On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 16:59:56 -0700, "Paul Tauger"
>"Neuman - Ruether"
>news:3d988880.10612102@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>
>> 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).
>I've already printed out the pages to take with me. The Canon sounds like
>my best bet.
In general, I think it is. I like the Sony VCL-ES06 with
58->52mm step-down ring for wider (but little zooming is
possible), and it is very small, light, and cheap. Consider
it for a second, wider converter... (BTW, you ***MUST***
keep these converters ABSOLUTELY clear of dust!)
>>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.
>I like polarizers for my outdoor travel shots. They turn the sky a much
>darker blue, and make for very dramatic shots.
Try the 2000 without - you may be surprised... And, I
use polarizers for almost all outdoor shooting with
one-chippers, but prefer the natural-look possible
with the 2000... A polarizer on a camera with good
saturation and color balance can look "overdone" very
easily. (I like a polarizer with the VX2000 for nature
close-ups, though...;-).
>>Also,
>> you will not want to leave a filter on with the WA added...
>I do when I'm shooting outdoors.
>Is the Canon WA threaded on the "wide" end?
No.
>> If you rarely need max-tele, just leave the WA on all the
>> time.
>That's what I wind up doing. I rarely need telephoto, except to correct
>some of the barrel distortion of the wide angle lens, or to fix up the
>perspective a bit.
OK, the Canon should do it, then...
>> 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"...).
>Neither the head nor the monopod are particularly strong and, I think, with
>a camera that costs twice what I paid for the TRV-20, I'll be disinclined to
>try some of my more dramatic monopod shots for quite a while. ;)
Yes - I've had plastic parts split suddenly... BTW, I
spent the morning rigging a handle and monopod to allow
ground-level shooting with a TRV30 with a fisheye on it,
to use this afternoon at a wonderful herb garden shooting
"under-plant" views...;-)
>I shake too much to get usable shots at moderate tele- lengths. Even if I
>can brace myself by leaning up against a wall or something, I still need the
>assistance of a support.
Hmmm... Usually for me a good side-handle and a bit of
experimenting with finding a grip that allows me to relax
while holding the camera suffices. Also, I do not try to
hold the camera still - hand-holding works better if you
intentionally use some continuous motion instead (especially
with a WA used). No-one can hold a dead steady view, but
most can manage smooth *movement*...
>> Uh-oh! Mebbe reconsider that TRV950...;-)
>Nah, it's ruined for me, now that I"ve seen the comparison shots. I wish I
>had bought a TRV900 a few years ago, instead of the TRV20; I probably
>wouldn't be buying a new camera now (my wife liked the idea of a smaller
>camera -- I should know better than to listen to her about electronics). I
>can't justify buying what is now an obsolete camera (and the TRV900 is only
>abouty $600 less than VX2000).
>
>So, I'll just have to duck when I get home next week. ;)
Good luck!