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

[Deleted User]

[Jan Crittenden Livingston] “… Reality Check: There are no HD lenses under $10,000, and the one at $10,000 is not the best. …”

Hi Jan: Um, so what kind of “lens” will be built-into the forthcoming Panasonic AJ-HVX200 camcorder, which I believe will have a MSRP of around $7K USD?

Or, were you only referring to removable HD lens costing at least $10K?

If so, how does a >$10K get shoehorned into a <$7K camera? Now I'm really confused. (But what else is new?) [Jan Crittenden Livingston] “… 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. …”

Well, I appreciate Panasonic looking out for us, preventing us from saying or doing stupid things. Next, would you folks get to work on “fixing” online banter — it sure could use some similar “fixing”. 😉

As I said in my preevious post, I have no problem with a “low-end” prosumer camcorder (and I don’t mean that in any kind of negative way) having a built-in lens. However, one can certainly imagine a not-too-far-off happier time when there might be a bigger brother/sister for the HVX200 — perhaps the “HVX300”? — which “features” a removable lens.

No, I’m not referring to a Varicam, unless the Varicam is coming w-a-y down in price in a year or so. Instead, I’m just taking about a small, shoulder-mount version of the HVX200 which can use removable lenses. Of course, this “HVX300″ will sell for more than its smaller sibling, but it needn’t cost more than twice as much.

Anyway, I’ve got to get back to reading the copy of the Panasonic AJ-SPX800 P2 2/3” 3-CCD standard definition camcorder operating instructions manual which Panasonic’s Sales Account Manager was kind enough to send me. I don’t know yet if I can afford one of these babies (haven’t gotten a quote yet), but boy do I love reading manuals for _real_ gear. Sorry, can’t help it; I’m a geek. 😉

All the best & have a great weekend everybody!

– 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!

[Barry Green]

Luis, PLEASE understand that post wasn’t directed at you personally! You are and always have been fully “relaxed”! 🙂

I was just responding to the things I’ve heard a hundred times on various boards. In fact this post is a rewrite of one I already had to write over on DVXUser. And like I ended the one on DVXUser — if the HVX lens controls are not up to snuff, if they’re bogus servos like on the other cameras, I’ll be the first to leap off the HVX bandwagon and throw it in the trash. I expect *more* control, *better* control. I expect it to be fully usable.

However, I just can’t fathom how having the focus ring “stop” makes any bit of difference at all, in any real situation. I just don’t get it. I think somehow people are stuck in a mindset that says “no hard stops = no control; hard stops = real focus”. That’s not the way it has to be. And I’ve used dozens of broadcast lenses with hard stops. I demand focus control at least as good as a hard-stop lens. But the HVX won’t have hard stops. So? I mean, what does it matter?

In the old-school way of working, yes, it matters, because you can’t see where the lens is positioned, you get no feedback. So you’d want to focus by “feel”. But you don’t have to do that with the DVX or HVX, because it tells you right in the VF or LCD where the lens is. That’s “new school”. There’s no need to rely on “going by feel”, because you get discrete, distinct feedback, with far more precise feedback related to lens position than you’d ever get with any “hard-stop” lens. And if you want to slam the ring to infinity and freeze it there, you can push the “push to infinity” button. Not EXACTLY the same thing as slamming a real ring to the hard stop, but at some point you have to recognize that “a difference that makes no difference IS no difference.”

I fully recognize that it’s different. I’m just trying to understand why it’s inferior. If you can do everything that you could with the other system, but with more precision, with more feedback, and also a couple of goodies like optical image stabilization and the option to use autofocus — how is that not good enough? It’s different, yes, but I think there’s enough bonuses to make it at least as good.

Do we wish it was interchangeable? Of course we do. Who wouldn’t want more options? But does that make the existing option bad? Not by a country mile, I say.

—————–
Get the most from your DVX camera. The DVX Book and DVX DVD are now available at https://www.dvxuser.com/articles/dvxbook/ and at Amazon (https://tinyurl.com/54u4a)

[Rennie Klymyk]

I’ll take the HVX-200 just as it is now, it’ll probably work with my steady-cam JR and the auto function will be a blessing for that. Even without the steady-cam, 3rd party lenses would put the camera out of balance, you’d have to hold it differently and all the controls would need to be re-located. JVC had to go to a mini shoulder mount camera to add the interchangeble lenses. Maybe the HVX-300 can be this style. A 1/2″ adapter added between the lens and the ccd’s would increase the focal length of your lens thereby reducing the wide end of the lens and increasing the telephoto end (an 18X6.7 becomes something like a 20X7). That’s a crime. One of my favorite preferences over the DVX-100 and the HVX-200 over the Sony units is the wider to mid telephoto lens coverage they favor.

[Toke]

[Jan Crittenden Livingston] “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.”

Jan, have you checked that page:
https://www.eidomedia.com/hdve/ziess_fuji.htm

It clearly shows that even a changeable cheapo sd lens is better than fixed one.
I’m not saying that fx1’s zeiss and hvx’s leica will be identical but they will surely be in the same ballpark, but you could as well say that “the lens on hvx-200 will not be a HD lens” if you define “HD lens” to be something like “lens that is as good as those which cost $10k”.

