Attn: Jan and Panasonic: informal poll on removable lense for HVX-200

[Noah Kadner]

To be honest I probably would have shot Formosa on the VariCam were I to do it again and wanted it on HiDef. To me a prosumer camera is just that and putting better lenses on it only takes things so far. Until you get up into the 2/3″ CCD chipset and all of the pro settings, optics and internal circuitry of a broadcast camera you’re just seeing incremental increases. What comes out of the box on a prosumer camera is fine with me. If I like the specs, I’ll get it. If not, I’m not going to wedge a square peg into a round hole.

I find it a little odd seeing someone shooting on an XL2 with a $7,000 P+S and $10,000 lenses. For the same exact rental money or less they could have used an off-the-shelf HD camera with way better results. Some people just want to tinker on a constant basis as if there’s a holy grail prosumer camera that the big electronics firms are intentionally denying them. That’s fine but why blame Panasonic for not reading your mind?

At any rate, removable lenses aren’t gonna happen with the HVX because that ship has already sailed long ago. You should research a bit more about how cameras like these are developed and how long it takes to bring a product to market. Why make it sound like someone just flips a removable lens switch at the machine shop and all is fixed overnight? That’s not how it works.

Yet you insist on decrying Panasonic for not making a camera to your exact personal specs and you do this on multiple boards. I know of no one else who cut and paste cross-posts like this every week. Last week it was the DCT encoding of DVCPRO HD that bugged you until folks pointed out just about every camera uses it. I guess you’re cool with that but now the lens is no good. What’s up for next week? The HVX’s paint scheme isn’t as pro as the JVC’s? So paint yours and the rest of us will somehow survive.

If you want to be a tinkerer be a tinkerer but why not be an equal opportunity basher? Plenty of things to complain about over at Canon, JVC and Sony. And sorry if you don’t see yourself as a basher because that’s how your posts have read. There’s always something just off about Panasonic’s stuff. Change your tune once in a while and you’ll sound a lot more credible. And I’m not saying that as something personal, just responding to what you’ve written.

[Donatello]

1. Do you want removable lenses on this camera?

NO!! panasonic please do not put a removable lens on this camera.

2. Would you pay more?
NO !! if you do put a removable lens on it i will NOT buy it..

3. How much more would you be willing to pay?

zero … i’ll pay 6K or 10K w/2P2 cards .. you put a removable lens = i’ll buy different camera …

i want a hand size camera .. the JVC/XL are too big for my use..

perhaps a removable lens calls for a different model ?

[Blub06]

The info links you supplied looks like good info. But, I don

[Luis Caffesse]

[Barry Green] “Forgive me for sounding facetious, but — isn’t that EXACTLY what they’re delivering? Except better?

Well, no not exactly, but it’s really really close.
Let me be clear by the way, I have no complaints with what I’ve heard about the HVX lens so far, I was only commenting on the fact that I think most people who are saying they want a removable lens are saying so due to the manual controls they would like to have. I think most people would be happy to get the control and feel of a “removable lens” in a fixed lens design.

Here’s what I mean: the zoom is a fully manual, cam-driven zoom. Certainly should be every bit the match of any other manual lens zoom. Much better feel than the DVX lens’ zoom, it’s an improved design. So it should be at least as good as what you’d expect on a “manual” lens, because it *is* manual.

I’m with you 100%
And as it was, I was happy with zoom on the DVX.
Getting away from the servo ‘infinite spin’ zoom ring was a huge step forward.

Okay, on to iris: a “real” lens has a ring. The HVX will have a wheel. Exactly what more control do you get from the ring, than from the wheel? Granted you can take your eye away from the viewfinder, tilt the camera up, and dial in a specific f-stop on the ring. But using the viewfinder display you can dial in exactly the specific f-stop you want using the wheel, while not having to take your eye away. I know the ring is familiar, and “feels right”, but does it actually give you more control? Yes the ring can be set between f-stops, but so can the wheel. The wheel on the DVX gives you 1/6 stop control. You have more control with the wheel than the display even shows — the display shows half-stops, but the wheel is calibrated in 1/6 stops. Again, not being facetious, I’m asking a serious question — what is it that you can do with the iris ring on the lens, that you can’t accomplish with the wheel on the DVX?

