I think Stephen is right. Eneryone seems to bite on this "true HD" lens talk, forgetting that in digital photography you can get excellent 8 megapixel "HD" pictures from a $600 zoom prosumer. That's 3x HDV resolution. I see good glass as good glass, no labels attached. Besides, 1/3" lens is not in the same category as 2/3". It's like comparing 35mm to medium format glass. Less glass should cost less money. I bet my 1/2" 20x fujinon (with adaptor) is better than the stock lens. Only problem is, the lens is longer than the body.

Thanks Chris - I don't buy the "true HD" lens thing either. I've used plenty of nice lenses on 16mm motion and 35mm still that cost $500 to $1500 and had excellent results. The 1/3" inch chips pose challenges, for sure, but I think th FX1 and ZR1 seem to do okay with much less than $10K glass.

Now how do you expect a HD lens for 5k?


The ZR1 fixed glass does fine and clearly it's not $10K glass. I guess we have a design value difference of opinion. I really don't think it's an all or nothing proposition. However, I don't design camera and camera price points for a living - just speaking as a potential buyer. The lens issue is real for me. Perhaps I'm an "aberration" about chromatic aberrations :)

We shall berate you for your abberations, Stephen. Abbreviated,

I think you are missing my point. The lens shipping with could have been substantially better for a few thousand more. Not for $10,000 more, just a few thousand more.
I always get a little antsy when people declare what a manufacturer could or couldn't do. Let's keep in mind that we're not lens engineers. It may turn out that they couldn't do any different with a few thousand; it may turn out that as far as Fujinon was concerned, the 13x lens at $11,995 *is* the lowest-cost full-spec lens they could deliver.

I'm in agreement with most of your points Stephen, I'm just saying that we don't know the lens manufacturing business, and to put words in their mouth isn't necessarily fair to them.

Unless Barry and others have exaggerated the problems with chromatic aberration, it seems like the bundled lens was engineered poorly.
I've posted clips, and I have a lot of stills that someone sent me that I'm not necessarily free to post. I prefer that everyone reach their own conclusion, rather than base it off my opinion -- that's why I conduct tests and post the results. If you see the aberration and think "that's acceptable", then you're empowered to move forward. If you see the aberration and say "holy crap, that's outrageous", then you have a basis to seek alternatives. I think it's outrageous, and that's why I'm pursuing getting a camera engineer to custom-make an Arri Bayonet lens adapter so I can use my Zeiss 10-100 on the HD100... perhaps it'll perform better...

Speaking of which -- is there nobody in England/Wales who has an HD100, who'd be willing to let said engineer handle the camera for a few hours to do some measurements and photos?

I'm in agreement with most of your points Stephen, I'm just saying that we don't know the lens manufacturing business, and to put words in their mouth isn't necessarily fair to them.

Valid point Barry. I did mention in a later comment that I'm not a lens engineer and only speaking as potential buyer. However, based on the Sony HDV lens performance it seems reasonable that JVC/Fujinon might have done better. But then again, you are right, maybe not.

When Panavision (who were first and foremost a lens manufacturer before they got into the camera building business) tackled the F900 conversion a few years back, the challenge they set themselves was to build lenses that could resolve as well as their 35mm lenses within an image area 1/4" the area of 35mm. That took a LOT of engineering--they were essentially doubling the resolution of their previous designs. SD optics have always resolved more than the format; now HD optics have to do the same, which means several times better resolution than the SD versions. It's an interesting challenge.

When Panavision (who were first and foremost a lens manufacturer before they got into the camera building business) tackled the F900 conversion a few years back, the challenge they set themselves was to build lenses that could resolve as well as their 35mm lenses within an image area 1/4" the area of 35mm. That took a LOT of engineering--they were essentially doubling the resolution of their previous designs. SD optics have always resolved more than the format; now HD optics have to do the same, which means several times better resolution than the SD versions. It's an interesting challenge.

Yep. That goes with what I heard about lenses. The smaller the CCds are, the more complex and expensive to make. Because of the smaller target area.

