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

[Jeremiah Black]

Jan,

Could you please be more specific in answer Peter’s point? I’m not sure I fully understand your response. If the lowest cost HD lens is around $10,000, and even that lens sucks poopy (poopie?), then what kind of lens can the $6000 HVX-200 possibly have on it? If it’s not a “true HD” lens, then what is it? I’m going to assume that it’s going to be great, because the lens on the DVX-100a was one of the best fixed lenses I’ve ever used on an inexpensive, prosumer camera. But, Peter’s point is pretty good. Everyone’s been chiming in on the cost of “true Hd” lenses and how impractical removable lenses are for an HD camera and everyone that suggests it is a fool, and so forth. But if Panasonic can afford to put a great lens (I’m assuming) on a $6000 HD camera, then (1) the lens can’t have cost too terribly much to manufacture, and (2) wouldn’t sell for too terribly much if purchased separately.

These questions are about the HVX-200, which obviously is a design that was locked long ago. (Thank God, by the way. I wouldn’t wait any longer for it than I already am!) But they are simply about “what’s possible” and, by extension, what might be possible in the coming year(s).

Once again, your presense on this board is invaluable, and is one of the top reason why people like myself are intensely brand loyal to Panasonic.

jeremiah black
dual 2 gig G5
2.5 gigs of RAM
Decklink Extreme capture card

[Jan Crittenden livingston]

So what does that equate to in 35mm still cameras?

Best,

Jan

[Graeme Nattress]

I’m sure if you put in an order for 100,000 HVX200 lenses, then they’re very affordable indeed, but if you, as a consumer put in a single order, they may then just cost $10,000! I think that’s just how the economics works – by making it a fixed lens, Panasonic can put more of the lens budget into the glass, and because they’re buying a rather large amount of them, they get a good deal, and because they got it designed specificaly for this camera, prism, chipset, they can optimized parameters to get better quality out of it that would be otherwise possible.

Graeme

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

[Toke]

If Panny would make the lense changeable, but bundles it with every camera sold, it will sell as many as if it would be fixed.
The price of lens comes from glass, not the enclosure, so for the quality-price ratio, it’s quite irrelevant if the lens has its separate or same enclosure with camera.

[Graeme Nattress]

I think that’s an economic over-simplification, and I do think the lens housing of a fixed lens will be significantly cheaper for Panasonic to produce, and looking into the economics of parts cost compared to final customer purchase price, they don’t have to shave much off the parts cost of going fixed to have a significantly bigger budget for glass.

Graeme

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

[Toke]

My guess for the expenses are $1k for glass, $100 for housing and $10 for bayonet.
If somebody could give factual numbers…

One thing about changeable lenses: you always know their price, when they are sold separately.
Fixed lens prices are part of a whole camera and therefore only guessings…

[Graeme Nattress]

Unless the removable lens is a “special” just for that camera and bundled with it. You still have no idea what it would go on sale for in a less “tied” economic environment. BTW, have JVC published the specs on their lens for the HD100, MTF curves etc.?? I wish manufacturers would publish a long list of specs with their cameras, and the methodology by which they measure them.

Graeme

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

[Toke]

It seems that Fujinon does not even list T16x5.5BRMU in its website…

[Jeremiah Black]

Jan,

Not sure about still cameras. Not my area of experience or knowledge.

I was just hoping someone here could tell me why the widest of the “wide” adapters for fixed lens cameras such as the DVX-100 is only around a 30mm equivalent. And then there’s also a fisheye. But nothing in between where a “real” wide is on film cameras- something around 12-18mm. Event the removable “wide” lens for the XL2 isn’t even close to wide- maybe a 40mm equivalent. If you called a 40mm lens a “wide” lens on a film shoot, you be laughed at.

For the money and ease of use that shooting digital brings us, I can live with a little noise or grain. I’ve always thought digital looked fine in terms of image quality, and it just seems to get better and cheaper every day. But, I’m seeing no progress on the lenses, really, and don’t know enough to say why. I always say, “If you’re willing to live with a little noise and a shortened dynamic range, you can shoot your entire movie, not on film, but digitally.” The only hitch (besides depth of field that everyone mentions) is that you can’t get any real wide shots. I know this a board primarily concerned with the digital world- chips and DSPs and codecs and so forth, but maybe somebody knows why there are no really wide lenses or adapters for cameras under 100,000.

– jeremiah black, NYC

[Barry Green]

No inches. Just feet.

So you get three readouts: MF00-MF99, meters, and feet.

—————–
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)