ISO 1920x1080 sample frames of Various Wide Adapters on EX Cameras

basspig

basspig

Veteran
I'm going to start the process of evaluating some options for add-on wide adapters. I know there are a handful of them out there, some zoom through and some not.

What I need is something that provides near-90° field of view.

I want to see FULL images--not reduced--so I can see how bad the CA and softness of the images are, helpful in determining which lens may be suitable for my applications in certain limited shooting situations.

I've pretty much written off the $4000 Fujinon and will be returning it shortly because I don't feel the lackluster quality merits the price.

The add ons come as cheap as $358 for a bayonet mount (fast on/off for changing shooting situations) and some range to about $800 for some zoom through capability.

I want to see sample images from these lenses at full 1920x1080, so I can evaluate CA and sharpness, in addition to other distortions commonly found on these lenses.

I realize that another option is to go Letus adapter and use 35mm wide angle prime lenses. But I want to find out how bad the low-cost add ons are. I've used cheapo add on adapters with my Sony VX2000 five years ago and they worked fine for SD work. It won't be that easy for HD, but I'm not looking for perfection in a $350 lens either. I think it won't be too difficult to approach the Fujinon wide lens in terms of quality, given it's so poor to begin with.
 
Thanks for that link.

Is it me, or are the adapters for HD lenses so much worse than the ones for SD cameras like the VX2000? All of these samples, even at the reduced quarter-size, look downright awful. I'll be the CA on that truck interior shot is fully ten pixels across! Still, it would be great to see some 1920x1080 samples instead of the 640x480 or whatever that site displays in its little Flash enabled viewer...

So there are no good wide angle adapters, at least not among those examples.

This puts me in a quandry... to go Letus and just use all Nikon lenses, or consider keeping this lens, as bad as it is...

Investing $14 grand in the next level up wide lens seems like a poor choice. I may as well move up to a PMW350 if I'm going to get into more expensive peripherals.

If only someone made a good 4mm prime that I could pop onto an Adaptimax and use for those in-car shots. But those samples from the .6X and .75X are just downright awful. How could they even shamelessly market a piece of crap like that? Any decent still photographer would never touch a lens such as that.
 
I know what you're saying. I'm primarily a still photographer but my video business is keeping me busier lately. I'd NEVER accept the distortions that these add-on lenses cause if I was trying to do it in my still photo life, but I've grudgingly come to accept it in my videos. I try to limit the amount of footage that require my Schneider/Century x.06 or try to hide the bending edges as much as possible. As you are finding out, you only have a couple options and none of them are "wallet friendly". ;-)
 
basspig said:
This puts me in a quandry... to go Letus and just use all Nikon lenses, or consider keeping this lens, as bad as it is...
Click to expand...

Or, maybe, do what I did - in that now all my w-i-d-e shots are done through a Tokina 11-16 or Nikkor 17-55 onto a 550D/T2i. I have been very happy with the results (even cutting it into EX1 footage).

It's not everyone's cup of tea, and it's 'another mouth to feed', but - oh, the joy of that amazing relatively distortion free 11mm, coupled with 2.8 (so there's even a DoF effect) and the fact it works so well in dim light... I could go on, but won't.
 
D-SLRs are still out of the question for the following reasons:

1. aliasing
2. limited resolution
3. reduced lattitude
4. poor or no audio recording
5. incompatible file format for Adobe CS3

The test shots I've seen in reviews for the T2i looked softer than the images I get out of the Fujinon wide lens on the EX3 and that aliasing.. yuck. When shooting in a limo, a wide lattitude is required, something these D-SLRs are not quite up to par with yet.

That said, my Olympus E300 is getting long in the tooth, and I'm not totally adverse to getting a newer D-SLR, but I wouldn't buy it for the video features. I'd buy a newer model with faster ISO and lower noise levels. Though I've never found the color rendering of D-SLRs to be anything to write home about. I find myself using the EX cameras to take 'stills' more often than I use my D-SLR these days because my E300 can't take a decent still with available lighting unless it's on a tripod.

