When running the VX2100, if I needed to set the exposure on a face for a closeup, I would zoom in on the subject, set the iris and then record. Perfect.

However when I do this with the FX1000 the behaviour is different.

In manual, I zoom in on the face but the iris ring becomes useless and the image way too underexposed, dark.

This is how it is supposed to be according to the manual, but I don't understand it. The following is taken directly from page 34 of the manual:

"The F value becomes close to F3.4 as the zoom position changes from W to T even when you open the aperture by setting the F value lower than F3.4, such as F1.6". In other words, as I zoom in on the face, the image becomes dark and no good and no amount of fiddling with the iris ring will change it.

Luckily, after taping a rehearsal last night it appears that running in iris in auto will work out in the chapel today as the lighting appears to be very even and sufficient. But this will not always be the case, and for the photo session I don't know what I will do. Extreme closeups of faces are absolutely essential with my shooting style, and this is not a good situation at all.

I forget who it was but someone, (Tom H possibly) described the phenomenon above as lens ramping. Is this something that can be overcome, or is there a setting in the menu to limit this behaviour?

How does one zoom in and avoid the lens ramping?

Good question Jeff, I would also like to here some discussion on this.

I'm guessing to overcome this you would have to move in closer or gain up.

Tim, I found a discussion of the issue at the below link.

From what I am reading there if your camera does it, it does it and cannot be changed. I believe this is the trade-off for having a 20x zoom. The only solution is to not zoom in for extreme closeups. This is a REAL bummer for me as extreme closeups are a feature of my videos and are important to me and are expected by people who have seen examples of my work, they love the extreme closeups.

I will have to try to work around it by not zooming in so much, but during the ceremony I cannot move closer, so this is a very sad development for me. I have a friend with an FX1, and I might investigate it, as I suspect it does not suffer from this issue. I may need to buy one for front ceremony camera for photo sessions, if it indeed doesn't have the lens ramping issue.

Video Lenses: How They All Work (http://members.tripod.com/~Camera_Dave/lens-theory-2.htm)

Jeff, we seem to have similar styles so this would be a problem for me also. Maybe someone has a work around with AE shift or something, of coarse that would mean auto exposure. I thought this might be a problem when I was playing around with the cam.

Thanks for the link.

It is a problem for sure Tim. It is so disappointing I'm sitting here totally dejected, I just bought my second FX1000, as you know. I would have tried using an FX1or Z1 with my first FX1000 if I had known about this.

I wonder if using an add-on lens would be useful? I don't understand optics very well, so I don't know. What does the signature of the one guy around here say? "Instructions? I just want to push buttons!" That sums me up pretty well, though I'm not proud of my lack of technical knowledge.

For today I have to work with what I have.

Disregard post

I you had read the Tech spec of the FX1000 you would have seen the F values are "F 1.6 -3.4"
That means that at W you can open up to F1.6 and at 20X zoom you can only use 3.4 and that is how a zoom lens works.

The Z1/FX1 have an F 1.6 - 2.8 and the reason for this is that the lens on the FX1 is "only" 12X

I´m sorry to say this, but this is something very basic about zoom lenses that you should know.

Cheers

Hans

Jeff, In good lighting I don't think there will be a problem, most of the time the lighting is good on the alter. I was just looking at some of the footage we shot at the reception from the cam on the tripod, with light, when the cam was zoomed in it got very dark. We will just have to learn what we can and cannot do to get good useable footage.

Don't get down, these are great wedding cams, we just have to give ourselves time to learn them.

Ok Hans. Thanks a lot.

You're right Tim. At least being armed with this knowledge I can stop banging my head and instead try to work with it.

I don't think a FX1/Z1 would solve your problem, as it is probably at about the same aperture for a given level of zoom (but without the 12x-20x range), and has less sensitivity to boot.

You might be able to adapt your shooting style by setting the exposure to work for your wider shots (e.g. f2.4 and however much gain needed), and either toggling in another +6 dB of gain when you zoom in for extreme close-ups (to compensate for the lens ramping to f3.4), or switching to auto-gain for the close-ups (on the assumption that lighting will be relatively uniform in the field of view so auto should work well. Just make sure your AE shift is set to something that works well ahead of time). The hard part is to remember to switch back to manual-gain when you zoom back out.

