On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 10:08:01 -0700, "Paul Tauger"
>"Neuman - Ruether"
>news:3d9a18db.4029940@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>> On Sat, 28 Sep 2002 06:59:26 -0700, "Paul Tauger"
>>
>> >Do you think it is too heavy to drag around all day? When we travel, my
>> >camcorder is my constant companion, along with a light-weight knapsack
>> >holding a monopod, extra batteries and tapes, polarizing filter and
>umbrella
>> >(the umbrella is for me ;) ).
>> I carry the VX2000 during much of the time in
>> long events without problems. It can be carried
>> in a bag, by the top handle, or by the side handle
>> I often use (that one has a big, soft-shaped handle,
>> made by Stitz). BTW, I've never found a monopod useful...
>The main reason I'm going to look at the VX2000 next week is to decide how
>much of a pain it would be to cart around with me all day, every day, when
>we travel. As best as I can tell, it's about twice as long and twice as
>heavy as the TRV20 that I use now. The size probably won't be an issue, I'm
>hoping the weight won't, either. The TRV20 isn't even noticeable to me,
>weight wise, so doubling its weight probably won't matter. I'm actually
>more concerned about the weight of the WA lens for the VX2000. I always
>keep a WA lens on the camera when I'm travelling (along with polarizer if
>I'm outside or a UV or clear filter if I'm inside). Since the VX2000 lens
>diameter is nearly twice that of the TRV20, I'm expecting a 4-fold increase
>in mass and weight of the WA lens.
The Sony HG 58mm .7X is larger, heavier, and more expensive
than the Canon WD-58 - which is optically first-rate on the
VX2000 (for more on WA converters for the VX2000, see:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/WA-converters.htm). BTW, a
polarizer is unnecessary on the VX2000 except for seeing
into glassed areas - the color saturation is high with this
camera, and can be increased in the custom-controls. Also,
you will not want to leave a filter on with the WA added...
If you rarely need max-tele, just leave the WA on all the
time.
>I like the monopod for a few things beyond the using it to steady the
>camera. One of them is for a variation on my "human camera crane" shot.
>When we're in touristy areas, there are frequently huge crowds. I put the
>camcorder on on the monopod and raise it over my head, giving me nearly five
>extra feet of elevation -- more than enough to clear the heads of the crowd.
>
>I've also used it as a boom to get the camera out where I otherwise couldn't
>shoot, e.g. over the rail at Niagara Falls, over the side of a hydrofoil on
>the Danube, and my favorite shot: outside of a rented electric golf cart in
>Budapest that actually let me get both my wife and I in the shot at the same
>time while we were driving.
Unless the head end is very strong, and the tubing unlikely
to bend under the weight, you may not want to do this with
the VX2000 (practical with a TRV20, not practical with the
VX2000 unless the monopod is REALLY "hurky"...).
>I do find it useful for shots where shaking would otherwise be an issue,
>e.g. starting zoomed in fairly tight and then pulling slowly pulling back.
This does not work well for me...
>
>
>> I used to use a Stitz monopod that had a small set of legs
>> at the bottom, but motion was less smooth than hand-holding
>> with a good side-grip handle or with a left-side bar resting
>> on my left arm while holding the "blob" under the lens...
>My only use for the ball head on my monopod is to set the camcorder to
>angle -- I don't think I could get a good shot using the head as I would a
>traditional tripod head. Actually, now that I think of it, I can get fairly
>decent tilts and pans if I can wedge the monopod up against something very
>stable, e.g. a low wall or fence.
This does not work well for me... I prefer full
hand-holding (with the bracing described earlier)
to a mono-pod - I get smoother results...
>
>
>> In this case, good "ambient" recordings are nice, and
>> the VX2000 does this well with the built-in mic (use a
>> windscreen if outside - see my web site [under "I babble"
>> for sources]).
>I'm glad to hear that the built-in mike is good enough. I will check out
>your website (again! ;) ) for windscreens. The TRV20 did pretty well, even
>in fairly strong wind. One of the reasons I didn't consider the PD150 was
>the monoaural mike -- fine for interviews, not so good for recreating the
>ambience of the environment.
Yes. Besides price, and more difficult AE-locking...
>>I often use two short-shotgun mics mounted
>> at slightly converging/diverging angles for "stereo" at
>> events with people nearby...
>I can already imagine what my wife will say when she sees the VX2000 (she
>wanted me to get one of those new, tiny microDV cameras that Sony has come
>out with): "Why do you want to look like you're making a professional film?
>Everyone's going to be looking at that camera. What does VX2000 stand for,
>anyway? Very eXpensive? And 2000 better not be the price!"