I think Stephen is right. Eneryone seems to bite on this "true HD" lens talk, forgetting that in digital photography you can get excellent 8 megapixel "HD" pictures from a $600 zoom prosumer. That's 3x HDV resolution. I see good glass as good glass, no labels attached. Besides, 1/3" lens is not in the same category as 2/3". It's like comparing 35mm to medium format glass. Less glass should cost less money. I bet my 1/2" 20x fujinon (with adaptor) is better than the stock lens. Only problem is, the lens is longer than the body.


Anything less than a HD (true spec as Barry puts it) will be basically what the stock lens is. The Aberrations will be corrected most likely.

Your analogy with still cameras doesn't really hold. Moving images is a whole different thing. You say 1/3" lenses are not in the same category as 2/3". You mean price? The smaller the CCD the lens is for, the more complex and expensive it's to make. So a 1/3" HD lens is harder to engineer. You can't just count the size of the glass, which is not really smaller anyways. I wouldn't be sure your Fuji S20x6.4 (is that what you have? I'm just guessing by the 20x factor) which is actually an industrial/professional lens, will out perform the stock lens. Maybe it won't have the chromatic aberrations, but that's a defect. It will most likely be corrected. But I think your lens would look softer. I have used this lens with a DSR500 and it looked softer than when I used one of the Fuji true Broadcast lenses with the same camera. I remember it, because we were trying to find out if there was really a difference between the professional/industrial series and the Broadcast series. There was.

So if it didn't match a higher SD lens, I think it wouldn't match a lower HD lens either. As Charles points out, a lens needs to resolve more than the format. Of course, it's impossible to tell for sure without testing.

But the curious thing is that the stock lens for the HD100 cost about $800 while your 1/2" SD lens cost alomost $3,000.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=231962&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

The ZR1 fixed glass does fine and clearly it's not $10K glass. I guess we have a design value difference of opinion. I really don't think it's an all or nothing proposition. However, I don't design camera and camera price points for a living - just speaking as a potential buyer. The lens issue is real for me. Perhaps I'm an "aberration" about chromatic aberrations :)


When you say it does a fine job, I'm thinking you mean with no chromatic aberrations? As I said, fuji will most likely correct that. Otherwise, I can't see how the Z1 lens would out perform the HD100.

Find an NAB Handbook and Peter Gloeggler's contributions on lens and CCD relationship. It's brilliantly written, and whether you're an engineer or layperson, (or in between), it makes a lot of sense and is very informative. I'll see if he'll allow it to be posted, but it deals with why and how lenses resolve the way they do with various CCD sizes and types. You might be able to Google it, as it might be online already. I'm on a slow connection overseas, or I'd have a go at it.

As I said, fuji will most likely correct that. Otherwise, I can't see how the Z1 lens would out perform the HD100.
The Z1's lens looks like it already outperforms the HD100's. The Z1 has its share of chromatic aberration as well, but it looks downright mild compared to the HD100's Fujinon.

Sample pics of Z1 (well, actually FX1) aberrations are available on the eidomedia site, at http://eidomedia.com/hdve/ziess_fuji.htm

When you say that Fuji will correct it -- do you have basis for that? Do you know of examples where such a thing was corrected in a past product? I'm thinking that at the price point they engineered to, there's not likely going to be any correction for it. But I'd love to be wrong about that.

hi all
got a few questions if anyone can help

What would happen if you used the standard hd 100 lens with the mini 35?

Would it be possible to use the mini 35 on a magiqcam steadycam rig or would the fact that you would have to use a fairly wide lense to keep focus without need of a focus puller make the employment of the mini 35 redundant

Also would the mini 35 be too heavy?

If you shot footage on the longer end of a long lens would this narrow your DOF even though the angle of view would not be the same.

Sorry if these questions sound dumb I'm just dunmb and curious I guess

Basically is there any way of acheiving filmic Dof without using mini 35

Thanks Guys

Anyone know the best way to focus on a steady cam rig if you are using hd would you have to have an hd monitor I heard an sd would not be sifficient
Thanks

hi all
got a few questions if anyone can help

What would happen if you used the standard hd 100 lens with the mini 35?

