teleconverter for eagle shots with the canon xh a1

[William Boehm]

I have looked at several sites....6x9 inc and the century precision optics 1.6 converter that would fit the 72 mm aperature. i have been photographing two different bald eagle nests, and need about another .4 to .6 increase to get detail of the parents and young. i assume there is vignetting in the low to mid range of the telephoto, and not at the higher range. but how sharp are the results? anyone play with this yet? thanks in advance. bill

[J. Stephen McDonald]

Raynox makes an extra-sharp telextender for this size of HD camcorder lenses.
It isn't cheap, but if it's as good as the 2.2X telex of theirs I have, that has a 62mm mounting thread, it would be worth considering.

[Paul Cronin]

Hi William,

I am in the same position and have been looking at the Century Optics 1.6x but it is not on the market yet. I have not looked into the 6x9 or is that 16x9?

[William Boehm]

the company is called 6x9 inc. and carries a 72 mm lense for about $900..pricey. i thought the other lens was available by century optics for same price...but i wonder about their quality...and problems with vignetting. bill

[William Boehm]

i couldnt find a 72 mm lens renox....but would like to know how sharp the lens is....vignetting problems etc. the 6x9 inc. web site states it has a 1.6x with a 72 mm screw on fitting..but again i am not sure of quality of the picture. can anyone help who has used one? I wanted the more expensive canon with the detachable lenses but for $10 k that was too much.

[Paul Cronin]

Sorry I did not know 6x9 made a 72mm lens to fit the A1.

I have a Century Optics 1.6x for a Sony Z1 I just sold and it worked fine. Yes there was vignetting at about 45% zoom. But I did not think that was a problem. If the shot was that close I just pulled if off.

Where do you buy the 6x9? Century Optics say 4 weeks.

[Leon Lorenz]

William, I find the Century 1.6X teleconverter very sharp on the XLH1 and it should work equally as well on the XHA1. I keep mine mounted at all times for wildlife filming along with Canon's 1.6X extender. Also Century's .6X wide angle is also very good.

Leon Lorenz
www.wildlifevideos.ca

[Boyd Ostroff]

Hi William. Please don't cross-post the same question to more than one forum, it's against DVinfo policy. I have merged your thread in the A1 forum with this one.

Thanks for your cooperation.

[J. Stephen McDonald]

Here's a link to the Raynox page for their HDP-9000EX HD telextender lens, with a 72mm mounting thread. This lens gives 1.8X and has a resolution rating of 280 lines per millimeter.

I have the Raynox DCR-2020PRO telextender, which gives 2.2X and is rated at 260 lines per millimeter, with a 62mm mounting thread. It gives a very sharp image and I've used it without a loss of picture quality on a 7-MegaPixel digital camera. However, due to its smaller barrel size, it wouldn't be suitable for a 72mm camcorder, due to vignetting through the whole zoom range. They say that the 72mm HDP-9000EX will cause vignetting only in the lower half of the zoom range, on most 72mm HD camcorders.

Note: Regarding the adaptor rings they show on this page, two different aspects of their descriptions might be misinterpreted. In the first instance, they put the two thread sizes of their step-rings in the reverse order that is done by most manufacturers. A step-ring ordinarily has the thread size of the basic lens listed first, such as 58-72mm, when a camera with a basic lens that has a 58mm filter thread size is involved. The step-up ring they show for this size is described instead, as "7258", putting the thread size of the add-on lens first. Remember this, when picking out the right adaptor ring for your needs.

Another way in which they describe these step-rings, could also lead to a misunderstanding. For example, they say that their 7258 step-up ring is for a "58mm filter size". This might be incorrectly thought to mean that it is for adapting a 58mm filter to the lens. In fact, no filter is necessarily involved in this adaptation. Their description should read instead: for a "58mm filter thread size". This would indicate it was for adapting the 72mm telex lens onto a basic lens that had a 58mm filter thread, which is the actual purpose of this step-up ring.

http://raynox.co.jp/english/video/hdp9000ex/index.htm

[Dale Guthormsen]

William,

I have the century 2x and it is as good as one can hope for a duplex. having said that, I personally find any image that has to have the duplex on it is generally to soft an image for myself.

I have also used the 1.6 on my xl2 and find it to be the same.

Both of these retain good resolution until you reach out the last 1/4 of the zoom, which is where you really tend to need it.

What you are shooting makes a difference. I shoot alot of birds and such where detail is important. shooting large pans of scenery and such it would not be as big a problem, or perhaps better said as, less noticable.

Botttom line I ended up going for a camera with interchangable lenses. I know that is a big expense and if you are not doing this kind of photography all the time then one can settle for the duplex type of image.

I could post a few small clips if you would find them useful.

[J. Stephen McDonald]

Originally Posted by Dale Guthormsen

William, I have the Century 2x and it is as good as one can hope for a duplex. Having said that, I personally find any image that has to have the duplex on it is generally too soft an image for myself.

I have also used the 1.6 on my Xl2 and find it to be the same.

Both of these retain good resolution until you reach out the last 1/4 of the zoom, which is where you really tend to need it.

I've heard similar remarks from several other people about the Century telexes. The loss of resolution doesn't seem to happen at any point in the zoom with my 2.2X Raynox DCR-2020PRO. Since I've used it with some digital cameras that have up to 7-MP in resolution and up to 1,425mm in total equivalent focal length, I've put it to a pretty good sharpness test. I can't vouch for the 72mm size HDP-9000EX by Raynox, as I haven't used it, but I'd be surprised if it didn't perform as well as the one I have.

