Question Concerning Teleconverters

DVD-Software.info
Your one stop source for DVD Software

FAQ

Memberlist

Profile

Question Concerning Teleconverters

DVD-Software.info Forum Index -> Desktop Video

Author

Message

evieg
Guest

Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 2:50 pm Post subject: Question Concerning Teleconverters

I have a Sony Hi8 HandyCam with 37mm mount threads. It has decent enough optical at 20x - but I was wanting to extend it. I can purchase a 2x teleconverter for $24.95 or a 3x teleconverter for $99.95. I was wondering if I purchased two 2x teleconverters and purchased a ring to have the 52mm end of the first teleconverter at the lens end be able to accept the 37mm thread of the second - would I end up with a 4x teleconverter, and would it be sharp enough - or would just a single 3x teleconverter be better? thoughts? thanks The total cost would be $24.95 x 2 + $5.95 for the ring.

Nigel Brooks
Guest

Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 7:56 pm Post subject: Re: Question Concerning Teleconverters

"evieg" <evieg@noway.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96D631417C8AEeviegnowaycom@207.69.189.191...

Quote:

I have a Sony Hi8 HandyCam with 37mm mount threads. It has decent enough
optical at 20x - but I was wanting to extend it. I can purchase a 2x
teleconverter for $24.95 or a 3x teleconverter for $99.95.

I was wondering if I purchased two 2x teleconverters and purchased a ring
to have the 52mm end of the first teleconverter at the lens end be able to
accept the 37mm thread of the second - would I end up with a 4x
teleconverter, and would it be sharp enough - or would just a single 3x
teleconverter be better?

thoughts?

thanks

The total cost would be $24.95 x 2 + $5.95 for the ring.

You'll probably find that at the price advertised, the teleconverters have
plastic rather than glass lenses. I'd suggest that you actually take the
camera into the store selling the teleconverters and give them a test run
before purchase. That way you'll know for sure.

--
Nigel Brooks

evieg
Guest

Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 8:20 pm Post subject: Re: Question Concerning Teleconverters

"Nigel Brooks" <nbrooks@msn.com> wrote in
news:3p81tsF9194vU1@individual.net:

Quote:

"evieg" <evieg@noway.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96D631417C8AEeviegnowaycom@207.69.189.191...
I have a Sony Hi8 HandyCam with 37mm mount threads. It has decent
enough
optical at 20x - but I was wanting to extend it. I can purchase a 2x
teleconverter for $24.95 or a 3x teleconverter for $99.95.

I was wondering if I purchased two 2x teleconverters and purchased a
ring to have the 52mm end of the first teleconverter at the lens end
be able to accept the 37mm thread of the second - would I end up with
a 4x teleconverter, and would it be sharp enough - or would just a
single 3x teleconverter be better?

thoughts?

thanks

The total cost would be $24.95 x 2 + $5.95 for the ring.

You'll probably find that at the price advertised, the teleconverters
have plastic rather than glass lenses. I'd suggest that you actually
take the camera into the store selling the teleconverters and give
them a test run before purchase. That way you'll know for sure.

I appreciate your answer - but I will be purchasing through the net - the
link is as follows:

http://ww1.onecall.com/PID_25999.htm

It states it is all-glass for the lens construction - though I suppose
the body would be plastic. Ever hear of a Kenko?

thanks - I bought my Sony from OneCall so I feel safe to use them.

Gene E. Bloch
Guest

Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 4:27 am Post subject: Re: Question Concerning Teleconverters

evieg <evieg@noway.com> wrote in
news:Xns96D6693617FF8eviegnowaycom@207.69.189.191:

Quote:

"Nigel Brooks" <nbrooks@msn.com> wrote in
news:3p81tsF9194vU1@individual.net:

"evieg" <evieg@noway.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96D631417C8AEeviegnowaycom@207.69.189.191...
I have a Sony Hi8 HandyCam with 37mm mount threads. It has
decent enough
optical at 20x - but I was wanting to extend it. I can purchase
a 2x teleconverter for $24.95 or a 3x teleconverter for $99.95.

I was wondering if I purchased two 2x teleconverters and
purchased a ring to have the 52mm end of the first teleconverter
at the lens end be able to accept the 37mm thread of the second
- would I end up with a 4x teleconverter, and would it be sharp
enough - or would just a single 3x teleconverter be better?

thoughts?

thanks

The total cost would be $24.95 x 2 + $5.95 for the ring.

You'll probably find that at the price advertised, the
teleconverters have plastic rather than glass lenses. I'd suggest
that you actually take the camera into the store selling the
teleconverters and give them a test run before purchase. That
way you'll know for sure.