I'm pondering all these issues in the coming week. Much to consider and think about..
 
I'm still surprised at how bad your EX-3 wide angle was. I'll been using it for broadcast, corporate, you name it, and never have had anyone make a comment about it. I believe you must have your own edit system where you can zoom in and see pixels, and get too "IMO" a bit way too critical for what your shooting. Unless your clients are ILM and using a 4k projector to view all your footage.
I just think your going to be spinning your wheels unless your ready to step up to high dollar gear. A $800 adapter on $8000 camera will never be up to your critical eye, unless your willing to pay $40,000.00 camera and a $36,000 lens.

That crappy lens has paid for itself 5 times over at this point. So go easy. Someone else might be making money using this lens and not have any problems with the image.
 
My photographer friend saw the frame grabs and the first comment he had was that it looked like images from a lens I got out of a box of Cracker Jacks. I'd say it's obvious enough that zooming in isn't necessary. Although I do watch my footage on a large projection system in a dedicated screening room, so I see flaws in everyone's footage.

But that's not my point.

My point is consistency in the lineup of Fujinon lenses.

My point is that if the 'free' included lens is so darned good, then why isn't this $4,000 lens at least as good, only wider?

My footage had got to pass muster with MY eye before I consider it good enough for a client. Yeah, you're probably right that I could shoot a lot of stuff for release on DVD that none of the clients would find fault with. But I can never feel good about those images that this lens created. I'm extremely happy with the stock lens' quality. All I'm asking for is that an optional lens that costs thousands of dollars at least match the quality of the el-cheapo included lens. Is that too much to ask?

I COULD shoot a feature film with the stock lens. It's THAT good. But I could never shoot a feature with that wide angle lens. It looks like a cheap Brownie camera took the shot, and that looks just awful on a big screen.

The sickening thing is that the converter lenses are so bad, too.. as much as ten times worse.

I suppose if I had a $500,000 equipment budget, I wouldn't feel like this was such wasted money, but this lens will cost me dearly and I'll be sacrificing lifestyle to pay for it for the next 12 months.

Fujinon really let me down. They set a precedent with the included lens that they couldn't keep up with when I decided to lay out the big bucks of my hard-earned money. I am deeply disappointed.
 
At this point, the add on lenses I've seen sample frames from are SO bad that I would not consider buying such a lens without seeing sample images first. When you're working with a full raster HD cam like the EX series, the quality of the glass becomes of paramount importance.
 
I'm a photographer too and I can tell you that comparing a 1920x1080 video image with a still camera image won't leave you impressed. A DSLR, like the Canon 5D with an inexpensive $375 lens (like the Canon 85mm 1.8) will give a nicer still than a frame capture from the EX1.

I have two wide angle adapters for my EX1. I have the Sony .8 which is fantastic (no stills to back it up), and the Century .55x fisheye, which is useful for limited purposes but noticeably degrades the image, primarily all around the edges and corners. But that's pretty much to be expected. It's also auto-focus only, which is my main objection because every now and then it will stray for a second or two when there's a lot going on.

I have both the EX1 and the Canon 5D Mark II, and again I'm a photographer who makes a substantial part of my income from photography (not full-time yet), and I'm absolutely blown away by the quality of the 5D II. It literally looks like beautiful still pictures coming to life. I shot video for a wedding recently and took both my EX1, which I love and used as my "A" camera, and my 5D II as my B camera while my EX1 was on a tripod, and the images from my 5D II were absolutely magical in extreme low lighting. The DOF, the clarity and low light capabilities, and the skin tones were absolutely incredible. If they put that 5D II chip in a true video camera form it would become my primary camera. I don't say that to take anything away from my EX1 because I practically sleep with that puppy.
 
I thought you'd like the Century stuff on DVinfo Mark. It looked better than that 4 grand paper weight you just bought.
 