Here's a picture I shot with the Raynox 2.2X on my Olympus C-2100UZ camera, which has a 2-MP pixel size and a 380mm lens. With this telex it has a total of 860mm. This shot was done at about 95% full zoom, and 817mm.

The second shot is from my Sony H5 camera, using Smart Zoom at 3-MP and full zoom, for a total focal length of 1,425mm.

The Raynox telex doesn't reduce the light coming through very much. Both shots were taken about an hour before sunset in the Winter and the one showing two Ring-necked Ducks was shot pointing towards the setting Sun.

[Brendan Marnell]

Steve,
These images are sharper than I've seen, but then my standards are those of a beginner. Just clarify one thing for me please ... Is the gear discussed in this thread for cameras only, or for both cameras and camcorders (with interchangeable lens possibilities)?

[J. Stephen McDonald]

Originally Posted by Brendan Marnell

Steve,
These images are sharper than I've seen, but then my standards are those of a beginner. Just clarify one thing for me please ... Is the gear discussed in this thread for cameras only, or for both cameras and camcorders (with interchangeable lens possibilities)?

Brendan, I've used the Raynox 2.2X telex on all my digital cameras and camcorders, that have mounting threads on their basic lenses from 37mm to 58mm in size. This telex does a fine job with them all, but of course it causes vignetting from somewhere around 70% to 85% of full zoom downward, depending on the camera model. I've also used the Sony VCL-DH1758, a 1.7X telex on all these cameras and camcorders and since it has a 58mm mounting thread, it fits on my VX2100 without an adaptor. It vignettes on this camcorder below 85% full zoom. It cost me only $95. U.S., from a mail-order dealer and is a good bargain, as it has excellent optical quality. The larger Sony VCL-HG1758 telex causes vignetting on the VX2100 only below about 45% full zoom, but it cost me $370.

Sony has a new telex, the VCL-DH1774, which is much larger and might not cause vignetting on a VX2000/2100 at such a high point in the zoom. It can be bought for $143. from at least one mail-order dealer. One problem is that it has an odd-sized 74mm mounting thread and would need a special 58mm to 74mm step-up ring to fit a VX camcorder. The only source of these seems to be Pemaraal, a small company that has indicated it will make several sizes of step-rings and adaptor tubes to fit the DH1774 to different sized basic lenses. They are not yet available, but the company says they will be soon. They will also make step-down rings to adapt 58mm telexes to the new 74mm digital cameras by Sony. The DH1774 was made primarily to fit their new H-series digital camera models, but might be workable on VX and even FX camcorders. I can't guarantee that the optical dynamics of it will match the larger camcorder lenses, all the way to the outer margins of the frame, but it would be worth investigating. Since it's made for 8-megapixel cameras, its resolution would be more than good enough for any SD or HD camcorder.

Here's a J-PEG picture I took with my VX2100, with a Raynox DCR-2020PRO telextender attached, at full zoom. The total 35mm film-equivalent focal-length was 1,140mm, for a 22.8X magnification. The basic VX2100 lens has a 518.4mm top focal-length, for a 10.37X magnification. This shows 3 Ring-necked Ducks and 1 female Bufflehead. I've also attached a demonstration shot done with the Raynox telex, on a Sony H5 digital camera. This was at full zoom, for a total equivalent focal-length of 1,080mm and 21.6X magnification. The subject of this photo contains horizontal, vertical and diagonal lines and shows how the telex causes no distortion at any point in the frame.

[Dale Guthormsen]

Good evening,

The pictures are very nice to be certain. However shooting through a video camera is not the same as a 2 megapixel still camera, but it does show lack of distortion.

The video (is it a grab or a picture taken by the camera?) shot is real nice. If it is a grab then i am dead impressed

Even in high definition video it seems to me you only have 1.5 mega pixel maximum. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I would like to see a couple images pulled from a video footage and then compare them: century and reynox. I would change in a heart beat if I could get an image like the widgeon!!!

could you post a short video clip of a bird with your reynox?? I am interested!!

[J. Stephen McDonald]

Dale, here's a video-capture I made from tape I shot on the same occasion I took the J-PEG picture, that is on the previous message. The vid-cap doesn't look as sharp or bright as the image I got direct from the camera, onto the MemoryStick. The double-encoding process takes a lot away from the quality and each video frame on the tape gets less bit-space than the J-PEG still-captures. Another aspect of the difference in picture quality, is that the vid-cap comes from footage that was shot with interlaced scanning and an electronic shutter. The J-PEG capture mode uses a progressive scan and a mechanical shutter.

If you click on it to view the larger size, you can see that the depth-of-focus doesn't fully extend all the way to the drake, as the hen is what the camera used to key the focus. That's one problem when you use such a long focal-length: the DOF is very shallow. If you have a flock of birds at full zoom with this telextender, it's not likely they'll all be in sharp focus. I try to key on the nearest bird, because if those in the middle are sharp and the front ones are fuzzy, that ruins the image.

Actually, the realtime video footage of this scene looks even better to me than the J-PEG capture. I'd like to send a clip, but I don't have the system to do it at present. I can see that I'm going to have to find a way to remedy that pretty soon. I might put some Raynox-assisted video on a DVD and mail it to a friend who is active in posting Web video and have him load it onto a website.