-Terence

Thanks Terence. No matter how it's sliced I think the days past of my "amazing closeups" of the brides at the altar are history. I have been playing around with it this morning trying to use gain to compensate but it has gainy look, just not the same.

I'm about to play with the AE shift setting for the first time, thanks for the suggestion.

Been playing with the AE shift during the closeups it doesn't seem to have any effect actually, but for wider shots I can see it's usefullness. Thanks for your suggestions!

Jeff, make sure you play with the AGC. Set it to limit the gain to a desired level in case to switch to auto gain.

That's one of the advantages of the Z7u over the FX1000/Z5 that folks fail to mention. It has a F1.6-2.0 12x lens and with the digital extender turned on you, I believe you effectively get 18x at F2.0. Having used the digital extender on this cam, I can tell you that the image quality change is virtually unnoticeable even when projected on a 52" LCD.

As the physical properties of the zoom lens cannot be changed (and as someone previously mentioned, it is a physical aspect of ALL zoom lenses; to a higher or lesser degree) your best bet would be to "fix" the aperture at f3.4 so that it stays the same throughout the zoom range

I don't think a FX1/Z1 would solve your problem, as it is probably at about the same aperture for a given level of zoom (but without the 12x-20x range), and has less sensitivity to boot.

You might be able to adapt your shooting style by setting the exposure to work for your wider shots (e.g. f2.4 and however much gain needed), and either toggling in another +6 dB of gain when you zoom in for extreme close-ups (to compensate for the lens ramping to f3.4), or switching to auto-gain for the close-ups (on the assumption that lighting will be relatively uniform in the field of view so auto should work well. Just make sure your AE shift is set to something that works well ahead of time). The hard part is to remember to switch back to manual-gain when you zoom back out.

-Terence

I would agree with this. If you couple the fact that the FX1/Z1 also drops down (but only to F2.8 from 1.6) together with the fact that it is significantly less sensitive, you'd be in the same position or worse in terms of your 'zoomed in exposure'. At least that's how I would see it.

Jeff, in terms of grain and being fully zoomed, I think you're seeing more the world of HD in anything near this price class rather than the FX1000 vs the Z1 or the Canon A1. This is just the 'light hungry' nature of HD.

Glad to hear the shoot went well. I have a couple of other thoughts, and to transfer a discussion back onto this thread :-).

One, for your close-ups -- you're used to doing close-ups with your VX2100 probably at full-zoom (35 mm equivalent 518.4 mm) and f2.4. On your new FX1000, the zoom is another 40%, but you don't have to use it if its dark. So figure out what zoom you need (more would be better of course, but how much zoom do you really need to get the shot?), and figure out the max aperture you can use with that zoom. I don't do weddings so I don't have to use full zoom on my Z1 and routinely set the aperture at f2.2 or f2.4 and don't zoom past 83% or 87% (the max zoom for those apertures).

Two, for brightness and gain -- I have a VX2100 and Z1, and the Z1 definitely struggles compared to the VX2100. The VX2100 can make a setting look a couple of stops brighter than reality and looks great doing it. But if you want the image to look darker (more like reality), then the colors are much flatter. In contrast, the Z1 has better color when the image is dark. So you may find that you can keep the image darker than you would have and it will still look good even though it is dark. Or you can boost the dark image in post without it looking flat.

-Terence

Thanks Terence, I did end up doing exactly that. I basically watched my zoom, set the iris, and worked from there. It was OK.

You have stated the dilemma I have found myself in pefectly.

For extreme closeups, and I mean full zoom at less than ten feet away from the altar, I obtained bright, detailed closeups of bride's faces or groom's faces with the VX2100 during the ceremony. Those shots were priceless. While I was not always able to be in the position to get those shots, often I was, and I have used those closeups to sell my work. One bride-to-be made the remark that she "felt she knew the people in my videos even though she had never met them".

