I noticed that a few more items were added with prices. Notably the wide angle converter for $599, the tripod adapter for $299, and the 13x lens for $11995!
Why would this lens be almost twice the price of the camera and standard lens? Is this more expensive to manufacture or is this just a better lens than the 16x with finer optics? I realize this may be hard to say on something thats not out yet, but any opinions?

Gee, Louis, you beat me to it! Last night I stopped by the site, clicked on accessories, and hey, I don't remember seeing all that.

Well, at least the tripod adapter isn't $1K as previously suggested. But, yeah, the Th13x3.5BRMU at $12K?! IIRC, Canon also priced their wide-angle lens for the XL-1 at a substantial premium.

Does anyone have any experience with the sort of wideangle adapters as they list here? If they are anything like the crap sold for consumer camcorders, replete with focus and chromatic distortions, what good are they?

That price of $12K is not bad for a 2/3" lens but is pricey for a 1/3" one. However, it does open up to 3.5mm at the wide end, which is way cool and worth the money if you can afford it. I doubt that many people would spend that much for a lens for this camera, but who knows.

I read someplace that the camera will use the standard Sony tripod adapter plate. Does anybody know if that's true?

The more I read about this camera, the more I'm liking it. It's going to be interesting to compare it to the Z1. If both cameras come out close to equal in image quality, I would have to go for the one with the "real" lens.

I read someplace that the camera will use the standard Sony tripod adapter plate. Does anybody know if that's true?

Nice, if true. It means I could keep something of my present setup... <g>

The more I read about this camera, the more I'm liking it.

I think this is the general consensus.

Actually the theory goes that when a person is first starting out in the video business you are broke so you buy the camera with the cheap lens. But as your business grows you get the expensive professional lens. Don't still photographers do this ? They buy a camera body for a modest price but then they go out and spend all kinds of money on lenses when they get more serious. I'm sure real pros get jobs bragging about how much they spent on the lenses.

Yeah! But still... $12K for a 1/3" lens... that's twice the price of the cam. I would of understood half the price. But twice? This lense must have superior optics, should it not? I would hope that they have a bundle with the 13x lens instead of the 16x.

Anyone heard of a tele extender for the 16x, like what Canon has for the XL2?

Yes but if you are going to compete with a 50,000 dollar HD camera so what if the lens costs more than the camera. You tell your clients that you use the same expensive lenses found on those Sony alta cinema cameras and that gets you the job

Yes but if you are going to compete with a 50,000 dollar HD camera so what if the lens costs more than the camera? You tell your clients that you use the same expensive lenses found on those Sony alta cinema cameras and that gets you the job. I'm sure professionals pay 12 grand for a lens for a standard definition camcorder so whats wrong with paying 12 grand for a lens for a good high definition camcorder like the JVC HD100 ? The idea of the JVC HD100 is that you can upgrade the lens to any quality that you can afford and that gives it an advantage over the Sony HDV camera. and the idea of the JVC HD100 is that you look the part of the Electonic News Gatherer or the NFL sports videographer with that big HD shoulder mounted camera rather than using some handheld consumer looking camera with a cheap lens.

As far as the lens being more expensive than the camera, in the still photo world this is fairly common. The best glass routinely costs much more than the camera body that's behind it... sometimes two, three, or four times the amount for the camera in fact... so I really don't see why this should be an issue in the HDV world.

http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/DisplayModel?m=10014&p=2&sp=19&id=75301

Here an example of Sony 1080p broadcast POV camera that using high quality 1/2" Canon HD lens. The lens used to list for 7,000 USD, also has auto focus mode.

I would prefer JVC added like this lens, another relatively inexpensive manual wide angle only zoom lens as accessories.

Radek

But that's not a wide-angle lens. That's more telephoto than the JVC's stock lens.

The JVC's optional wide-angle lens starts at a very, very wide 3.5mm. That Sony VCL-719BXS lens starts at 6.7mm.

I know, but it has auto-focus function. Wide angle JVC is offering would cost lot less of it would extend only to normal, max. short tele focal length. It's inexpensive 1/3" HDV camera. People who buy it don't want spend more than 2x as much on wide angle.

Radek

Oh, I agree that HDV buyers will be turned off by the price.

But having used it at NAB, it was s w e e t... compared to the stock lens, it's much more desirable. Much.

But it's $12,000 vs. the $800 they value the stock lens at.

The Fujinon T13x3.5BRMU fo rthe HD100 should be an excellent professional lens. In the limited time I got to check out that lens on an HD100 at NAB, I was impressed by its optics. Let's face it, only professional shooters with reasonable project budgets will buy the 13x lens for the HD100. That said, this is one of the main strengths of the HD100 camera system - entry level use of the 16x lens and .8 wide converter for limited budget operations, but the ability, with larger budgets, to use the 13x, DigiPrimes, Nikon primes, etc. The operative phrase is "creative flexibility".