I'm not sure I understand your question. If you mean using the mini35 over the stock lens, no you can't, and why would you want that? If you mean mount the stock lens in front of the mini35, the answer is probably no as well. Unless somebody makes a 1/3" bayonet to PL adapter. But again, why would you want to do that? That would defeat the whole purpose of the mini35.

This link could help you to understand how the mini35 works and what it does for you: http://www.pstechnik.de/en/digitalfilm-mini35.php


Would it be possible to use the mini 35 on a magiqcam steadycam rig or would the fact that you would have to use a fairly wide lense to keep focus without need of a focus puller make the employment of the mini 35 redundant.
Also would the mini 35 be too

Well, it would have to be a vest type of steadycam. A handheld one would be very heavy to hold. But, I wouldn't use a mini35 on a steadycam. I would use the stock lens. The mini35 reduces dof, so it would make the whole thing harder. Even if you used a wide angle 35mm lens, it would be just easier not to use the mini35 IMO.

If you shot footage on the longer end of a long lens would this narrow your DOF even though the angle of view would not be the same.

Short answer is yes. Depending of the distance of the subject from the camera.

Sorry if these questions sound dumb I'm just dunmb and curious I guess

The dumbest questions are the ones which go unasked. Cliche, but so true. ;)

Basically is there any way of acheiving filmic Dof without using mini 35


By shooting with the iris more open and using a longer focal length (longer end of lens), you can reduce your dof a good deal. It won't be 35mm dof and angle of view as the mini35 offers. But is what most people shooting on video (specially 1/3" cameras) do to get a shorter dof.

I'm sure somebody with more experience will chime in to add some more details. If you want information about video production cameras and etc, you couldn't have come to a better place. Don't hesitate to ask the questions you have. You will sure get your answers. Nobody here will think you dumb or anything. We are all in the same boat here. We're all learning new things everyday. Besides, people are nice and polite around here.
Another tip is to use the search function. Maybe your questions have already been asked by somebody else, and you can get your answers straight away.
Welcome on board.

What would happen if you used the standard hd 100 lens with the mini 35?Hi Greg, the Mini35 converter is designed for full-grown motion picture lenses, the ones that are used on 35mm movie cameras. The standard Fuji video lens wouldn't fit on it. Hope this helps,

Greg:

The Mini35 hovers around 15 lbs fully loaded (depends on camera, lens, accessories etc). I think the current top end Magiqcam can accomodate this, but not all models. As you guessed, pulling focus with a Mini35 for Steadicam is a can of worms. When you are working with a front end that is essentially a 35mm setup, you associate the challenges of the format, and for Steadicam that requires a wireless focus system. Any Steadicam operator who works in 35mm (and most who work in 16mm or 2/3" formats) will have the gear that is needed to fly and pull focus with this system; those who have rigs that oriented towards DV (such as the Magiqcam) will be in a bit of a pickle. Probably the easiest solution is to simply use the standard configuration of the camera on the stabilizer, then use the Mini35 for non-moving shots. I did this once while helping out on a shoot, and the footage cut in well.

When you say it does a fine job, I'm thinking you mean with no chromatic aberrations? As I said, fuji will most likely correct that. Otherwise, I can't see how the Z1 lens would out perform the HD100.

Exactly - the footage I have seen on the Z1 is fine (not great, but fine). Clearly lower aberrations than the Fujinon.

I think it's outrageous, and that's why I'm pursuing getting a camera engineer to custom-make an Arri Bayonet lens adapter so I can use my Zeiss 10-100 on the HD100... perhaps it'll perform better...

Hey Barry, that's an interesting idea. Do you think such adapter would be a mechanical adapter only, or would also have to involve some sort of optical convertion? If it's just a matter of making a mechanical adapter to attach on the lens and make it possible to attach on the HD100, I might be able to machine it. If there's optical involved, then it's out of my league. I would also like to make one to use Nikon F mount lenses, but I'm also not sure if it would need to have optical convertions.