Uh-oh! Mebbe reconsider that TRV950...;-)
>If I put a pair of shotguns on the top, she'd refuse to be seen with me. ;)
>> >> finding reasonably-priced
>> >> top-quality lens converters for some magnifications is
>> >> difficult (.5X and full-frame fisheye particularly);
>> >Though a fisheye could be fun, I don't think I'll ever _need_ one.
No, but they are great for interiors, street-shooting,
general moving-through-people/environment video...
>> >Onthe
>> >other hand, a decent WA converter is pretty much essential. Since I'm
>> >shooting travel video, there are times when I just can't step back any
>> >further --I need the wide angle to get the subject in. I also like to
>use
>> >shots that approximate the field-of-view of the human eye. It helps
>> >recreate the "feel" of the place for me.
>> See "On Seeing and Perspective" on my web site...;-)
>> The fisheye ***IS*** the field of view of the human
>> eye - and has the same perspective...;-)
>Really?
Yes. See the article...;-)
>I can see how a fisheye would have the correct field of view
>(though I think the human brain tends to discard a lot of information from
>peripheral vision, whereas a fisheye is sharp corner-to-corner). However,
>the distortion introduced to perspective is the problem.
No, it is the solution - without that "distortion", WA
shooting with that much coverage is impossible, or, if less
wide, just VERY disturbing...;-) Rectangular perspective
serves well only for narrow angles of view, beyond which it
looks properly "distorted" when rounded objects are near the
edges of the image... The barrel "distortion" of spherical
perspective also serves to smooth the image with motion
(pan/tilt), reducing the radical proportion changes that
happen within the image frame when rectangular-perspective
WA framing is shifted.
>Incidently, about 100 years ago, when I was a kid and playing around with
>8mm movies, I made a very serviceable fisheye lens (for special effects
>only) out of a lens cap and one of those door-viewer peep hole things. I'm
>always been tempted to try it with my camcorders -- just haven't gotten
>around to it yet. I'll bet I can get some pretty useable shots if I use one
>of the "wide" door viewers and zoom in a little to eliminate vignetting.
Better, and still cheap: fisheye adapters made for still
cameras. See: www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/WA-converters.htm
for a frame-grab from one - it is quite sharp...
>>But most WA
>> converters have spherical perspective anyway, so...;-)
>> See www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/WA-converters.htm for
>> a comparison of WA converters I've used on the VX2000
>> (missing, but interesting: the Century $800 fisheye,
>> and the new Raynox $330 full-frame fisheye).
>Aargh! That's a lot of money! I'll report back on my success, if any, with
>the Tauger Fisheye, which I anticipate will cost about $20.
The used fisheye converters often sell for $25-50 used,
$90-100 new - try before buying - the Series VII ones
sometimes do not fit the VX2000 well, but the ones that
do are "gems"...
>> >I may just bite the bullet and buy Sony's WA. I think it lists for
>around
>> >$400, which, I assume, means I can find it for $250 or so. Maybe I'll
>raid
>> >the change jar so my wife doesn't find out. ;)
>> About $270 at B&H, as I recall - but the cheaper
>> Canon WD-58 works VERY well on the VX2000...
>I've seen the Sony for a little less at ProFeel, I think. I'm very
>interested in the Canon, though I'm willing to spend a little more money if
>it means a little less weight and bulk. How does the Canon compare to the
>Sony size-and-weight-wise?
The Canon is a bit smaller/lighter, and is a good optical
match; the Sony may have a bit less linear distortion
(and a bit more flare?); the Raynox .66X is the best of all
for low distortion and corner sharpness at WA, but declines
zoomed long, and tends to flare (but it is light and small).
>> >> shooting waterfalls can result in odd "diagonally chopped"
>> >> image effects.
>> >Do you mean real waterfalls, like Niagara Falls? I'm not sure I
>understand
>> >this. I assume you're not talking about stairstep artifacts.
>> It looks like "chopping", where a fairly thin strand of
>> water that stands out from its surroundings appears
>> as a vertical stack of diagonal slices - not the same
>> as stairstepping, and it appears unique to the VX2000.
>> I shoot a lot of waterfalls footage (we have a LOT of
>> them around here), so this is annoying to me. It happens
>> even at 1/60th second...
>I've never seen or heard anything like this. How odd! Did you ever take
>this up with Sony? It sounds like something that really should be
>addressed.
No. Processing in these gizmos is a balance of
characteristics - "fixing" one rarely-seen problem
may worsen a good, commonly-seen characteristic...
"Don' rock de boat!" ;-)
>> >>But on the other side is a slew of nice
>> >> things to say about the VX2000, so...;-) For more, see
>> >> my review at:
>> >> www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/sony_dcr-vx2000.htm.
>> >Your review was the main influence in my decision to get the VX2000.
>> >Thanks!
>> Oh-oh! ;-)
Oh-oh! ;-)