I appreciate your answer - but I will be purchasing through the
net - the link is as follows:

http://ww1.onecall.com/PID_25999.htm

It states it is all-glass for the lens construction - though I
suppose the body would be plastic. Ever hear of a Kenko?

thanks - I bought my Sony from OneCall so I feel safe to use them.

The quality of a cheap 2x converter is not great, in general.
Cascading them should produce awful results, including but not
limited to a good deal of vignetting and linear distortion (barrel
or pincushion). Also, a true 2x converter lowers your lens speed by
a stop; two would result in 2 stops change.

Watch out for the following scam (well, I call it a scam). You might
find out the a 2x converter actually doubles the area of an image,
meaning its acutal linear magnification is 1.4x (square root of 2).
Similar things happen at the wide angle end. A 0.5x WA converter is
likely to actually be 0.7x.

Doubling or quadrupling a 20x zoom's maximum focal length would
impose quite a burden on your tripod. A 40x or 80x telescope is not
easy to aim or to hold steady.

G.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Gino)
letters617blochg3251
replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom"

evieg
Guest

Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2005 12:59 pm Post subject: Re: Question Concerning Teleconverters

"Gene E. Bloch" <hamburger@NOT_SPAM.invalid> wrote in
news:Xns96D9A76A29D03Astrolabe@216.196.97.136:

Quote:

Thanks for the info - I have been reading a bit about teleconverters, but
could find nothing specific on this particular model by Kenko - though I
did find a reference to a review of one of their professional models and
it spoke badly of their lower priced models. I suppose I will just
purchase the Sony 2x teleconverter as I have been well-pleased with the
Sony line for the last 12 years.

As for as shakiness - I am guessing I will get more of it with a true 40x
optical than I now do with the digital enhancement of the 20x optical to
40x - would this be correct? In setup you can choose if you wish to use
all optical - optical + digital to 40x (which is fairly decent) - or
optical + digital to 990x (which is useless). 20x and other is all
optical and digital is applied for each power beyond.

At 40x optical and the ability to also digitally enhance to 80x - it
should be enough - though since I am going to buy a Sony teleconverter,
might just buy the 3x as not much difference in price.

thanks again

Gene E. Bloch
Guest

Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:01 am Post subject: Re: Question Concerning Teleconverters

evieg <evieg@noway.com> wrote in
news:Xns96DB1E4C42096eviegnowaycom@207.69.189.191:

Quote:

"Gene E. Bloch" <hamburger@NOT_SPAM.invalid> wrote in
news:Xns96D9A76A29D03Astrolabe@216.196.97.136:

The quality of a cheap 2x converter is not great, in general.
Cascading them should produce awful results, including but not
limited to a good deal of vignetting and linear distortion
(barrel or pincushion). Also, a true 2x converter lowers your
lens speed by a stop; two would result in 2 stops change.

Watch out for the following scam (well, I call it a scam). You
might find out the a 2x converter actually doubles the area of an
image, meaning its acutal linear magnification is 1.4x (square
root of 2). Similar things happen at the wide angle end. A 0.5x
WA converter is likely to actually be 0.7x.

Doubling or quadrupling a 20x zoom's maximum focal length would
impose quite a burden on your tripod. A 40x or 80x telescope is
not easy to aim or to hold steady.

G.

Thanks for the info - I have been reading a bit about
teleconverters, but could find nothing specific on this particular
model by Kenko - though I did find a reference to a review of one
of their professional models and it spoke badly of their lower
priced models. I suppose I will just purchase the Sony 2x
teleconverter as I have been well-pleased with the Sony line for
the last 12 years.

As for as shakiness - I am guessing I will get more of it with a
true 40x optical than I now do with the digital enhancement of the
20x optical to 40x - would this be correct? In setup you can
choose if you wish to use all optical - optical + digital to 40x
(which is fairly decent) - or optical + digital to 990x (which is
useless). 20x and other is all optical and digital is applied for
each power beyond.

At 40x optical and the ability to also digitally enhance to 80x -
it should be enough - though since I am going to buy a Sony
teleconverter, might just buy the 3x as not much difference in
price.

thanks again

I've been off-line...Sorry for the time lapse.

You made me laugh with the term "digital enhancement". One thing
that digital zoom is NOT is enhancement!

All that digital zoom does is to expand the central portion of the
image by interpolating between pixels to give a larger scale to the
image. It only uses the data that is there; it certainly can't add
data, it can only guess. This can also be done in your video
software on the computer, and that may even produce better results
(at the expense of rendering time) if the software uses a better
algorithm than the camera. Could be worse too, of course :-) That is
more flexible too - you can keep the outer part of the picture if
you decide not to zoom it, whereas in the camera it is (of course)
thrown away as you record.

The first thing I do with any digital camera (still or video) that I
own is to disable the digital zoom.

