at a sight where the gl2 shows a mountai and then zooms in closer to notice some clifts, then from there they zoom in on the cliff and there is a climber on one of the rock faces. I was impressed enough to get the one I now have.

Meryem Ersoz · March 27th, 2006, 10:42 PM

bad stuff about your camera, dale, sorry to hear it. i have an FX-1 and think it is a fantastic camera for the price. if you're considering replacing a GL2, it's the way to go. best bang for the buck. the one disappointment you'll likely have is the lack of zoom. when you're accustomed to the GL2's 20x, the 12x on the FX-1 will seem measly by comparison. and century optic's 1.6x teleconverter is a whopping $849 new. so the price comparison between a GL2 and FX-1 sinks under the weight of the price of the TC, at least if you're shooting wildlife, where more reach is essential:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ughType=search

as i mentioned, if you have a screw-on 58mm CO 2x mount, you can get away with using the 2x on the FX-1 using a step ring. it resolves well enough.

FX-1 will shoot breathtaking landscapes and fabulous detail on animals, if you're close enough. it's terrific for small subjects, bugs, flowers, that sort of thing. macro work. for $80, you can add this set of diopters and get super-close. i have a 58mm set for my GL2 as well as the 72mm set, and it simply can't resolve close-up images like the FX-1 can.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ughType=search

hope this helps....

Tom Hardwick · March 28th, 2006, 03:03 AM

I'm with Meryem. The GL2 has all its 20x zoom in the telephoto range, whereas the FX1 has a 12x that goes from a pretty good wide-angle to a so-so telephoto. Any wildlife photographer (even comong from a VX2100, say), will be crying out for more reach. Then they'll flinch at the cost of a decent 2x TC with a 72 mm attachment thread or a Sony bayonet.

The GL2 is spectatular value for money when viewed alongside the VX2100, but I'm just hearing too often of faults like Dale reports, and I now wobble about recommending it. OK, its days must surely be numbered anyway in the light of the HDV opposition, but that Canon fluorite lens has always been its trump card. For wildlife photographers like you guys Canon has faced little opposition.

tom.

Alan Craven · March 28th, 2006, 03:40 AM

Hello again, Tom. Yes, you have hit the nail on the head! I have just, with some reluctance, replaced an ailing XM1 with an XM2, the reluctance being due to the apparent fragility of the design. Basically I bought the lens, and I hope the rest holds together. As a wildlife shooter, pure and simple, once I had decided that the XL2 was simply too large and heavy for a lot of what I do, I really had no choice.

Oh for a PD170 with the Canon lens!

March 26th, 2006, 02:53 AM	#1
Brendan Marnell Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Dublin, Ireland Posts: 938	Field tests Dale Guthormsen posted this on GL2 Son of Watchdog > Century 2x Teleconverter .... <<<<I just recently purchased a 2x from a member on the classifieds on this list, a fellow canadian, Francois. I had the lens in a couple days, impressed. I took it out in the field and having had a tiffen on my sony and tossing the tiffen in the garbage 150 dollars wasted), I was still leary as to expectations. If you are considering one of these converters you will not likly be dissappointed!! With the gl2 telephoto out all the way and then with the 2x on it I could fill the bulk of the Frame with a hungarian partridge (about 6 inches tall) at 75 to 100 yards out. A 1000 mm lens or better on a 35 mm slr. the detail was much better than i expected as duplexes have a reputation of destroying the image!! >>>> We will never have enough reports of wildlife field tests like this.

March 26th, 2006, 08:39 AM	#5
Alan Craven Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: York, England Posts: 518	You wouldn't be trying the blarney on me, now would you, Brendan? Seriously, to me, getting involved with my own web page is just that bit too daunting. It's one thing batting jpeg stills around, but video is a different league. Interestingly the first thing I used my new Century convertor on was a colony of rooks nesting in a Sycamore at the end of the garden. I expected to see the chromatic aberration that Meryem showed us a while ago, in http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...hlight=Century as it was a very similar shot, but blessedly my example of the lens seems to be much better in that respect. Incidentally, I think that the asymmetric vigetting is due to faulty alignment in the camera rather than the convertor lens as my old Sony convertor displays different asymmetry with my XM2 to that with the XM1. Last edited by Alan Craven; March 26th, 2006 at 10:49 AM.

