Infoseite // Which Raynox Wide Angle Or Canon?

Frage von nachtspion:

Ich hab mir gestern RF S100 ordered and need to have a wide-angle adapter.

Raynox be quite good, I spent 2 of them have found a 58mm thread have. The 6600 Pro (0.66 tray) and 7000 per (0.7 Specialist). The question is whether someone with experience has these adapters. From when you get the impression that there is no more but Wide Angle Fisheye is?

I lose the light 6600er? When 7000 is mentioned in the description that no light is lost, which means for me in reverse, this is the smaller but true?

I'd like some that I can almost fully durchzoomen because he should remain on it permanently. Is this with the Raynox, or do I need an original Canon? And if I have a Canon need, what is recommended. On the home page of the product HF S100 is not recommended to be found.

Then a knowledge question about the stated "routes" to reach verscheidnenen Lenses. The 7000 creates loud Raynox 540 lines, 6600 350 lines in the center. Am I correct in assuming that this is the horizontal and vertical resolution, the maximum can be attained, or am I completely mistaken?

If I understand correctly, the subject complained eigetlich.! Assuming the Comsumercams more lines, but zuwenig Have Wide Angle, and then the high resolution by a lose.


Antwort von kalle70:

I use the HD6600Pro been a long time.

In addition to several other converters, this is still the best in this price class.

A Fisheye Effect, you'll not have it. Only slight distortions s.Bildrand. Look at times the sample images on the producer side.
The, 0.66x in my opinion offers the best compromise between bias and "multi-wide"

Light loss, you'll always have one or if before the lens is set. The question is how much light loss. I did this when HD6600Pro yet negative note.

The theme of "Full durchzoombar" I see on the other hand, critical. The image quality is particularly strong s.den edges more one zooms. It has the best image quality at full wide angle.
It is a WW zoom with little to recommend.

The story line confused me a bit.
My camera is with 520 horizontal lines indicated, it was previously synonymous with 530 horizontal lines indicated.
Apparently there was a change in the specifications.

In any case, here is the same as for the light, any intent or will affect the image quality. The question is always how much halt.
It is synonymous to the combination of camera / s.wie well the overall result fails.


Antwort von seTTi:

The two of Raynox are apparently in the same price class as the WD-H37 II of Canon. Eligible?

At the moment I stand before the question Wd-H37 II or Raynox 5050 Pro, with the 5050 turn a lot less cost and more especially WW offers.

But so far I have not really meaningful image from the 5050 review found ... because one knows more?

edit: hab mist probably overlook the fact that it makes the S100 RF's RF and not 100th .. sorry ... my question still remains:)


Antwort von kalle70:

The HD5050Pro I had synonymous in operation.

I think the 6600 is better.
The 5050 force more distorted synonymous

Incidentally, there is the 5050 with only 37er thread. One of 37 after bigger does not make sense because corners are probably black.

If not enough of 0.66x then than 0.3x Fisheye
In between, there is neither fish nor fowl.

Proposal: Purchase but the Raynox and the Canon, try both and give the poor back.


Antwort von sglam67:

Forget the Raynox! Have tried both - with Full HD is really narrow for WW - Canon WD-H37 II bringts. Lies' times here:


Antwort von nachtspion:

@ deti: I need is a 58mm thread for the HF S100.

That I have previously only found in the Raynox. So far the people I was only synonymous with the 5050 and 600 adapters say.

The 7000 is priced on the WD-H37 II level. I would not necessarily make a bargain but a good quality.

NEN Wenns Canon HD with 58mm thread there, so forth.


Antwort von deti:

@ Why me? But I meant to do nothing, right?



Antwort von kalle70:

People people, but now it is also terrible ....

Here WW with very different factors compared.

It must be obvious that any but there is no (universal) WW with 0.5x can not record!
The smaller the factor the greater the distortion. A Fisheye with 0,15 or so represents the extreme, with almost circular image!

The WW of the manufacturer usually offer only 0.7 x. This is the reason that it is only when this factor is very low distortion.

If the distortion to be made then please do not compare with the same factors.

The differences between the focal lengths of the various cameras here and we can consciously away.

My Conclusion: Since the camera manufacturer with no sufficiently wide Anglehinbekommen (or want) to sell us a nice way to equal glasses.
Often enough, the glasses 0.7 x.
Everything with a smaller factor, and distortion is like reading only at very specific settings is used. (Shot of a landscape, etc.) For normal shooting is not suitable.
For the needed (Skater Movie or so) to buy a fisheye, 0.3x smaller, the distortion would like to use as a stylistic device.


Antwort von nachtspion:

"deti" wrote: @ Why me? But I meant to do nothing, right?


No clue how I am come to thee:)

kalle @: So did you think the Raynox 7000 HDwas could suck. It has indeed synonymous only factor of 0.7.

Has anyone even proposals which Wideangle Adapter Manufacturer which suck. The Raynox is still my favorite because he, unlike the Canon adapters offers an opportunity to forward it to unscrew.



Antwort von killerbees19:

"night spion" wrote: kalle @: So did you think the Raynox 7000 HDwas could suck. It has indeed synonymous only factor of 0.7.
The Raynox HD-7000PRO, I have now since a few weeks in operation and I do not want no more shooting. Distorted does nothing, in any case no longer really visible, that is really <2% s.Rand. Fully zoomable he is synonymous, I can only confirm, but I believe synonymous that Resolutionbei less then full telephoto, it is no longer quite as sharp and detailed, but in the entire picture consistently, not only at the edges. Is HDV but still in a reasonable framework, Full-HD, it would be problematic. For Still Image you can change the WW's, unfortunately, almost always forgotten, because little is s.die Resolutionzu (no preference whether tele or not) and b) in function of the photon (which is not 16:9) then vignetting can be seen if you have a good lens hood is used. We are talking here of video, but I wanted to install only once, since all of modern function have a photo. Another minus point, I must first accurately debug, but I have the feeling that the 7000'er not quite centered. Because the focus is shifting to the zoom in the telephoto range slightly. This could perhaps synonymous s.meinem (HV30), or poorly manufactured s.einem adapter ring is, I can not yet say with certainty.

Nevertheless, the Raynox HD-7000PRO, I can only recommend :-)
It is not cheap, but it is worth the money - my opinion --

MfG Christian


slashCAM nutzt Cookies zur Optimierung des Angebots, auch Cookies Dritter. Die Speicherung von Cookies kann in den Browsereinstellungen unterbunden werden. Mehr Informationen erhalten Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung. Mehr Infos Verstanden!
RSS Suche YouTube Facebook Twitter slashCAM-Slash