"Rick" <rfriele@NOSPAMcox

"Rick" <rfriele@NOSPAMcox.net> wrote in message news:XncHb.41780$m83.9423@fed1read01...

> I have a Sony TRV22 and am looking for a wide angle lens. Can someone

> explain the difference between .5x, .6x, and .7x? Is that how far they zoom

> out compared to the original lens? Would .5x give a wider shot than a .6x

> or .7x? Also, I know that wide angle lenses are prone to distorting the

> edges of the video.

In WA lens converters I first look for image quality (a matter of not

only the quality of the WA and camcorder optics, but of the compatibility

of the two...) in terms of sharpness, then flare, linear distortion, and

usability through the zoom range (always this involves compromises with

one or more aspects to improve others that I consider more important),

and for angle-of-view. The ".5X", etc. indicates the multiplier for the FL

of the camcorder lens at all the FLs in its zoom range - but this multiplier

is often incorrect, and it does not tell you much about image quality or

whether or not the converter produces sharp images throughout the

whole zoom range. *In general*, converters with the least effect on the

image in terms of change of effective FL and angle-of-view have the

least ill effect on image quality (regardless of price), but moderation here

defeats the purpose of using them. The trick is to find excellent WA

converters that also considerably widen the viewing angle. Since the

TRV22 has only the "basic" possible video resolution (without the aid of

excess pixels for processing the image into a sharper final image [though

this is not without its down-sides...]), the best possible WA converter

is needed to maintain acceptable image quality over the whole frame.

BTW, almost all WA converters increase linear distortion - but this can

aid with reducing "unsettling" perspective effects with camera movement,

so it is not necessarily a bad thing (more on this in the video section of my

web page articles section, at: www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/articles.html -

where there are also comparisons that may be of interest...).

> Here is a higher end lens from Sony (model: VCL-HG0730)

> http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/eCS/Store/en/-/USD/SY_DisplayProductInformation-Start;sid=HwocIqYIIL8cIpnlTgwWKekFgMig-4CG6YE=?CategoryName=dcc_DIAccessories_DILensesandFilters&ProductSKU=VCLHG0730&Dept=dcc

> and here is a lower model (model: VCL-0630S)

> The first one can be had for around $130 and the second one can be had for

> around $55.

The first will likely give you a sharper image (especially at the edges/corners)

with lower linear distortion; the second, a wider view with less weight. Don't

overlook the possibility of using the 37mm versions with a step-up ring - these

may perform better. Also, if you buy from a good discounter, the price is

considerably lower, and you may be able to return/exchange the converter if

you don't like it...

> Lastly, I want to get a light. Will I be disappointed with Sony's 3 watt

> light? Should I step up to a 10 watt light that requires one of Sony's

> batteries? With a 3 watt light I can get adequate light up to about 10 feet

> correct? Where as with a 10 watt light that might increase to 30 or 40?

The TRV22 is more sensitive than most other recent Mini-DV camcorders,

but the 3 watts will not get you much more low-light range (I have this light,

and like it for use on much more sensitive cameras - but it is barely adequate

on the 1-chippers even close-in). On the other side, lights with much more

than 3 watts are VERY annoying to subjects and intrusive on the events you

are shooting, and even 10 watts (which can drain small batteries quickly)

does not provide a much more effective light level in photographic terms. I

vote for the 3-watter, used mainly as a fill light in otherwise not too bad light

levels, and forget low-light shooting with this rig...

David Ruether

d_ruether@hotmail.com

http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com