Michael, Chris and Charles,

Many thanks for the reply. my questions were a bit garbbled but I think you guys got nuts and bolts of it. You've helped a great deal. I was particularly interested about shortening the dof on the standard hd 100 fujinon lense by shooting at the longest setting did I get that right? Anyway many thanks again. I'm paying close attention to these pages as I hope to be getting an hd 100 (when in finally turns up in Uk that is) I'm also thinking of getting the new animagiq steadycam would this be a good combo with the jvc?
Thanks for making me feel like not too much of a fool.
Greg

Sorry guys I meant to ask this yesterday.

If I had the hd 100 on a steadycam rig and I wanted to make sure I was always in focus would the monitor I use have to be hi def or would a normal lcd be sifficient or would the fact that I would be on a fairly wide setting anyway make it a thing not worth worrying about too much?

or

I guess what i'm trying to ask is - How important is focus when shooting dv given the fact that dv is always trying to flatten the dof?

Hope this makes sense love to hear your views
Greg

Greg,

Given that you don't have a way to adjust the focus while you shooting with a Steadicam or similar stabilizer, the long DoF of DV is a life-saver. Until you zoom in significantly, you should be able to set a medium distance on the lens and shoot away.

By the way, Steadicam is by no means limited to wide angles only--it's very common to shoot longer lens stuff, and it can look great.

I guess what i'm trying to ask is - How important is focus when shooting dv given the fact that dv is always trying to flatten the dof?


Hi Greg, focus is one of the most common errors when shooting, even on big Hollywood films they get some out-of focus shoots, and even some get filered up to the big screen!

On DV the DOP issue is not a factor to justify not having a good monitor or not paying attention. You must always check and double check the focusing before the shot.

If you are on a non-pro (students/indie eg.) production, please encourage your mates watching the monitor to spot out-of-focus problems.

L

Luis, Charles.

Many thanks for your input. Clear and to the point. I love this place much to my wifes consternation. I've been here only a short time but it seems Mr Papert is a pretty big hitter in these parts. This may not be the right place but I believe Charles did a pretty extensive demo on the magicam rig would you say that is the best bang for the buck at the low end?

Cheers (muchos respectas) Greg

Greg:

Yeah, check out the Magiqcam threads for more info on that. I haven't tried the latest version but it looks good. I don't really make recommendations on one rig over the other, although I think the Flyer is the strongest performer in its class, albeit the most expensive.

Coming in a little late in the game, but I'm wondering if since the lenses are interchangable there will be the equivalent of a lens shading feature on the camera. This is available for the 900 and the varicam (I believe) and could well be a neccessity (sp) for any interchangable lens HD camera. Most likely this option would be buried in a menu structure some where.

Coming in a little late in the game, but I'm wondering if since the lenses are interchangable there will be the equivalent of a lens shading feature on the camera. This is available for the 900 and the varicam (I believe) and could well be a neccessity (sp) for any interchangable lens HD camera. Most likely this option would be buried in a menu structure some where.

I've been as deep as the menus go, and never saw a lens shading function.

I think that's a feature that got left behind at this pricepoint.

Charles,

I am considering going the HD100/mini35 route over other HDV/mini35 options mainly due to ergonomics - before that I had been strongly considering the Z1/FX1 HD by Sony.

Since you have used the HD100 with the series 400 mini35 I was wondering if you could tell me what the highest f-stop you were able to achieve before seeing any ground glass (if any) - or is this "completely" eliminated now with the series 400? When you shot with the DVX100 did the series 400 eliminate all ground glass from appearing when shooting about f5.6?

Many thanks for your answers.

Good question.

Good question.

Yes good question, but apparently somehow I think my message got posted in the wrong thread? Probably because I replied to a sticky at the top of the HD100 forum.

Hopefully Charles Papert will catch this... I'll try the mini35 forum. Sorry for this mix up.

yup, I posted the response over there.

No worries Dennis, I have peeled your posts off that other thread and merged 'em with this one.

The P+S Technik thread that Charles mentions is located at:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=49410

JVC is now linking directly to the article about this footage.

http://pro.jvc.com/prof/Attributes/inst_man.jsp?tree=&model_id=MDL101539&itempath=&feature_id=19

So obviously they've seen this thread. Unfortunately no one (from JVC) has taken the time to post any information pertaining to the bugs in the initial release. I hope that means they're working on fixing the issues.