You are right in practice, I suppose that you can accomplish the same end with a wheel as you can with a ring. However, I think the incorporation of an on-lens iris ring would be a great improvement. First, it does “feel right” (as you mentioned) and there is much to be said about the ergonomics of a camera and how comfortable it is to shoot with it. From a practical standpoint, if the iris were on the lens it would mean less hand movement while shooting, as you could focus/zoom/expose by only having to move your fingers, and not change your hand position. This would make it easier to do hand held shooting without bumping the camera accidently to change exposure. Third, I see no reason why an iris ring on the lens could not have the same readout on the display screen – I just assumed that it would (we’re still talking about a fixed lens here). So you still get all the benefits you mentioned of exposing without taking your eyes off the screen (except now you don’t have to move your hand much either). Fourth, personally I’ve always felt that the 1/6stop settings on the DVX wheel design was a detriment rather than a benefit. While it’s great to not see the exposure ‘steps’ that you get in say a PD150, it’s also more difficult to know where you are between stops. An iris ring would be easily viewable and could include markings. The wheel is simply too small and out of the way to include any accurate marking that can be easily seen.

So, while I agree with you Barry that you can do everything with a wheel design that you can do with an on-lens ring, I still believe an on-lens ring would make for better ergonomics, and would have a few ‘ease of use’ benefits. I suppose my question would be, why not have an on-lens iris ring? What do you lose? What can you do with the wheel that you can’t do with a ring? It would simply make for a better camera in my opinion.

Granted, it’s not a dealbreaker. I still plan on owning an HVX when it becomes available. I’m just saying it would be preferrable and would make my shooting more comfortable.

I’m not arguing that the wheel is “better”, I’m just saying — I can do everything with the wheel that I can do with the ring. What additional feature are you looking for?

Like I said, it’s not really additional features I’m looking for, just better handling and ergonomics. I agree that the wheel is not “better,” and I just don’t see what real cost or complications an on-lens ring would add. Then again, I don’t design cameras for a living…so there is probably a reason. Perhaps size? I mean, these cameras are pretty small as it is.

The DVX focus ring has no hard stops, that’s true, but it provides precise, measurable, repeatable focus moves. It doesn’t move the focus elements based on the speed you move the ring, like the PD150 does. It is directly, precisely, completely measurable. It moves the elements based on how you move the ring. That’s why Century could make their markable focus ring with hard stops — because the DVX ring was precise and repeatable.

I agree 100% again.
And, like the zoom on the DVX, I thought the manual focus on the DVX was a huge step forward for prosumer cameras. Now, why not take another step forward and give it hard stops. Again, it would simply make it that much more comfortable to shoot with (I’m thinking mainly about handheld shooting here).

As far as the display markings, that is again another step forward.
I was thrilled to hear we would hve real measurements as opposed to the Z measurements (which granted, were a big improvement over NO measurements in the past).

Like I said, all in all I’m happy with the lens details I’ve heard so far.
My point was only that I think most people are looking for the feel of a professional lens, and are confusing that with removable. I still think a fixed lens camera can feel and work every bit like a professional removable lens camera. As of right now it’s only missing a couple of small details.

So — as a practical, functional matter, the HVX is going to offer you all the manual control that you would otherwise be getting on a “fully manual” lens, because it is a fully manual lens (except that it also supports optical image stabilization, and the possibility for autofocus if you choose to use it, something you’re not going to have available on a fully manual lens).

Absolutlely.

So what’s the problem? Is it the lack of hard stops? Do having hard stops somehow help you focus better? Really?

It feels more comfortable to me when shooting handheld, especially in a documentary situation. It’s nice to know when you’ve reached the end the lens.

Which is a several-thousand-word way of saying “relax — they’re already giving you a fully manual lens.””