March 26th, 2006, 10:17 AM	#7
Meryem Ersoz Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 3,015	alan, just for the record...i think the Century Optics 2x is a great product and a great addition to the GL2 arsenal. the CA footage i posted was more in the spirit of "here's what it looks like when it crops up." there's been several occasions--not just with the century optics teleconverter--when CA which is not visible in the viewfinder as i shoot, is visible in the footage. (or, perhaps, it is there, but i'm not attending....). i didn't post that footage to discourage anyone from purchasing what is undoubtedly the best converter out there for the GL2, but, rather, to offer an example of what can happen. same goes for the vignetting example i posted. it wasn't intended to discourage anyone from purchasing a CO 2x--it was just something which had been extensively discussed but no one had posted any actual footage, and it's always helpful to see an example instead of trying to visualize based on someone's text-based descriptions in these discussion threads. Last edited by Meryem Ersoz; March 26th, 2006 at 10:57 AM.

March 26th, 2006, 12:54 PM	#10
Alan Craven Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: York, England Posts: 518	Trading is an interesting idea. The nearest I ever get to Boulder is LA twice a year as a break to my annual commute to New Zealand. This 12000 mile commute gives me two each of Northern hemisphere May, June, July! Wonderful! I suppose we probably overfly Colorado? Having had a further look at both the Century site and the UK suppliers, I think that the 58mm thread pattern is the only one that is imported to the UK now. Presumably because it fits both Canon and Sony (and I think some JVC models). Last edited by Alan Craven; March 26th, 2006 at 11:53 PM.

March 27th, 2006, 09:39 PM	#11
Dale Guthormsen Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Saskatchewan Posts: 3,048	Teleconverter stuff/meryem meryem, Yesterday the gl2 went on the fritz, remove cassette and it could not even get the cassette out!! It is off today I am considering getting an fx1 for a second camera. How do you find yours for wildlife shooting??? Has anyone tried using a wide angle infront of a converter to reduce the degree of vinetting??? I shoot a lot of flight of raptors from slow stuff to 200mile per hour dives/stoops. The greatest problem with the gl2 is focusing while using the zoom!! The auto focus is out and change the zooom and the whole things is over and you have no image. With the zoom+ a concerter I always focus on a distant object first with the zoom max where I want it, then draw back until I lose focus then nudge it forward. When you are searching blue sky it is just plain hard to find and manual focus. Once you got them it is much easier to keep them enlarged and when the start to come down I draw back on the zoom trying to keep the size relatively the same coming down, if you let them get to big you will lose them due to the excessive speed. I shoot a lot of footage for some usable footage!! When I either get another camera or my gl2 back I could post some still shots at different distances to show the detail. dale guthormsen

March 26th, 2006, 05:16 AM	#2
Alan Craven Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: York, England Posts: 518	This is a copy of my response to Brendan's post in the GL2 forum. I have an abundance of footage taken with an XM1 and the Sony 1.7X convertor, plus some new footage with an XM2. I have just begun acquisition with a Century 2x on the XM2. There is a gallery available on this site, but I am unable to post on it, and requests for information as to what is required have not been answered. I too have looked at ourmedia, but have not yet taken the plunge. As a result I have been emailing stills to people. If one could post on the gallery here, life would be a lot simpler.

March 26th, 2006, 05:46 AM	#3
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	Note: the above comments reference the following thread: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=63642

March 26th, 2006, 07:19 AM	#4
Brendan Marnell Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Dublin, Ireland Posts: 938	I was hoping somebody would tidy me up. A new thread was the way to go; my post-primary education continues apace. Thank you Boyd. I hope Dale comes in with more insight from outdoors on his GL2 (XM2) ? Alan, I would be glad to study your stills or footage, outdoor especially. Please keep tapping at Ourmedia ... they go quietly in the end. If I could inspire you the way Meryem inspired me I would, but there are, well, some basic, you know what I mean, sort of fundamental, well it's obvious isn't it, I mean to say.... in a nutshell, I may be more prone to feminine influence than you, but please give it another try and share your loot with the rest of us.

March 26th, 2006, 08:55 AM	#6
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	We keep meeting up on different forum boards, Alan.