I’d rather say that there is no clear line between sd and hd lenses that when lens becomes “HD”.

So I think this fear that someone would use inferior changeable lens than what these fixed are is quite hypotetic.

I fully understand that it is impossible to put bayonet to hvx-200 for the launch 6 months away, but I think it would be a good thing for next model.
Putting one bayonet between the lens and the camera and another socket for electronics wouldn’t cost almost anything. After that camera could be still sold with exact same lans as it is sold in hvx-200, but bayonet would give creative option for people who needs macros and supertele and so one.

When every camera is sold with same lens either fixed of changeable, you could always say: “Why didn’t you use it’s original lens?” if these hypotetic accusations about camera’s quality comes up.

I see only 2 problems if doing this:
1) protecting the more expensive camera sales
2) with two models, both model’s volumes in manufacturing lowers so much that they both would be significally more expensive

Then little bit about “demystifying picture quality”.
It is so often said here that Varicam or some other 2/3″ camera is sooo different than 1/3″ cameras.
Now what is the difference actually?
Let’s assume that both cameras have same resolution in their chips.
Biggest difference in real life is, that you can’t find as good optics to 1/3″ as to 2/3″, but lets assume that they both have lenses that can resolve what sensors take.
2/3″ gives you 2 stops more sensivity and 2 stops shallower DoF.
And thats about it.

Example of two identical shots:
1/3″: 10mm, f2, 2m, CoC 4

[Jan Crittenden livingston]

Peter DeCrescenzo:Or, were you only referring to removable HD lens costing at least $10K? If so, how does a >$10K get shoehorned into a <$7K camera? It can be a lot better than you think it can, because the quality goes into the glass. Best, Jan

[Jan Crittenden livingston]

toke lahti:It clearly shows that even a changeable cheapo sd lens is better than fixed one.

Since it was being used on a Betacam, I would bet that it cost more that the SD lens that comes with the JVC.

>I’m not saying that fx1’s zeiss and hvx’s leica will be identical but they will surely be in the same ballpark,

The Zeiss lens has a lot of chromatic aberrations. This is noticable from the minute you turn it on. We are aiming for better.

>I’d rather say that there is no clear line between sd and hd lenses that when lens becomes “HD”.

Here you would be really wrong. There is a dividing line. Go talk to the folks at Fujinon and at Canon.

>So getting real resolution of 1920×1080 with 1/3″ camera is really utopistic.

This is true even in the more expensive gear.

>I have to settle down with hvx-200.
And for what I have read here, it should have best fixed lens in the world so I think I will be quite happy with it.

That is the way I am approahing it.

Best regards,

Jan

[Graeme Nattress]

But pixelshift, from the research I did, needs the CCDs to be able to alias (ie have too much high resolution detail on them) to be able to boost the resolution beyond that which the CCD is normally capable of. If the lens is soft, then I just don’t see how pixelshift is going to increase your resolution up above and beyond the chip resolution. If the resolution is not coming though the lens, there’s no way that a sampling device can make up for it, no matter how that sampling device is arranged. Surely, that’s just basic sampling theory???

Graeme

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

[Graeme Nattress]

On that page, I thought both lenses looked poor – and there was chromatic abberations on the stock ziess which were mostly absent on the fugi. However all the example shots provided had the sharpness up so high, with so much ringing artifacts that they all looked nasty – ouch. Why do you think the Z1 comes set with the sharpness up so high – because the darn thing doesn’t have much real resolution and “sharpness” makes people who don’t know better think they’re seeing HDCAM quality (on their CRT monitors that don’t have anywhere near enough resolution anyway to do a proper comparison).

Graeme

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

[Emery]

excuse my ignorance about lenses but why do top of the line still lenses cost ony a few thousand dollars while HD or 35mm motion picture lenses cost tens of thousands?

Im sure the lens construction is more complex in HD lenses but id love to understand a little more about what mkes them different and so much more expensive to manufacture.

Emery

[Deleted User]

[Jan Crittenden Livingston] “Peter DeCrescenzo: Or, were you only referring to removable HD lens costing at least $10K? If so, how does a >$10K [lens] get shoehorned into a <$7K camera? It can be a lot better than you think it can, because the quality goes into the glass."

I hear you, Jan. I’m trying to think thru the manufacturing issues (removable vs. built-in, bayonet hardware vs. fixed, lens-in-camera-housing vs. lens-in-standalone-housing, integrated built-in electronics & wiring vs. compatibility with an external lens’ electronics & connectors, plastic & metal molding design & manufactur costs …), but it just makes my head hurt.

So, I’ve decided to not worry about it, and instead just be happy and go shopping!

… For an expensive standard definition pro camcorder that is. 😉

(I’m enjoying reading the AJ-SPX800 user manual; it’ll trigger some good questions I’m sure!)

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!