Buck, a 1920x1080 image that resolves detail to the pixel is much more appealing than a 3072x2048 image that only resolves to ever three pixels. If anything, lens sharpness and CA problems should be far worse on an 8MP image than on a 2.2MP image, but for some reason, broadcast lenses get a free pass for crummy quality. It takes one heck of a lens to achieve detail to the pixel on a 8MP sensor, but it should not be that much of a feat on a 2.2MP sensor.

I can capture unbeatable images from my EX3 with the STOCK lens. No problem there.
It's the Fujinon wide lens that produces very substandard images. It doesn't live up to the expectation that the stock lens created for me.


Chadfish, thanks for the links, although I wish I could view full 1920x1080 samples so I can evaluate sharpness. Those lenses were so bad though, that even the thumbnail images showed CA, and of course the barrel distortion is like a fun house mirror effect. But for 1/12th the price of this "paperweight" of a Fujinon lens, I'd be more willing to put up with that. But certainly NOT on a $4000 lens that should match the quality of the 'free' included lens, which is VERY good.
 
basspig, I don't know the math, I just look at images. I have both cameras and I'm looking at both images on the same equipment. If mere mathematics is telling me my EX1 images should be a lot better than my 5DII when shot under the same conditions at the same time, then math has a funny way of playing with the eyes. When my wife, who knows nothing of this stuff, saw the images from both the EX1 and 5DII of the wedding, she was blown away with the 5DII footage. If math and aesthetics clash, when it comes to images, I'll take the aesthetics every time.

Again, of course it doesn't matter to me what lenses or camera you use, I'm just sharing my experiences. As for CA, I've found my EX1 to have much more purple fringing when contrasting a subject against a bright background than I ever have with 5DII. But that said, when it comes to shooting video only, I'll still choose my EX1 because of the form and audio and all that stuff. But Canon is on to something big. Best to you.
 
Buck, there's little math involved with visually seeing an image and observing whether the detail is to the pixel or to several pixels. The stock lens on the EX3 resolves to the pixel. You can't do better than that. You can put a bigger image sensor and a bigger lens and resolve to the pixel for more pixels, bu the quality of individual pixels (say any 1920x1080 cropped area) out of a 21 megapixel image shot with a Canon 1Ds MkII isn't going to be any better than a 1920x180 frame from the EX3. In all probability, it will be less sharp, because few lenses costing less than a new Mercedes can resolve detail that fine for a high density imager like those in a top of the line D-SLR.

Another aspect of shooting stills with the EX3, I find the only time I can get sharper images out of my D-SLR is when it's on a tripod and am using flashbulb. For moving shots, the ISO on the EX3 is much higher and I get sharper images with better color usually with the EX cameras.

Chadfish, my friend has a T2i and we tested the video on it. Utterly unusable except in carefully-setup shots where lighting is controlled and extreme narrow DoF is being used. Any sharp edge in the scene produces super jaggies. The camera blows highlights and crushes blacks too much, too. With normal DoF shooting, the picture is just not useable.
 
I have the 5DMkII as well as the PMW350, and recently sold the EX1. I love the 5DMkII for stills, but there is too much aliasing and moire with video.
 
basspig, I'll have to disagree to the grave that a still from an EX1 is as good as a still from a Canon 5D II. I don't even think that is an arguable point. I know you love your EX1, as I do mine, but we gotta keep it real. As for video between the two, that's certainly arguable. I know for a fact, at least with my two cameras (EX1 and 5D II) that in very low light, shooting portrait length lenses (such as the Canon 85mm 1.8), it was no contest with the 5D II as the clear winner (although I still liked the shots with the EX1, which was my main cam during the wedding). If you're shooting wide and sharp with a busy composition, I'll take the EX1.

Are you saying the ISO on the EX1/3 is higher than the ISOs on the newer DSLRs and is better in low light?

Check out the the latest Zacuto shootout between various DSLRs with film. The low light qualites and aesthetics are amazing.

