Century's 0.6x or 16x9's 0.75x?

Ok... so I did a couple more searches and finally found a good thread answering all of this.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=78843&highlight=0.75&page=3

Barry_Green said:
The Schneider 1.6x tele is great.

The 16x9 .75x wide-angle delivers a very nice, sharp, wide picture. But it's not inexpensive, it's around $900.

The Century .6x wide-angle delivers a good sharp picture, with a whole lot of barrel distortion. It is limited zoom through but it's also much less expensive too.
Click to expand...

THoff said:
It's still overcast here and the light is poor, but I wanted to post one picture and a short video I took while futzing with the new Century Optics / Schneider 0.6x WA Adapter. The picture below shows the lens (which uses the bayonet mount and is not screwed onto the threads), along with one half of the case which also serves as a lens cap. The lens itself is threaded for 102mm filters.

CenturyWA.jpg


The movie was recorded in autofocus mode (the recommended setting), and the camera switches to MACRO to maintain focus. Focus is lost as you zoom in at around 30mm.

Because of the lack of light, the lens was wide open, and because of the obligue angle, the edge of the picture is naturally out of focus. I did not observe a significant softness at the edge, nor was there significant CA (this is why I was shooting the white wall).

1280x720P 2Mbps QuickTime Movie
Click to expand...

If you look at the edges on the walls you'll notice just how bad the distortion is on the Century. Big no-no, IMHO it should be called fish eye if it is so extreme.

I haven't found an example of the 16x9 yet.
 
Ok... well I didn't realize that on the 16x9 Inc website they do actually have a sample:

http://16x9inc.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=638

It is quite small, but the corners look perfectly sharp at this size. I suppose that they used the wide end of whichever camera they selected.

I can't find what camera they used, but under the focal length they have these:

Original Lens 3.9 - 51mm (28 - 368mm)
EX 0.75X 2.93 - 38.25mm (21 - 276mm)

So I guess they used an HMC-150 or an HPX-170, cause those are the exact specs of the. But the video doesn't say. It could be an old video... does anyone know if that video has been there for a long time? They don't even have the HMC or HPX listed under the cameras it works with.
 
basing on the specs, 28mm of hmc or hpx, multiplied by .6, thats 17mm! expect distortions! If you zoom it a bit im sure it'll have a lot less distortion at 21mm which is at .75.

edit
i guess ypou pay for the price on the 16x9
 
Last edited:
ive been looking around, anyone have experience between these

based on the videos ive seen from the 16x9 site

$600 EX .7x (less distortion) seems to be about the right price/quality... but would it work on hmc150?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...9_HD7X_72_0_7x_Wide_Angle.html#specifications

$400 .7x (distortion)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...7X1_HDV7X1_0_7_Wide_Angle.html#specifications

$750 EX .75x (sharp no distortion)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...c__169HDV75X82_0_75_Wide_Angle_Converter.html
 
Last edited:
The cheaper 0.7x for 72mm threads seems like one designed for SD. The $600.- however seems like it might be a good buy. Distortion seems very limited and might be worth he added 0.05x from 21mm to 19.6mm which is a nice increase. Although it is hard to judge based on the tiny video on their site it does seem like the adapter softens the image up a very little bit.

I forgot to call them today. I will ask them about this one too.

Wish there was someone with experience using both 16x9's
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top