Removing DVX200 Lens Hood

Cinephile

Cinephile

Member
This may be a simple question but how do you remove the lens hood off a DVX200? I just got a lens filter to protect the lens and I can't seem to find it in the manual on how to remove the lens hood so I can put it on.



I figured it out, sorry for the interruption.
 
Last edited:
Cinephile said:
This may be a simple question but how do you remove the lens hood off a DVX200? I just got a lens filter to protect the lens and I can't seem to find it in the manual on how to remove the lens hood so I can put it on.



I figured it out, sorry for the interruption.
Click to expand...

LOL - we all figured that out at some point. That was easy enough.
 
I just got a lens filter to protect the lens
Click to expand...

I strongly urge you to do some before & after tests with this filter in place, before you decide to just leave it on at all times. A filter would have to be pretty expensive to be optically pure enough to work with true 4K resolution without degrading the image.

Maybe what you got is fine; maybe there's nothing to worry about. Or maybe it'll harm your sharpness. I remember a thread from Timur Civan back in 2007 where he was over the moon with how much better and sharper his HVX200 was, once he took the "protection" filter off the front of the lens. And that was an HVX200, which had a limiting resolution of only about 1440 x 810. The DVX200 has a genuine 5K sensor that can resolve a true 4K, so -- like I said, maybe there's no difference and nothing to worry about, but you'd be wise to test it both ways just to make sure.
 
Barry_Green said:
I strongly urge you to do some before & after tests with this filter in place, before you decide to just leave it on at all times. A filter would have to be pretty expensive to be optically pure enough to work with true 4K resolution without degrading the image.

Maybe what you got is fine; maybe there's nothing to worry about. Or maybe it'll harm your sharpness. I remember a thread from Timur Civan back in 2007 where he was over the moon with how much better and sharper his HVX200 was, once he took the "protection" filter off the front of the lens. And that was an HVX200, which had a limiting resolution of only about 1440 x 810. The DVX200 has a genuine 5K sensor that can resolve a true 4K, so -- like I said, maybe there's no difference and nothing to worry about, but you'd be wise to test it both ways just to make sure.
Click to expand...
fo

I think I paid about $50 for a clear cover. I think it was a Tiffen. Been almost a year. I assumed it was decent and seems OK, but not shooting much 4k. Testing would be a good idea. Unless the image was highly degraded, it might be hard to see. Been using some clear cover on all my cameras both video and still for ever. Never had an issue. But 4k is a whole different story.

Are there any covers that are suggested that people are using? Or are people skipping using a cover?
 
When it's just the regular lens hood, I use a Hoya 72mm UV Haze NXT HMC filter before the front element. It works quite well and I've noticed no important difference in image quality with it on or off. What I care about is it protects that lens. Besides, if it's good enough for +5K 135 sensor stills and L lenses it's good enough for 4K video. Hoya hasn't let me down before.

Once I put the Genus mattebox on, the front element might be naked with no 4x4" filters, or indeed I will have a polarizer or maybe a half or single stop ND or a grad ND or something similar. In fact, on this last short film I used a 1/2 black pro mist because I actually don't like an image to be too sharp. I protect the lens between takes by closing the eyebrow.
 
Barry_Green said:
I strongly urge you to do some before & after tests with this filter in place, before you decide to just leave it on at all times. A filter would have to be pretty expensive to be optically pure enough to work with true 4K resolution without degrading the image.

Maybe what you got is fine; maybe there's nothing to worry about. Or maybe it'll harm your sharpness. I remember a thread from Timur Civan back in 2007 where he was over the moon with how much better and sharper his HVX200 was, once he took the "protection" filter off the front of the lens. And that was an HVX200, which had a limiting resolution of only about 1440 x 810. The DVX200 has a genuine 5K sensor that can resolve a true 4K, so -- like I said, maybe there's no difference and nothing to worry about, but you'd be wise to test it both ways just to make sure.
Click to expand...

And to reiterate what Barry said, it's a song I've been singing for many years. Protection filters should be binned IMO, unless you're rough and you know you will definitely damage it. Look after that lens.
 
Thanks everyone for the tips. The lens protector I got was a $55 Tiffen 72mm Clear Filter. Barry I took your advice. I decided on not using the protector cause I want to get the highest possible image quality I can get, and I also don't want to be cleaning the lens and the protector every time I shoot.
 
Do a test! A good photographic filter should work fine on even a 6K camera! Filters intended for medium format should work even better. Test with the filter on and off the lens shooting something with fine detail like a newspaper and see how well it resolves. Even if it's soft, I'd rather have an image be slightly soft than have a lens on a camcorder be unprotected. There is no discernible degradation with my slightly expensive Hoya.
 
JRJphoto said:
Do a test! A good photographic filter should work fine on even a 6K camera! Filters intended for medium format should work even better. Test with the filter on and off the lens shooting something with fine detail like a newspaper and see how well it resolves. Even if it's soft, I'd rather have an image be slightly soft than have a lens on a camcorder be unprotected. There is no discernible degradation with my slightly expensive Hoya.
Click to expand...

I agree with Jason. I use a quality Tiffen lens filter. And even if there is a slight softening I would rather protect my lens. Especially on a relatively expensive FIXED lens camera like the DVX200. Damage that lens and the cost to repair would be very very painful. Also I would rather clean a lens filter than my lens. I believe that even cleaning a lens cause small abrasions and effects the lens over time. I have been using lens filters for protection since my photography days and that was a very long time ago. Something like 40 years!
 
Cleaning a lens does harm the lens, albeit only slightly when you do it right. A whole lot when you do it wrong. That's why lenses have to be serviced every few decades or so to get recoated. Those coatings are also why you don't clean your lenses with Windex. As a cinematographer I go out of my way to make the digital image less sharp on certain projects. Digital is particularly un-kind to skintones and I prefer using filters on the day because I'm old school. There is almost always something in front of the lens. Pro Mist, ND, IR cut, pola, something. I have circular filters because I am also a photographer and I use them on the DVX200. But the cinema cameras will use the square filters in a mattebox. It's sorta proportionate: you dont put $10000 worth of camera on a $50 tripod and you don't put cheap glass in front of expensive glass...unless that's the look you want, naturally. :D The idea of having a nice lens is it sees everything better. You use nice filters in front for the same reason. By the time the light hits the sensor it is still very good, just diffused or whatever to taste for artistic reasons...not budget or ignorance ones. It's like using mini DV to shoot most of your ugly, grim horror movie, then using super 35 for the lush, hopeful epilogue. Artistic reasons. Using a good clear filter in front of a camcorder lens...especially one that gets the kind of use I put it through, needs some protection. Don't be a fool. Wrap your tool. I think that's right. lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top