I just got back from shooting an amazing sunrise at Mono Lake. I took stills, and video from both my 5D II and EX1. If I ever figure out editing and how to get it posted and you can see the video, I think you'll be very surprised. The video from my 5D II looks exactly like the gorgeous still photos, come to life. That's the magic of that camera. The EX1 looks sweet, but it looks like great high-def video. The aesthetics is just not quite the same. Maybe a techy pixel pounder (not implying that's what you are - general statement) can try and tell me (and others watching the footage) it's not as good because of pixels and resolving, etc., but an artist knows just by using his/her eyes.
 
Buck, I think you missed my point, which was that if you take any 1920x1080 crop from a 1DS Mk II and compare it with a 1920x1080 frame of the EX series, you'll find the detail to the pixel on the EX frame, maybe not so on the 1DS Mk II, because any lens that costs less than a Mercedes Benz is probably not going to have an MTF that could effectively use all 21 megapixels on the imager.

Sure, a 21 megapixel still will most likely beat a 2.2 megapixel still, all things being equal. But a 21 megapixel still that has motion blur and some chromatic aberration and distortions due to lens deficiencies may not look any better than a sharply-focused 2.2 megapixel image from the EX. And the EX has enough detail to look really transparent on a projection screen, blown up to wall-sized.

The newer D-SLRs are getting pretty fast now, but once you get above the $5,000 price class for the camera body, they should be fast. I don't know what the real ISO of the EX is, since there are so many shooting modes. I've read test results placing it anywhere from 800 to 3200 ISO @ 0dB. I know that I have to shoot at 1/8th sec shutter @ 100 ISO on my Olympus SLR to get the light levels I get with the EX shooting 24P @ 1/48th sec.

I've seen Philip Bloom's footage that he shot up at Skywalker Ranch. It's breathtaking, but Philip is a master of getting the most out of a camera and shooting around its weaknesses.

For me, I like print-quality photographic resolution in my video--I've become rather addicted to the look (which is why the new Fujinon lens was such a disappointment, as it ratcheted me back to the HDV look) and if I were to want 35mm wide open f-stop DoF, I would probably go with a 35mm adapter.

If you're getting what looks like video out of your EX1, then you need to explore different picture profiles that don't use detail enhancement. I am currently editing a wedding that I shot in 720P/60 (leaving slow motion options open to all the shots) and it looks simply stunning. The colors, the dynamic range, the warmth, the smoothness of the look, even the ability of the picture profile I used to warm up a dreary, rainy day, the camera simply turns everything into art. The scenes from this wedding look like a Technicolor movie.

Sure, a D-SLR had more pixels, but that's only good if the quality of EACH pixel is as good as what it's being compared to. It's quality, not quantity!
 
Per pixel sharpness of the EX1 is not better than the 5DMkII with the aforementioned 85mm f1.8 lens. That lens will out-resolve the sensor as will a lot of the better lenses. Moreover, taking a 1920x1080 crop doesn't even take the image to the borders where there could be a falloff.

However, the EX1 is about as good with stills as the 5DMkII is with video. One major difference, is that the 5DMkII displays in PC-RGB color space (0-255), whereas the EX1 displays in 16-235 studio RGB. So until you match the ranges, the impression of the 5DMkII is lots more contrast.

Sensitivity is in favor of the 5DMkII. It has less noise at any given ISO.

But rather than get into all of that, the main problem with the 5DMkII, is that while it can make stunning videos, it can also totally wreck them. There is nothing artistic about aliasing and moire.

I too got some stunning clips from the 5DMkII with my 85mm f/1.2LII. A lens like that, or the 85mm 1.8 makes such shallow depth of field possible, that much of the image otherwise prone to aliasing is out of focus. I don't know how you get steady footage without a monopod, tripod or steadicam though. I also shoot with the 70-200 f/4.0L USM IS, while not a good range for wedding video, nevertheless lets you have image stabilization, although the servo noise wrecks the audio without other arrangements.

Most anything can be possible, but if you were as determined as you are with the 5DMkII, your videos with the EX1 sound like there's room for improvement, both in-cam, and in post. You can heighten the contrast and saturation with the EX1 to match the look. The only 2 things I see as unapproachable is the low light and shallow dof.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top