I'll just have to work with the camera the way it is and find another way to get those closeups.

BTW, the footage from the wedding yesterday turned out extremely well. Very good stuff, very nice camera.

I have found the Raynox HDP-9000EX 1.8 telephoto lens which would allow closeups without lens ramping. Only issues are : cost ($800) and weight (almost two pounds!).

I would love to have one for a day, it would be very interesting to play with.

Jeff, surely just zooming into the 12X range on the FX will be the same or similar to what you were getting on the VX?

As far as a 1.8 well I would think that would be a problem with regards to wide shots and having the black ring that comes with having a tele lens on.

In an earlier post I was talking about how on my Sony TRV900 I used a Sony 1.4 tele with great results. No loss of image quality and no black ring at all on the wide shot.

A 1.4 means you get 40% more tele and I believe that is a big difference. I used a 1.4 for the filming of a football game recently via the TRV900 and it worked a treat. As that cam was a 12X optical it takes it out to 16.8. Pop a 1.4 on a FX1000 and you get to 28X Optical. Now thts pretty cool.

Jeff imagine the really cool long distant shots off of the tripod you could get.

My style of filming wedding (when I did them regualrly a few years back) was very discreet and I was into long shots from the tripod.

The above approach may be a goer for you?

Ok gents now who knows of a 72mm tele thats about a 1.4 suitable for the FX1000?


Martin.

Its not the same, not even close. What I did with the VX2100 was zoom in and open iris full wide, and it was like I put a spotlight on the face, it was that bright. Mind you I'm talking about being close to the altar to begin with. I tried it during photo shoot yesterday, no way. I can't zoom in close enough to get the face to fill the frame (eyes and mouth, top of head cut off) without losing too many f-stops.

The Raynox lens I mentioned above looks really nice. But I cannot imagine hauling around a 2lb lens. I can't even imagine how wacked the weight distribution would be with the lens mounted. Sounds like it would be a bizarre setup, but what I wouldn't give to try one out.

Jeff, I think you've fallen out of love with the 1000 once again. It's a good thing it's not a woman, you'd lose her forever! ;)

No, not really. It's great for what it can do. But it has it's weaknesses.

You have to understand my mindset. My old cams had no flaws whatsover for what I used them for: 4:3.

After every job I would dowload the footage and I was consistently amazed at the quality of the images. I started working on two weddings last week shot with the 2100/PD cams, and as always I was stunned by the images.

For my closeup work it was perfect. I even turned off the stabilizer feature to optimize the image even further. That's how fanatical I was for the clear, crisp image.

You also have to remember I shot LOTS of extreme closeups, not just a few here or there. For example I shot extreme closeups of family members during photo shoot, bridal party, and of course tons of the bride and groom.

If you're tripod mounted for these shots (and I assume you are given you turn off OIS), then the weight of an extender may not be a significant issue.

Otherwise I don't know of any camera anywhere in this price range that will do the job for you unless you modify your techniques. Let's face it, going from 4:3 SD to 16:9 absolutely mandates major changes in your work style.

The zoom lens could work, I don't know. I'm likely going to order one, but it means something else will have to wait!

The zoom lens could work, I don't know. I'm likely going to order one, but it means something else will have to wait!


Jeff, I went through a stage of using a 1.4 tele for weddings and in the end it gave me the shits.

Hey this in not a debate on how to film weddings but personally not having so many close ups of every day people in a wedding video is maybe not a bad thing.

The other thing to think about is that one downfall of 16:9 is that you do in fact get all this sometimes unwanted space on the sides. This may mean you are then zooming in too close in order to fill the screen

Sounds like you are really into what you do Jeff and I take my hat off to you for that.

The zoom lens could work, I don't know. I'm likely going to order one, but it means something else will have to wait!


Jeff, I went through a stage of using a 1.4 tele for weddings and in the end it gave me the sh... taking it on and off for that "perfect look".

Hey this in not a debate on how to film weddings but personally not having so many close ups of every day people in a wedding video is maybe not a bad thing.

The other thing to think about is that one downfall of 16:9 is that you do in fact get all this sometimes unwanted space on the sides. This may mean you are then zooming in too close in order to fill the screen.