I’m fully relaxed Barry.
🙂
And again, I realize it’s a fully manual lens, I guess I should have specified the ‘feel’ and ergonomics of a fully manual lens.

I still think it would be a more comfortable camera to work with if it had an on-lens iris ring and hard stops on the focus.

I can definitely live without that, but I can’t say I wouldn’t prefer it.

Luis Caffesse
Studio 3 Productions, Inc.
Austin, Texas

[Graeme Nattress]

The eye sees more because the brain is an amazing DSP – not because of the lens and sensor.

Still, you need a good MTF as that gives good contrast, and the eye likes contrast even more than it likes resolution in determining picture quality. The thing is, a lens is often the limiting factor in a camera, and they cannot always pass the resolution need to make the most of the CCDs.

Graeme

– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects for FCP

[Deleted User]

[Graeme Nattress] “As far as I understand the physics of optics, for a given ccd resolution, a 1/3″ chip is giong to need a higher resolution lens than a 2/3″ ccd does.”

Yes, I’ve heard that’s true.

If it’s also true the sharpest part of a lens is the center area, not around the edges, then perhaps using a 1/2″ lens with a 1/3″ CCD might make sense depending on the cost & availability? I don’t know.

All the best,

– Peter

Just a friendly reminder to all: Please consider filling-in your COW user profile information so we have a better idea who you are, where you’re from, and so forth. It’s the friendly thing to do. Thanks!

[Graeme Nattress]

Well I’ve said all I know. I don’t know more about lenses, but I wish I did. All I learned was when I was doing my R&D project with Panavision and needed all the lens and ccd specs for the software I was writing to deal with their lens metadata.

Graeme

– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects for FCP

[Jan Crittenden livingston]

Hi Folks,

I have been watching this little thread on my Blackberry all day, and found myself rolling my eyes, hitting my forehead and even giggling at times, as I have not been in my office today and could not respond sooner. (Noah, you have a sense of humor I have never seen before.) If this camera was going to have interchangeable lenses, it would have been shown that way at NAB. It is not like we would say, “Jeez, we didn’t think about it that way” and change our minds. No, folks, we are not willing to take it back to the drawing board and postpone delivery for 6 months, so that we can, at best, put on SD lenses. Frankly, this was an engineering decision.

As Graeme has tried to point out HD lenses do have certain specs related to them, MTF being just one of them. The lenses that are going on the JVC camera are not true HD lenses. You can expect certain aberrations from them, green to one side and magenta to the other, on the extremes. You can see it even on the Varicam when you put an SD lens on it.

So this camera is a price perfomer. If we were to delay the shipping in favor of an interchageable lensing arrangement, people would buy this camera and then, because they have a budget, they would buy the less expensive lens or the lens they thought looked good, so when the camera has a sub par performance; which would be blaimed? The Camera or the guy that was buying on the cheap or thought he was buying a real HD lens? That was a rhetorical question; I know the answer; the camera. We are not willing to take that hit.

Reality Check: There are no HD lenses under $10,000, and the one at $10,000 is not the best.

Point is, by putting on a lens like the one, for which, we are contracting with Leica, we have a better quality control over what comes out in the recording on each and every camera. This is because it is carefully mated to the rest of the system; the optics, the prism, the filters, the CCDs, even the material that bonds the CCDs to the prism and we still have to meet the price point.

So folks, can you just give it break? Should they really bring out HD lenses that would be affordable for this size camera, perhaps that would mean there is another camera in the making. But not today, not with what is available.

I hope this helps,

Jan

Jan Crittenden Livingston
Product Manager, DVCPRO, DVCPRO50, AG-DVX100
Panasonic Broadcast & TV Systems

[Nick B]

I do not need a removable lens and i will not pay extra for something i do not need.

What i do want is the camera to be delivered as soon as possible.

Instead of spending extra money on lenses the filmaker would be better off paying the leading actress a few more $ to appear naked as that is what the audience realy wants lets get real 😉

[Graeme Nattress]

Jan, thanks for you insight. It’s been a fairly interesting discussion today!

Graeme

– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects for FCP