> "David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote in message

news:<bqd81k$rvi$1@news01.cit.cornell.edu>...

> > "Al" <navasaa@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> > news:56cbb7cc.0311290825.18d2fec4@posting.google.com...

> > > I would like to know what video camera to get that would give me the

> > > widest angle possible, or the best choice of camera with supplemental

> > > or add-on lenses to get good wide angles.

> > The widest fixed-lens Mini-DV cameras I have seen are a couple of

> > the Panasonic 3-CCD models (the DVX100 is about 20% wider than

> > most, with less linear distortion, but it is still not very wide, and the

> > selection of good WA lens converters in its 72mm thread size is VERY

> > restricted). Good cameras with smaller front-mounting threads have

> > many converter options, though the percentage that are good is

> > fairly small (the camera lens, the converter quality, AND the matching

> > of the two must be good). For some that fit the Sony VX2000

> > (frame-grabs shown for comparison), see:

> > www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/WA-converters.htm. The best WA

> > converters are supplied by Sony, Canon, and Raynox (some people

> > like some others that I find over-priced and under-performing...;-).

> > BTW, for 1-CCD models, the Sony .7X "HG" model works well

> > with many models...

>> DR

"Al" <navasaa@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:56cbb7cc.0312010918.118cbbb@posting.google.com...

> Well, I *thought* I knew a little about wide angle accessory lenses.

> Was I wrong!

> I assume that the designation '0.5X' means I would use this multiplier

> times the focal length to come up with a new focal length. Is this

> anywhere near close?

Yes, assuming honesty on the part of the manufacturer (I have

several ".4X-.5X" WA converters that are more like .7X...;-),

though magnification can be considerably different in different

parts of the frame, depending on the amount of linear distortion

introduced (Raynox is the only manufacturer that really deals

with this...). But, given optical considerations, ".5X" may not

give you double the width of coverage from a given distance

(though it can also give you more). Also, WA converters,

unless they are fisheye types, tend to have lower image quality

with wider views. The best are around .7X-.8X - but some

fisheyes can be quite good...

> I have a feeling that I am missing something truly critical here, so

> please bear with me.

No problem. Unfortunately, though, the image quality resulting

from using any given WA converter of any quality level on a

particular camera's lens is hard to predict - and the image quality

can also vary considerably with zoom setting. Some are almost

"universal", though (Canon .7X WD-58, Sony .7X HG3707,

Sony VCL-ES06 [with custom spacing], and some Series-VII

cheap fisheyes come close...), and these vary considerably in

size/weight/price...

--

David Ruether

d_ruether@hotmail.com

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