I'm buying two HD100 cameras. I'm buying one of the 13x lenses. One of the HD100's will have the 13x lens on it continually. My project budgets and creative applications justify buying the 13x. $12k is not an inordinate amount to pay a lens that will allow me to get the caliber of images that I need. The second HD100 will usually have the 16x lens, with the .8 wide angle converter available. Using the .8 WA on the 16x should bring the wide end down to about 4.4. For that camera, I'll also have the 1/2" to 1/3" step down converter, so that I have the option of using my 1/2" Fujinon 20x6.4 lens on it. In addition, I'll use a Century 2x extender for long reach uses on the 16x and 20x lenses (wildlife, etc.). The camera will be counterbalanced with an IDX or Antib Bauer battery system with a piggyback dual wireless mic system.

In my television work, I use a broad range of professional cameras with interchangeable lenses. But for certain genres of production, I also use compact, fixed-lens, camcorders - VX2100, DVX100a, PD170, etc. There are certain types of production values, budget, client, and application, - where an interchangeable lens is a necessity. Other times, a smaller, fixed-lens camera is not only preferrable, but absolutely necessary (mobility, cramped quarters, dangerous locations, etc.). I always have every accessory available for my small, fixed-lens cameras, to milk the best professional shots from them, with the side effect that they look much more professional to clients. I think that true professionals analyze all the factors, and simply mate the best format, camcorder, and accessories to that particular production. Nobody has the budgets to own every camera on the market. That's where rental houses come in. If you have a budget and you don't have a particular camera, lens, or accessory, rent it for that project.

In summary, when I buy (or rent) an interchangeable lens camera system, I'm after the professional lensing capability that I need for certain applications. When I buy (or rent) a smaller, fixed-lens camcorder, I'm seeking the mobility, and creative simplicity I need for certain applications. If you're an entry-level or limited budget shooter, the HD100 should still be a good acquisition tool for you. When you get bigger budgets, you'll have the expandability to buy or rent more lenses. If you are a high-level professional shooter, you are already used to the flexibility and creativity of having interchangeable lenses on most of your cameras, so the HD100 allows you to do the type of shots, and to use the type of lenses and lens accessories that you are used to.

FYI - I already own a Z1, and I will be buying an HVX200 when it's available. I use the Z1 with every accessory and attachment possible to enable a broad range of shooting possibilities. I'll do the same with the HVX200.

I wandered off-thread somewhat, but in my mind the bottom line on my decision to purchase the HD100 is interchangeable lenses. As a professional shooter, I need that feature in many of my applications. There's no question in my mind that the HDV format has some inferior qualities when compared to the DVCProHD format (I regularly use both formats), but interchangeable lenses is the clincher for me. My editing system easily handles every current video format, so I have the flexibility to shoot in whatever acquisition format that best matches each particular project - whether it's HDCAM, DVCProHD, HDV, or any of the SD formats.

Gibby
www.cut4.tv

At 12k, I'll be renting. But at least it's available. I hope they get the camera out in July, I can definitely use it in Aug.

Granted a $12k lens is more then likely much better then the stock lens. But my question is more in the lines of how much quality improvement do you get over the 16x stock lens at the same focal ranges? Are there other technical and artistic differences other then sharper images? Also, at 3.5mm, most cheap lenses will barel distort like crazy. I would assume that the Fujinon T13x3.5 lens is better?

Granted a $12k lens is more then likely much better then the stock lens. But my question is more in the lines of how much quality improvement do you get over the 16x stock lens at the same focal ranges? Are there other technical and artistic differences other then sharper images? Also, at 3.5mm, most cheap lenses will barel distort like crazy. I would assume that the Fujinon T13x3.5 lens is better?

At NAB, JVC had the 16x and the 13x attached to DH100's. The output from the cameras was via uncompressed analog component 4:2:2 through HD Link HD-SDI converters, and then presented on good quality CRT monitors. Obviously it was a controlled environment, but I took some time to zoom and focus cameras with both lenses. The 16x image was good. The 13x image was great. I noticed no significant barrel distortion on the 13x and none on the 16x. The 16x seemed to resolve well for the camera, but the 13x was obviously a much better lens, providing impressive, crisp, and clear images. The 16x images looked good, but not as good as the 13x images. Afterwards, I went to the Fujinon booth and talked with an engineer about the lenses. He claimed that the 16x will resolve the 720p image from the HD100, and stated the obvious - that the 13x is a much better lens.

For professionals with decent project budgets, I'd recommend buying or renting the 13x lens. The images from it will maximize what the HD100 and the HDV format can deliver. Is $12k a lot for a professional wide angle HD lens? No. Check prices on Fujinon and Canon 2/3" HD lenses and you'll find that the cheapest is around $25k, and they go up from there, with 2x, etc. I think the 13x is a true professional lens, and thus is priced accordingly. I regularly buy and rent lenses that are more expensive than the camera body I use them with. So do most professional still photographers. If you can only afford the 16x, simply rent the 13x when you have a project budget that will justify it.