March 26th, 2006, 10:54 AM	#8
Alan Craven Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: York, England Posts: 518	You certainly didn't put me off, Meryem, I bought the Century after seeing your posts. The vignetting, as I say, is inevitable with this type of convertor. To reduce it, so that you can zoom out further before it starts, the lens diameter would have to be considerably larger. To maintain the quality of the lens, it would become prohibitively expensive, and very heavy. My one regret is that the 2.0X is now 58mm screw mount, rather than fitting to the lens hood bayonet, which older brochures describe. I asume this is a question of economics.

March 26th, 2006, 12:32 PM	#9
Meryem Ersoz Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 3,015	i have the bayonet mount, and a big disadvantage is that it can't be used with a step ring, which requires the screw-in mount. i'll tradeja! if i had the screw-in variety instead of the bayonet mount, then i could use it with my FX-1 for more reach, which the FX-1 sorely needs.

March 27th, 2006, 09:53 PM	#12
Dale Guthormsen Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Saskatchewan Posts: 3,048	Asymetry Allan, this is an interesting point!! I found with 2 and 3 plexes on cameras (nikon, canon, and pentax) that the same one would effect each camera different. I have seen them where the actual lens is made incorrectly and the actual point of focus of the camera and the lens is different. when this occurs the 2x can never actually focus properly. I think this is one of the biggest problems with cheap converters. think of the compexity of getting the glass perfect, mounting it is a threaded housing so it is 100% 90 degrees to the housing, the threads are cut perfectly enough to not throw the lens into a cant of .002 of a an inch. No wonder good lenses are so expensive!!! I bought the century because I looked at a sight where the gl2 shows a mountai and then zooms in closer to notice some clifts, then from there they zoom in on the cliff and there is a climber on one of the rock faces. I was impressed enough to get the one I now have.

March 27th, 2006, 10:42 PM	#13
Meryem Ersoz Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 3,015	bad stuff about your camera, dale, sorry to hear it. i have an FX-1 and think it is a fantastic camera for the price. if you're considering replacing a GL2, it's the way to go. best bang for the buck. the one disappointment you'll likely have is the lack of zoom. when you're accustomed to the GL2's 20x, the 12x on the FX-1 will seem measly by comparison. and century optic's 1.6x teleconverter is a whopping $849 new. so the price comparison between a GL2 and FX-1 sinks under the weight of the price of the TC, at least if you're shooting wildlife, where more reach is essential: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ughType=search as i mentioned, if you have a screw-on 58mm CO 2x mount, you can get away with using the 2x on the FX-1 using a step ring. it resolves well enough. FX-1 will shoot breathtaking landscapes and fabulous detail on animals, if you're close enough. it's terrific for small subjects, bugs, flowers, that sort of thing. macro work. for $80, you can add this set of diopters and get super-close. i have a 58mm set for my GL2 as well as the 72mm set, and it simply can't resolve close-up images like the FX-1 can. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ughType=search hope this helps....

March 28th, 2006, 03:03 AM	#14
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	I'm with Meryem. The GL2 has all its 20x zoom in the telephoto range, whereas the FX1 has a 12x that goes from a pretty good wide-angle to a so-so telephoto. Any wildlife photographer (even comong from a VX2100, say), will be crying out for more reach. Then they'll flinch at the cost of a decent 2x TC with a 72 mm attachment thread or a Sony bayonet. The GL2 is spectatular value for money when viewed alongside the VX2100, but I'm just hearing too often of faults like Dale reports, and I now wobble about recommending it. OK, its days must surely be numbered anyway in the light of the HDV opposition, but that Canon fluorite lens has always been its trump card. For wildlife photographers like you guys Canon has faced little opposition. tom.

March 28th, 2006, 03:40 AM	#15
Alan Craven Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: York, England Posts: 518	Hello again, Tom. Yes, you have hit the nail on the head! I have just, with some reluctance, replaced an ailing XM1 with an XM2, the reluctance being due to the apparent fragility of the design. Basically I bought the lens, and I hope the rest holds together. As a wildlife shooter, pure and simple, once I had decided that the XL2 was simply too large and heavy for a lot of what I do, I really had no choice. Oh for a PD170 with the Canon lens!