Raynox 6600 problem

[Michaelgraversen]

Hi guys

I bought the Raynox 6600 some time ago and I think it's been working fine. Last night I filmed a shot of a window. When I saw the shot today it looked strange. The window was not even but did this in stead: /\ - in stead of l l. Is this what you call vignetting? I thought it only came when zooming in too much (I did not zoom in at all). Could it be because of low light or? I have shot in low light before with better results. Or is there something wrong with the lens?

Hope you can help clear this op for me.

Regards from newbie Michael

[Dillonp23]

Hi guys

I bought the Raynox 6600 some time ago and I think it's been working fine. Last night I filmed a shot of a window. When I saw the shot today it looked strange. The window was not even but did this in stead: /\ - in stead of l l. Is this what you call vignetting? I thought it only came when zooming in too much (I did not zoom in at all). Could it be because of low light or? I have shot in low light before with better results. Or is there something wrong with the lens?

Hope you can help clear this op for me.

Regards from newbie Michael

This is what wide angle lens do. It distorts the image when widening the view.

The other effect of distortion is that the straight lines that cross the frame may appear not that straight. The farther from the image center the line crosses the frame the more it will be bent by the optics. Sometimes with fish eye lens it seems like a couple of lines create a circle around the lens. That's how strongly a distortion can affect the scene in the photograph.

It is not vignetting because that is (the opposite what you said) being zoomed fully out and seeing a round 'scope' on the outside of the image. Or if its blured/darker on the outer part of the image.

It's nothing wrong with the lens, thats what wide angle and fish eye lens do. They distort the image.

[Janke]

It's not vignetting (dark corners) - it's "barrel distortion", inherent in virtually all WA adapters.

So, it's normal. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel_distortion

[drapeama]

The window was not even but did this in stead: /\ - in stead of l l.

eh, your window's shape is like the opening title in StarWars? hehehe

Is this what you call vignetting?

Vignetting is when you can see round black corners caused by the lens, read it here.

[Michaelgraversen]

Ahh, thanks guys. Funny I didn't notice it untill now.

Thanks for explaining vignetting as well

Maybe I should roll some kind of text on that pic as a hommage to Star Wars

And one more question: In what situations do you use the WA? I would say small places and spaces, indoors for example but with this fish eye effect I have a hunch that it's not all correct...I have the WA on all the time...

[Janke]

And one more question: In what situations do you use the WA?

I use it only when it's needed, i.e. in cramped spaces, or when I want a wide landscape view.

All WA lenses degrade the image, so if you want the sharpest possible result, take it off. However, the Raynox 6600 is in fact one of the best.

Oh, and be careful so you don't mis-thread it. The camera's front filter thread is plastic, and can easily be damaged if a lens is forced on in skewed alignment...

[CryingWindmillFP]

I guess I'm happy I bought a cheaper one. mine doesn't distort and is absolutely fantastic, no damage to my image

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Wide-Angle-Len...item3efb8370cd

[Janke]

A .45 WA that doesn't distort? For $29.99?

Are there such animals?

Seriously, shoot a picture of an architectural interior or exterior and post it here, please - I'd really like to see that!

Even the matchbox-sized image on that ebay page shows blur and chromatic aberration in the corners...

[drapeama]

A .45 WA that doesn't distort? For $29.99?

Got one that i used on my old TRV-340, even on my HV40 it's "decent" but the Raynox beat it all-the-way.
Remmember, you get what you pay for, but i might be a good start for the price if you don't plan to use it often.
I can post pictures of both to compare, if any interest.

[Dillonp23]

A .45 WA that doesn't distort? For $29.99?

Are there such animals?

Seriously, shoot a picture of an architectural interior or exterior and post it here, please - I'd really like to see that!

Yeah I know I was going to say that. Must just be lens with no widening haha like a window

[Dillonp23]

Remmember, you get what you pay for.

Yes for sure. My old wide angle from eBay 0.45x after a while has a vignette of blur around the sides. It was really annoying, ruined some of my filming because didn't notice it on the LCD.

[drapeama]

Fews pictures:
First is the HD-6600 .66x
Second is the Digital Concept .5x
Last is the Bare HV40

[Dillonp23]

Stupid question but is the lower the number widening the shot more? I though 0.45x widens more than 0.7x? Is that true because in your case 0.50x widens lens that the 0.66x.

[CryingWindmillFP]

A .45 WA that doesn't distort? For $29.99?

Are there such animals?

Seriously, shoot a picture of an architectural interior or exterior and post it here, please - I'd really like to see that!

Even the matchbox-sized image on that ebay page shows blur and chromatic aberration in the corners...

bahh, ok, after checking in depth, it distorts a VERY LITTLE amount, barely even noticeable! The distortion shown on the website images is much more than I can see on my own camera though.
might do a comparison on it soon.

BUT, this little home video was shot with it on at all times:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeMInksvgVs"]YouTube- Edale '09 - Trailer[/ame]

[Michaelgraversen]

Thanks Janke.

[Janke]

Stupid question but is the lower the number widening the shot more? I though 0.45x widens more than 0.7x? Is that true because in your case 0.50x widens lens that the 0.66x.

Sometime el-cheapo lenses promise to be wider than they really are - by stating the reduction factor of the negative (front) element only, not taking into account the magnification you get with the (necessary) macro component.

Without the macro component behind the negative wide-angle one, you wouldn't be able to zoom and keep focus.

IMO, CryingWindmill's clip sure didn't look like it was shot through a true .45 WA adapter - more like a .7 one.


EDIT: To ascertain the WA factor of your lens, just point the camera towards a wall, and mark out and/or measure the width of the frame, first without, then with the adapter. (Don't touch the zoom!)

Divide the first size with the second (example: 3 ft/5ft) and you have your true WA factor (in the example, it would be 0.6).