Sounds like you are really into what you do Jeff and I take my hat off to you for that.

I have to admit Martin, I do not enjoy changing lenses during a wedding. It is an unusual wedding where things are not rushed to the point that changing lenses can be a major inconvenience.

I had a very nice wide angle I used on occasion with my 2100, and after a few weddings I stopped using it. Of course the wide angle was not as multi-purpose as the zoom would be, but nevertheless, a 2lb lens costing $800 would not be a treat to deal with. It's also one more expensive piece to lose.

I really appreciate your feedback. Thanks much.

I too have a very nice Canon 1.4x tele-extender for the Z1 that claws back the tele-reach I lost when moving from the VX2000. But like you guys say - fiddling and faffing about with screw-thread lenses at a wedding is letting the seconds tick by without you recording bits that will not happen again.

So I've abandoned the tele but just couldn't shoot a wedding without a wide-converter. I took a close look at the Z1's hood and copied the bayonet, so now my widie bayonets on and off in about a second.

tom.

QUOTE=Tom Hardwick just couldn't shoot a wedding without a wide-converter.


Gee I would have thought given we are now in 16:9 there would be no need for a wide angle lens.

Also here's a dumb question but does a tele or wide lens that was once running on a 4:3 camera also work on a 16:9?

Assuming so.

I admit the wide angle is very nice, Tom. I had forgotten how nice it was when I did use it especially in close quarters until you mentioned it.

Nice thing about the FX1000 now that I think about it, is how wide it is when full wide. In all of the times I've complained about the lens-ramping I have forgotten that on the flip side their is a significant benefit with how much you can fit in the shot with the cam compared to my old camera.

Gee I would have thought given we are now in 16:9 there would be no need for a wide angle lens.Also here's a dumb question but does a tele or wide lens that was once running on a 4:3 camera also work on a 16:9?Assuming so.

You assume correctly Martin - there's nothing special about the 16:9 format shape - it's just a wee bit wider than the old 4:3 that's all - so wide-angle and telephoto and anamorphic and close up lenses will all work just as well on your new wide-screen camera.

Thing is this 'wee bit wider' has nothing to do with how wide the lens sees - it only describes the aspect ratio. How wide the lens sees is down to the chip size and lens focal length.

The new Z5 has the wide-angle equivalent of a 29 mm lens. In camcorder terms this is pretty damn good, but in wide-angle terms it's just plain dull. Way back in the 70s a 28 mm lens was considered wide and a 20 mm lens was seen as super-wide.

So here we are 35 years later and we're nearly but not quite in the 'wide' ball park. So yes, I contend that you do indeed need a wide-angle converter, which means buying a 3 mm lens for your Z7. Not many of them about though.

tom.

[QUOTE=Tom Hardwick;994301]I too have a very nice Canon 1.4x tele-extender for the Z1



Tom, would that Canon 1.4 you have work with the FX1000/Z5?

Regards



Martin

I don't see any reason why not Martin. The Z1, Z5, FX1000, FX1 and Z7 all share the 72 mm filter thread size.

I don't see any reason why not Martin. The Z1, Z5, FX1000, FX1 and Z7 all share the 72 mm filter thread size.


Tom, I thought I read somewhere on a thread that the new "G" lens system meant some convertor lens' were not matching up.

I may be wrong on this though. Hey, want to sell that Canon 1.4 Tom???!!!!!

Anyone tested the digital extender yet to see how the distortion factor is?

Jeff, As you also had a similar Panasonic like me, have you checked out the extender on the FX1000?

I found on the DVC62 it worked "OK" some days and then not so good on others. I mean sometimes the picture was a bit distorted but other times maybe in different light it wasn't so bad. I generally never used it as I had a Sony 1.4 that made a big difference with no loss in picture quality. Its a 43mm that I used on the TRV900 and I suspect it wouldn't work stepping up to 52mm and then to 72mm.

Tom, what are your thoughts on that? Using a 43mm stepping up to 72mm? Most likely to get a big ring around the edges I suspect?