It's listed under their article section as well:

http://pro.jvc.com/prof/Attributes/article_rev.jsp?tree=&model_id=MDL101539&itempath=&feature_id=09

I think you are missing my point. The lens shipping with could have been substantially better for a few thousand more.
We are not missing your point. You simply have no basis for making it except for your claim of what someone else "should have done."

"If you you can buy a better car, buy it."

The Z1's lens looks like it already outperforms the HD100's. The Z1 has its share of chromatic aberration as well, but it looks downright mild compared to the HD100's Fujinon.

Of course, you have to compare them at the same focal-length and at the same aperature.

We are not missing your point. You simply have no basis for making it except for your claim of what someone else "should have done."

"If you you can buy a better car, buy it."

Steve:

I very clearly stated that my basis was as a possible buyer not as a camera or lens engineer. JVC may have very good engineering and or business reasons that they have bundled a problematic, cheap lens with this camera, but JVC has not clearly articulated to buyers why they chose the lens and price point they did.

But as a buyer of cameras and lenses, I am certainly entitled to express my dissatisfaction with lens choices for a camera purchase. That's the only reason I did not buy a XL2 and bought a DVX100a instead.

If I'm an aberration, than JVC can ignore me completely. If not, then my point is very valid. Sales numbers and industry support over the the next couple of years depend on how potential buyers feels about the choices.

Right now, I'm very much waiting for the HVX200 to see how the platform compares. Since I'm still not sold on the value of mini35 ownership or rental for my indie film needs, I also want to see what other lens choices crop up for the HD100.

Perhaps I'm too focused on lens choices when buying a camera :)

But as a buyer of cameras and lenses, I am certainly entitled to express my dissatisfaction with lens choices for a camera purchase. That's the only reason I did not buy a XL2 and bought a DVX100a instead.

Stephen, were you dissatisfied with the Canon 16x (or earlier gen. 14x) manual lenses available with the XL2...?

Stephen, were you dissatisfied with the Canon 16x (or earlier gen. 14x) manual lenses available with the XL2...?

Charles:

It was not so much the individual glass but the fact the XL series lens choices present too many compromises. I had the 14x manual with my XL1 but it was not well intergrated with the XL1 electronics and lacked OIS, so did not fully replace the 16x standard. The 3X lacked manual controls and OIS.

The XL2 continued this basic design idea (long telephoto servo with OIS, manual lens without OIS, and wide with no manual). I really expected something like a 5X manual wide zoom and a much wider 3X.

The DVX lens is telephoto enough for me for 95% of shots, just as wide as the Canon 3X, OIS is alwasy an option and focus/zoom is a breeze. And it's a nice piece of glass to boot. As I had a DVX100 and XL1 before my current DVX100a, I felt the 24pa thin in squeeze mode was nearly as sharp as 16:9 in the XL2 and not having to buy two more lenses made it almost half the money.

It's bang for the buck that matters to me and I'm now worried about the lens options on the HD100. The image certainly is a major bang for the buck - 24p HD with less artifacts than the Sony series. But if you have to drop another $10K for a decent lens, hmmm. It suddently is much less attractive.

Now if someone find a good way to use 16mm or similar lenses with decent to good result, sure. But for me, mini35 is just not a good option although I realize for some, they can make it worth their while.

Charles:

It was not so much the individual glass but the fact the XL series lens choices present too many compromises. I had the 14x manual with my XL1 but it was not well intergrated with the XL1 electronics and lacked OIS, so did not fully replace the 16x standard.

I'm sorry Stephen, but no manual lens has OIS, unless the extremely expensive high end ones, which if you are complaining of 10k for a HD lens, you would sure complain about the prices of SD broadcast OIS lenses, which cost way more than that. So, I don't see your point.

If everyone will start asking their particular needs, companies will have to start to make "build your own camera kits". John would like the zoom to be 3.33mm wider than it is, and doesn't care for the telephoto. But Joe would like the Zoom to be 20.5mm longer because he doesn't care for the wide angle, since he's nature videographer. Burt on the other hand, think the camera should have a fixed lens and sell for 2k cheaper, because he doesn't care about quality, only cares for the best price. I mean, that's impossible. The camera is what it is. One buys it if it fits his needs. If it doesn't, just buy something else, rather than asking for the impossible.