I remember when the XL1 came out. Boy, there was a hurricane of
angry buyers who said the camera was SOFT and had no where the
clarity of the Sony VX1K.

Well, that was true UNTIL you hooked up the XL1 to a PS technik and
35mm film lens (or EOS and 35mm SLR). I was SHOCKED at how
much better the images became.

Bottom line: The Canon 16X lens was/is a cheap lens that probably cannot
resolve over 250 lines. So what I am saying is that you get what you
pay for and when dealing with HD you want good glass.
The stock lens will probably do okay, but for those who
can afford it, the good news is that real glass is available. Others will pony
for a PS adapter and use film lens . . . YUM!

The waiting is killing me!!!

Good points Jacques. I already owned a VX1000 when I bought an XL1 (1997?). I put better lenses on the XL1 immediately, and was glad I did. In 2000 I bought a JVC DV500U, which came with a cheap, stock Fujinon S14x7.3 lens. I immediately bought a much better Fujinon S20x6.4 lens for the DV500, and was so happy I did - the images were much better. I'm a big believer in putting as high a quality of glass as possible between me and what I'm shooting. You know the old addage: garbage in - garbage out. It's not professional to be forced to fix things in post, that could have been prevented at acquisition!

Some producers spend exhorbitant amounts on audio, lighting, talent, and camera bodies - and then scrimp when it comes to lenses. I guess "common sense" really isn't that - perhaps it should be renamed "uncommon sense"...

I've had numerous camera purchases over the years in which I put more money into the lens than the camera. I don't think I would spend $12K on a 1/3" chip camera lens, however, unless I planned to always use a 1/3" chip camera.

I regularly use 1/3", 1/2", and 2/3" camera systems, in SD and HD, so for me it will make sense to buy the the 13x. For others, it will make more sense to simply rent the lens if and when they need it. If you can't justify the outlay by projects that will pay for the lens, it wouldn't make sense to buy it. The production capability of 1/3" cameras has been getting better year by year. Almost everything I produce is for national television - and yet I routinely use 1/3" cameras when the genre and application will allow it. I never sell 1/3" cameras short - they may not have quite as good an image as 1/2" and 2/3" cameras, but they are more than adequate for broadcast when used by professionals, they're affordable, and they are very mobile...

I am starting to believe that way too. I normally shoot with a 2/3" chip camera, but often use a DSR250 when the situation is appropriate. There are things you can do with a smaller, lighter camera that are difficult and sometimes impossible with a larger one. And, if properly used, the footage is good enough for TV and most definitely good enough for TV news. In fact, I find it strange that TV stations haven't embraced them more. Maybe the new JVC will propel them more in that direction, since it apparently will be the first really truly professional camera in the 1/3" chip area.

When I saw Sony's DVD of the Z1, I decided that if I were in the market today, I don't think I'd spend $30K on a DSR570 package. Instead, a camera such as the Z1 could do just about everything I needed to do. With the capability of using real lenses on the JVC, it might be even better. The only issue for me with HDV is chroma key. Everybody says you can't chroma key it. However, it hasn't been all that long since everybody said you couldn't chroma key DV either, and we do it every day.

My only issue with the $12,000 lens, really, is that its use is limited to a single camera at this time. If Sony would do something similar in design, then that lens would suddenly have more value, I think. I don't think it would fit the XL2, would it? Maybe with an adapter.

I don't mean to knock the fixed lens cameras. They have their place--I have one. But it would be difficult for me to have one as my only camera. It's not the fact that the lens doesn't come off so much as the fact that it's electronic--you can't look at the distance ring and have an assistant shift focus from, say, 30 feet to 5 feet while you dolly.

It's not the fact that the lens doesn't come off so much as the fact that it's electronic--you can't look at the distance ring and have an assistant shift focus from, say, 30 feet to 5 feet while you dolly.
That's the way it used to be, but it's not that way anymore.

With the forthcoming HVX you could do exactly what you suggest -- have an assistant watch the distance marks and shift focus from 30 feet to 5 feet while you dolly. That's completely possible and entirely practical; in fact it's more practical because instead of a few distance marks on the ring, you get a precise to-the-foot distance readout in the viewfinder/LCD. So you, the operator, would use the viewfinder; you'd lay the LCD flat against the body of the camera and your assistant would use the distance readout on the LCD to precisely track focus marks. Precise, repeatable, and accurate.

The FX1 also has a distance readout in the LCD, but it's only in meters, which make it a little lower in resolution for distance measuring. Still way way better than the DSR250/PD150/VX2000/XL2 system where there's no readout at all.

Don't let the limitations of the last generation of cameras keep you from exploring what the new generation can do. You may be very pleasantly surprised!