0
sheldond

Lens Comparison

Recommended Posts

Just wondering what everyone uses for a wide angle lens? My TRV-38 came with a .42 wide angle lens. I haven't used it yet, as I don't have a camera helmet yet. What does everyone else use? Should I consider a different size? Does anyone have any screen shots to illustrate what a .3, .42, .47. .5 & .7 look like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.42 is Ok I use .3 to do free fly go to Diamond lens web page you can see the difference or click on the banner on top of this page way cool ind... they also show pictures I guess it depends what you want to do with it.

Later;)
http://web.mac.com/ac057a/iWeb/AC057A/H0M3.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Depends on who manufactered the lens. Even then, there have been instances where one manufacturer has been inconsistant in the labeling of the strength.

Just to give you an idea of how wackey it gets, I have a "Sony" 0.6 that is much, much wider than a "Titanium" 0.42.

Further, placing a lens on different cameras -can- have different results depending on how the manufacturer of the camera designed camera lens and how large the imager of the camera is.

Your best bet, until you have some experience at this, is to beg or borrow lenses from other camera flyers and try them on your camera.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just checked your other thread, and wanted to mention something that came up on the other thread.

Someone asked why there was vinetting (sp?) from the still picture, but it doesn't show up on video.

The answer is (I believe):

Still pictures use all the pixels on the CCD

Video only can use so many pixels (that corresponds to NTSC, or PAL). So what does it do with the other pixels that it has in there? Why image stabilization, of course!

On the sony cameras that have steady shot (not the optical stabilization like on the TRV-900), the camera basically moves the frame around on the CCD to 'stabilize' the image.

Additionally, if you are looking at the image on a normal TV, often 10% or so of the image (top/bottom, left/right) is cropped by the plastic around your picture tube. Sometimes this hides vinetting (sp?).

j

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yep, most likely. the frame probably reached one side of the chip (and hence can then see the side of the lens). Usually people don't notice that because the pan itself is distracting enough.

When I first started shooting video and playing with NLEs, I noticed the black corners would dance around on lenses where you could see the corners.. I scratched my head at that for a while, until I remembered how the steady shot works on these cameras.

Again, the optical stabilization (like trv 900 and its sucessor (??)) works differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had the same question as you did. I asked around people, including the guy who runs www.flyers-it.com.
They said that they are from the same manufacturer. Diamond .3 was first introduced at the price US$140 but raised it afterwards. I think because there wasn't anybody selling it. After I got the Flyers-pit lens and compared with my friends' diamond .3, I couldn't find any difference.It's 100% same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0