There's no perfect lens. That's why cameras have interchangeable lenses in the first place. So one can pick the one he needs. If he needs 3 of them, well, he has to pay for the three of them. There's no lens which will cover it all. Specially at his price point. Actually in any price point. You won't find a 2/3" lens which goes from 7 to 140mm. Unless you get one with a 2x, which besides loosing quality, would cost you a good 20k.

The good thing about interchangeable lens cameras is that they give you the option. Not everybody will need all. If you do, you have to pay for it. That's true for any camera in the market. Actually any product in the market. You can't ask Ferrari to make a car which delivers what the Enzo delivers for the price of a entry level 360 Modena.

Frankly, for somebody so picky, I'm surprised you accepted a DVX100, which doesn’t even have a professional lens. You say it covers about 95% of your needs. See it's not 100%, and the key word here is “your” needs. Most complain it's not long enough, without mentioning the huge disadvantage of an amateur fixed lens. Honestly, I wouldn't shoot with a fixed lens camera for serious work, not even if it was given for free to me. That alone is a deal breaker for me. But the point is with any fixed lens, that's it. You're stuck with it, unless you add an adapter along with more distortion.

The whole point is I don't think your point is actually a point at all. Sorry to disagree, but frankly I think you are juts asking too much. No camera today will deliver it all, specially at this price point. I know you already said you would prefer the camera would sell for 2k more but deliver what you want. Well, JVC didn't design the camera for you, you know. It needs to meet the mass demands and I think it does. At least the realistic ones.

You say JVC has not clearly articulated to buyers why they chose the lens and price point they did. Do they have too? I mean, anyway, it's obvious why. 5-6k is a crucial price point for most. Panasonic also has their HVX200 at the same price, but not HD-ready.

I see your point about the lens being problematic i.e. CA. But when you say they have bundled a cheap lens with this camera, as if complaining, I mean, you don't have to go cheap. You can go expensive if you want. You have options. Or are you complaining they are giving you a lower quality lens for the price of a lower quality lens?

As I said, I just think you are asking too much. Sorry for the rant.

As I said, I just think you are asking too much. Sorry for the rant.

Wow, I've really struck a nerve with the lens thing. My soapbox rant goes a little something like this:

1,2...1,2,3,4:

An "interchangeable lens system" means when I buy a camera, I have a "system of lenses" available to choose from. 2-3 lens choices is not a "system" and stretches the meaning of "interchangeable" to its limits. If you buy a interchangeable lens camera, the whole point is what different lenses you can put on it. Otherwise is smacks of marketing to people who say - ah, it must be a pro camera cause you can change lenses. But the real question is change to what...

That's why I still own my Canon SLR and various still lenses and sold my XL1 and lenses. Dozens or hundreds of lenses is a lens "system" - you need a range of primes and zooms. I waited through rumors of XL1 primes for a couple of years and the finally said real lens choices are never coming. The release of the XL2 confirmed there are now less lenses rather than more (Optex and others got out of the lens business for the XL).

JVC released the HD100 without access to even one other lens yet - the wide angle is not yet seen and no adaptors for other lenses on the immediate horizon. If you buy now, you are buying on the hope or promise of more lens choices and a dream (or fantasy) of a true lens system.

Frankly, for somebody so picky, I'm surprised you accepted a DVX100, which doesn’t even have a professional lens. You say it covers about 95% of your needs. See it's not 100%, and the key word here is “your” needs.QUOTE]

If I could spend as much as house or two, I would prefer a interchangeable lens camera and a mix of primes and zooms. But unlike the 16mm cine market, that's never happened in digital video. Volume and/or business and/or engineering and/or marketing place - for some reason it just never happened. Shop for a bolex and lens set on eBay - some really nice collections of cams and glass out there.

But not for DV - so I realized that fixed lens was the only way to go. The DVX lens focuses faster for me (peaking, focus scale display) that the 14x manual I had on the XL1. You can add follow focus and hard stops if you need. Zoom is full manual. Iris is not on lens, but that's not a killer problem.

