[rhubarbe]

After taking delivery of the new PopcornHour media streamer I have now been able to watch most of my footage from last October's holiday.

Oh dear.

While I thought I was filming my wife enjoying a meal in a restaurant, or a drink in one of the many local bars, it turns out all I was filming was her chest.

OK, that's not so bad but we also went on holiday with the wife's mother ...

Now they are casting aspersive glances in my direction.

How successful are the wide angle converters you can buy and does paying for a good one obviate the distortion problems that I have read of with cheap ones?

Any other suggestions?

[Tom500]

Originally Posted by rhubarbe

After taking delivery of the new PopcornHour media streamer I have now been able to watch most of my footage from last October's holiday.

Oh dear.

While I thought I was filming my wife enjoying a meal in a restaurant, or a drink in one of the many local bars, it turns out all I was filming was her chest.

OK, that's not so bad but we also went on holiday with the wife's mother ...

Now they are casting aspersive glances in my direction.

How successful are the wide angle converters you can buy and does paying for a good one obviate the distortion problems that I have read of with cheap ones?

Any other suggestions?

I have no idea what the awnser is but reading this did make me snigger to myself

[rhubarbe]

You're as bad as me, then?

[MarkE19]

A good wide angle lens at around 0.5x should give fairly decent results. Just try not to use the zoom on the camcorder as the high zoom with wide angle will cause all sorts of image problems. Better lenses will give less obvious curving of straight lines, but not totaly iliminate it. The wider the converter the worse the curving of the picture will be.

Mark.

[rhubarbe]

I hardly ever use zoom. Same with still cameras. Mine's 24 - 76 and I only ever use the 24mm.

I'll have a read up on converters but it does rather detract from the benefit of the cam being very small if you have to shove a huge lens on the front of it.

[alpine101]

The lack of wide-angle has been a major shortcoming on all consumer camcorders for the last 30 years. The manufacturers seem to believe that it's the useless tele end that sells them and reviewers never criticise this. I never take my .7x adaptor off, but I don't think, unless you spend lots of money, that one as wide as .5 will be free of barrel distortion.

[rhubarbe]

What's lots of money?

Would .65 or .7 be enough?

[rhubarbe]

Can I use any 37mm threaded conversion lens, and does anybody have any recommendations?

What sort of f-stop hit will I get using a converter?

[alpine101]

It is noticeable that camcorder mfrs tend not to offer anything less than .6-.7. I've always assumed that this is because in the £100 or so price range, you can't really get a wider angle lens without distortion. I once paid what was, for the time, quite a lot for a Canon .7x 58mm lens, only to find after a couple of years that it started blooming internally and was completely useless. Well, unless you fancied shooting with the Marlene Deitrich soft focus look all the time.
I remember finding a comparative review of converters some time ago on the web, but now Google is crammed with commercial stuff, I can't find it again which is a pity.
I'm using an old Sony .7x lens with a spacer ring on my SD1, but it does give some vignetting at the widest angle because you can't get it close enough to the lens elements. This can spoil the whole reason for having the lens in the first place. Some barrel distortion is also visible. I don't know whether the same would be true on your camcorder. Some wide angle lenses do have elements that are tailored to the camera they are intended for, which protrude out of the back a bit to get them close enough to avoid vignetting.
For medium quality lenses there are the current Century and Raynox HD ones. It may be the case that you need to pay a visit to a photo dealer for a play about on your camera to check things out properly. Provided you can find a dealer with a good range... Or you could get a cheapo one first and see what you think!
I've never really noticed any effect on exposure.

[rhubarbe]

I can get the purpose made Panasonic VW-W3730H(E)-K for about £100 plus a tenner for delivery and whatever tax it may be unlucky enough to pick up.

http://search.ebay.co.uk/search/sear...&fsop=1&fsoo=1

Do you think that would be a good starting point?

[rhubarbe]

Or this is nice and small:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...#goto_itemInfo

Anybody have any opinions one way or t'other?

Here it is again but it says it's for a Sony HVR-A1E. I thought hat the 37mm fitting would fit any 37mm lens camcorder, no?

http://www.dsvideo.tv/century_1096.php

[alpine101]

Originally Posted by rhubarbe

Or this is nice and small:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...#goto_itemInfo

Anybody have any opinions one way or t'other?

Here it is again but it says it's for a Sony HVR-A1E. I thought hat the 37mm fitting would fit any 37mm lens camcorder, no?

http://www.dsvideo.tv/century_1096.php

I'd go for the Panny one, you know it will be fully matched to the camera and it shouldn't cause vignetting, but there will be duty and vat on top of the price of course. It may be worth calling even Jessops to see what their price as an order is. Then you can take it back if it's no good.

[rhubarbe]

Normally, I'd have done just that but the Century Optics one is so much smaller.

Tiny camcorder, big converter lens. Doesn't seem right, somehow.

[redsox_mark]

I would not worry about the link that says it is for the Sony A1; it will work on any camcorder with 37mm thread (and with the step rings provided on some other threads as well).

I can't really help as I've not used it, but Century Optics does have a decent reputation. I did see some reviews long ago of someone using one of these on their HC1 and giving it a good review.

[rhubarbe]

Cheers Mark. I think I'll take a punt on one of those, then.

[alpine101]

Originally Posted by rhubarbe

Normally, I'd have done just that but the Century Optics one is so much smaller.

Tiny camcorder, big converter lens. Doesn't seem right, somehow.

If it's smaller, then it is more likely to cause vignetting. I'd still go for the Panny one.

[rhubarbe]

You have a point there.

[rhubarbe]

Being as I will have to remove my lens cover in order to fit the conversion lens (I think), this will then be either left at home of loose in my pocket where it be vulnerable to my losing it.

If I leave the lens cover on, the "matte box" will cause vignetting anyway, won't it, no matter which conversion lens I use?

Maybe I should just look for a camcorder with a wide angle lens out of the box, only I can't find one, at all. Are there any, or am I wasting my time?

[redsox_mark]

There aren't any - at least not small, affordable consumer ones. All camcorders I've seen have a pretty similar narrow angle by default.

[rhubarbe]

Maybe I could find a digicam with an excellent video capability? This is for filming the wife sitting at a table in restaurants and bars - far funnier to watch when you get home than most of the stuff on TV, besides the chest problem.

[rhubarbe]

Last night, when reviewing footage from my SD7 and comparing it with that from the SD9, using the "lazy git reference theme" (filming from my seat on the sofa) I noticed that the SD7 appeared to have a considerably longer lens than the SD9. Now, this can't be, I thought. After having puzzled it around for a bit, and especially with reference to the subject of this thread I finally formed the view that the difference is caused by the formats of the two cams.

When you hold up the SD7 you hold it in front of you, and the SD9, as a handycam, is held level with your eye, dating back to the days when they all had viewfinders.

The effect is that the SD7 is positioned at least a foot in front of the filming position for the SD9, and this is why I film my wife's (and her mother's) chest rather than their whole top halves, including the bit that talks.

Chalk up another one to serendipity.