No Martin I never had an extender for the panasonic...sorry.

No Martin I never had an extender for the panasonic...sorry.


Jeff, what I meant was that there is a button on the Panasonic "digital Zoom" that makes it extends the lens 1.25 or 1.5. Its on the play button but only accessible when the camera is in standy by.

On the FX1000 or Z5 this feature can be assigned to a button and is accessible even when the camera is in record.

It sort of makes the footage look like a 2 camera shoot which is pretty cool.

I know talking up using digital zoom will make many cringe but for me it may be useful.

Martin, if the cam had it I never used it, sorry.

Hi guys

What does lens ramping mean? Does this have to do with Auto focus?

Stelios

Lens ramping is a term used to describe the lens' changing maximum aperture as you zoom.

To keep costs, weight and size down the zoom lens designer can opt to have the lens f/1.6 (say) at maximum wide-angle, but have a max of f/3.0 at full telephoto.

So with this lens if you're filming at max aperture at full wide, you'll need max aperture and +12dB of gain up at full tele to get the same exposure on your chips.

So beware. Camera manufacturers love to describe their lenses as '12x f/1.6 zoom', but most of them ramp lots (Panasonic 150) or much less (Sony Z7).

tom.

Tom, what are your thoughts on that? Using a 43mm stepping up to 72mm? Most likely to get a big ring around the edges I suspect?

If you're fitting a 43 mm lens onto a 72 mm camera filter thread, I'd say forget it. The other way around will be fine though.

It is a problem for sure Tim. It is so disappointing I'm sitting here totally dejected, I just bought my second FX1000, as you know. I would have tried using an FX1or Z1 with my first FX1000 if I had known about this.

I wonder if using an add-on lens would be useful? I don't understand optics very well, so I don't know. What does the signature of the one guy around here say? "Instructions? I just want to push buttons!" That sums me up pretty well, though I'm not proud of my lack of technical knowledge.

For today I have to work with what I have.

Hey Jeff, I have the Sony Z5 Camera which is much like the Fx1000. I just wondered about the same things your talking about and if you have found a solution. I also enjoy EXTREME close ups. There is no way to change the 20x zoom ramping effect. But if you used a lens tele adaptor would that work?

While the low light capability of the Z5 is better then the Z1 (even zoomed in all the way) it would be great to find a way to have more light still.

Let me know your thoughts and if you have found a solution,
Thanks!

If I have enough light, I will sometimes keep it at 3.4 so it stays consistent through the zoom. That way when you color correct or change the brightness in post, it stays level. Another way to correct the ramping, if you don't have enough light, is to gain up. You can set the gain switch from fast-middle-smooth. You can set the AGC level for the best picture and then set the gain to auto. Of course you would probably have to change those settings after the service. Auto is a good feature in certain situations, when used correctly that is. Finally, you can try the AE shift. It's a very slight adjustment but it does work. Like anything though, you need the correct setting for a specific environment.

The 20x lens is still better than the 12x when it's needed. As I mentioned elsewhere, sometimes it's the difference between getting that nice close-up or having to settle for a head and shoulder shot. I agree about the light, I always want a little more. In all fairness though, I can correct more in post than I could with the PD-170 (shooting in HDV).

The new Z5 has the wide-angle equivalent of a 29 mm lens. In camcorder terms this is pretty damn good, but in wide-angle terms it's just plain dull. Way back in the 70s a 28 mm lens was considered wide and a 20 mm lens was seen as super-wide.

So here we are 35 years later and we're nearly but not quite in the 'wide' ball park. So yes, I contend that you do indeed need a wide-angle converter, which means buying a 3 mm lens for your Z7. Not many of them about though. tom.

I am coming to the realization that a wide angle lens is a must. Which one is the question.

Hey, want to sell that Canon 1.4 Tom???!!!!!

Yes, as a matter of fact I do Martin. But where are you? I'm in England, UK. This Canon C-8 tele 1.4x has a 67 mm attachment thread and I use it very successfully with a slim 67 > 72 adapter on the Z1. I also have a rectangular Cavision hood for it.

tom.