The Leica glass is "pro" - sharp, clean, excellent color. Nice range that covers most needs. If glass as good as that were on a HD100, now we are talking.

Panasonic and Sony who lead the prosumer DV markets have never and I don't except ever offer 1/3" cameras with interchangeable lenses. I think they realize the lens market is just not there and they can cover the bases with a fixed lens.

I have not given up on the HD100 yet - the next year will tell a lot as far as glass options and it took me a long time to give up on the XL series (I had my XL1 for 3 years).

[QUOTE=Michael Maier]Well, JVC didn't design the camera for you, you know. It needs to meet the mass demands and I think it does. At least the realistic ones.
.

Really? I thought they got my email :)

As I've said several times before in this thread - call me an aberration. It's not the first time. If the HD100 outsells the DVX and HVX and Sony HDV's, great.

Hey Charles, Nate and Barry, did you have any dropouts at all from the HD100? How many hours worth of footage did you record? Thanks.

If you buy now, you are buying on the hope or promise of more lens choices and a dream (or fantasy) of a true lens system.
No. If we are buying it, it's because it has the best lens of the bunch (within the price range) and because it's the one most suitable to our individual needs. Is it 100% perfect? No, nothing is. But complaints about a non-existent 'true lens system', c'mon, that's just silly. That's not the purpose for this camera in this market.

We shot a decently budgeted weekend production with CineAlta last fall (music video) and the rental house 'threw in' a set of primes worth some $300,000. Yes, that's a lens system but now we are talking a very different market. If the production can afford to rent that kind of 'lens system', why in the world would they use this little camera? It reminds me of the ads for the XL1 where the tripod is more expensive than the camera and the accessories include everything that exists. Well, again, before I would spend that kind of dollar to rent or buy all that, I'd rather go with say a DSR500 in an ENG configuration and the images would be much better than those of the 'overkill' XL1.

This JVC seems to be a very decent camera for what it is and if there is a good quality WA adapter and possibly the wide Fujinon zoom they list as an option, that would be great. I sure wouldn't use much beyond that. As I said, if there is a bigger budget, I'll rent CineAlta with all the bells and whisles and for most other work, the HD100 will be fine.

We shot a decently budgeted weekend production with CineAlta last fall (music video) and the rental house 'threw in' a set of primes worth some $300,000. Yes, that's a lens system but now we are talking a very different market.

Thats not a fair comparison - CineAlta is a completely different market and technology level.

The 16mm film world has had affordable lens systems for decades. Canon or someone else could have made primes or at least more lens options for the XL series but maybe the market does not exist. HDV needs sharper glass than 16mm, at least on paper, but if HDV is going to be the next HDV, I don't see how more lens choices would hurt the HD100 in the marketplace.

Oh I am with you. More choices wouldn't hurt. What I am saying is that the HDV market may not be strong enough for the manufacturers (budget-wise) to warrant the development of those lenses. We may be tempted to compare DV and HDV to 16 mm but that's not right either. The 16 mm market are people shooting on Arri and Aaton camera systems with zoom and prime lenses but that market is certainly in a higher budgetary bracket than your average DV/HDV. I suspect that the 'system' will be in the Mini35 and its combinations.

Ah, never mind, Michael summed it up better...:-)
Here is my signature on the "official" protest to JVC.

Hey Charles, Nate and Barry, did you have any dropouts at all from the HD100? How many hours worth of footage did you record? Thanks.
All the recording I did was to HDV Rack. I don't remember quite how much we did, but it was probably around 1/2 hour. Some of that footage was shot to tape only, probably around 10 minutes or so. I don't recall if there were dropouts in any of that. But of the footage that was recorded directly to HDV Rack, I never saw the tape playback, so I can't verify if there were any dropouts or if it was dropout-free.

I played the tape back on the camera a couple of times at home, and didn't see any dropouts.

Thanks Barry and Charles.

About the footage in your review: was it all shot on 24p?

And thanks for the excellent review. Every new camera should have a review like this ;)