HTH,
Gino

--
Gene E. Bloch (Gino)
letters617blochg3251
replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom"

evieg
Guest

Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 3:18 am Post subject: Re: Question Concerning Teleconverters

"Gene E. Bloch" <hamburger@NOT_SPAM.invalid> wrote in
news:Xns96E498DB06DF5Astrolabe@216.196.97.136:

Quote:

evieg <evieg@noway.com> wrote in
news:Xns96DB1E4C42096eviegnowaycom@207.69.189.191:

"Gene E. Bloch" <hamburger@NOT_SPAM.invalid> wrote in
news:Xns96D9A76A29D03Astrolabe@216.196.97.136:

The quality of a cheap 2x converter is not great, in general.
Cascading them should produce awful results, including but not
limited to a good deal of vignetting and linear distortion
(barrel or pincushion). Also, a true 2x converter lowers your
lens speed by a stop; two would result in 2 stops change.

Watch out for the following scam (well, I call it a scam). You
might find out the a 2x converter actually doubles the area of an
image, meaning its acutal linear magnification is 1.4x (square
root of 2). Similar things happen at the wide angle end. A 0.5x
WA converter is likely to actually be 0.7x.

Doubling or quadrupling a 20x zoom's maximum focal length would
impose quite a burden on your tripod. A 40x or 80x telescope is
not easy to aim or to hold steady.

G.

Thanks for the info - I have been reading a bit about
teleconverters, but could find nothing specific on this particular
model by Kenko - though I did find a reference to a review of one
of their professional models and it spoke badly of their lower
priced models. I suppose I will just purchase the Sony 2x
teleconverter as I have been well-pleased with the Sony line for
the last 12 years.

As for as shakiness - I am guessing I will get more of it with a
true 40x optical than I now do with the digital enhancement of the
20x optical to 40x - would this be correct? In setup you can
choose if you wish to use all optical - optical + digital to 40x
(which is fairly decent) - or optical + digital to 990x (which is
useless). 20x and other is all optical and digital is applied for
each power beyond.

At 40x optical and the ability to also digitally enhance to 80x -
it should be enough - though since I am going to buy a Sony
teleconverter, might just buy the 3x as not much difference in
price.

thanks again

I've been off-line...Sorry for the time lapse.

You made me laugh with the term "digital enhancement". One thing
that digital zoom is NOT is enhancement!

All that digital zoom does is to expand the central portion of the
image by interpolating between pixels to give a larger scale to the
image. It only uses the data that is there; it certainly can't add
data, it can only guess. This can also be done in your video
software on the computer, and that may even produce better results
(at the expense of rendering time) if the software uses a better
algorithm than the camera. Could be worse too, of course :-) That is
more flexible too - you can keep the outer part of the picture if
you decide not to zoom it, whereas in the camera it is (of course)
thrown away as you record.

The first thing I do with any digital camera (still or video) that I
own is to disable the digital zoom.

HTH,
Gino

Sorry about the term - btw - also sorry about not checking in to this
forum. When I stated "digital enhancement" I only meant that the camera
does it on the fly - instead of the software later. You are correct it
does not enhance anything - just enlarges the central portion of the
image. But a moot point - as the Sony Teleconverter was a flop. I opted
for a 3x Teleconverter from Sony for about $180.00 (US) and as I
progressed from around 15x Optical - it was as though the teleconverter
was not on the camera. In fact - the digital zoom of the camera
outperformed the teleconverter above 15x real setting. - Strange.

Even stranger is that I also have an older Sony with a 10x optical and
when the teleconverter was attached to it - Perfect resolution all the
way through up to the 10x tripled to 30x. I am guessing because the
older Sony has no bells and whistles on it - just a true camera with a
10x optical and no "digital" anything - the teleconverter worked well.

Now my Sony TRV30 outperforms my new Sony TRV138 - so it worked out - but
not as planned. The TRV30 has a 1/4 CCD versus 1/6 CCD for the TRV138 so
the pixel count is about 460,000 effective pixels versus 340,000
effective pixels.

Been thinking about a mini-DV camera now. Held the thing in my hand at
the store and used its 100x digital zoom (25x optical zoom) and could
read a sign as if present a few feet from it. Pointed at a few people
outside the store beyond the point a person could view with the naked eye
that anyone was taking a photo - and it was crisp and clean.

I do not have a real need for that amount of zoom - as the best shots are
those when I just strap the camera around my neck and walk around with it
turned on.

What I wondering about now is the quality issue. I am going to post a
general question on that point and you would be most welcome to chime in.

Thanks for taking the time to answer.

cya

	DVD-Software.info Forum Index -> Desktop Video	All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Office Forum Access Forum Windows Server Exchange Server

Powered by phpBB