Looks like your HD200 companion could be a Sony...

http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/16/sony-announces-xdcam-ex-prosumer-camcorder/1#c4502235

720 60p with 3x1/2" sensors, but of course not a removable lens, but it does look to have real manual controls.

Lets hope JVC do show us something new at NAB. Got to love this time of year.

That is something if it's not balsacam. Half inch imagers in that small of a body? Wow.

Meh, it's a handycam. No thanks.

it's a handycam

Thats the point. As a handycam it is a great form factor as a companion to the HD200.

Thats the point. As a handycam it is a great form factor as a companion to the HD200.

Why? The ENG form factor of the HDxx0 is one of its biggest selling points. Why anyone would actually want to shoot video with a handycam (much less for a paying client!) is beyond me.

You seriously think the ENG form factor is the best form factor for every shooting requirement? Wow, we are clearly going to have to agree to disagree.

If you look at the image you will see the buttons that are visible are in the general ENG layout, it just isn't sholder mount.

You seriously think the ENG form factor is the best form factor for every shooting requirement?

Not every requirement, no. Only all the ones where you're operating the camera by hand. Remote and POV applications of course can get away with a different form factor, preferably one as small as possible. But unless this camera has external connections for operating it remotely, it'd be pretty useless for that too.

The formfactor is fine - until you want to shoot handheld. I pass...

(1/2 inch imagers would be a big deal - but it know from experience it is better to wait and hear it actually confirmed that it will be 1/2 inch, and not 1/3 or even 1/4. And if it would be around 7K and up, I'd really like to have a manual lens for that price. 1/2 inch with a fixed lens takes the advantage of 1/2 inch imagers a little bit away...)

From the look of the lens controls it is a fully manual lens (with full auto options). The Iris and Zoom controls look just like a normal manual lens controls.

It is just fixed, not removable.

I am sure it will have some form or remote as all controls have auto options (so focus, iris and zoom are all powered). Possibly the standard remote controller that works on most Sony handycams?

I should have written I don't like servo lenses... full manual controls are on all of them, but the focus is always servo (racking focus is near impossible)...

The problem with all of these is the fact that they want to cram too much in a handheld formfactor. By now it becomes so bulky and heavy, it isn't really that suited to handheld use anymore (the HVX200 has the same problem). The JVC 'compact' form factor was a winning shot (the Canon XL was too front heavy). The only advantage to the so-called handhelds is that they are still smaller and not so heavy - which means you can work with a smaller and cheaper tripod and you can also get away with a small and cheap steadicamsystem. As soon as you really want to use these cams handheld, they're actually not that 'handy'... (hence the aftermarket in shoulder mounts for the HVX, DVX, FX1, ...)

I should have written I don't like servo lenses... full manual controls are on all of them, but the focus is always servo (racking focus is near impossible)...

I completely share your sentiment there, it's why I turn down work when I find out there would be an XL1 involved. The lens won't even let you rack focus while zooming, it's ridiculous.

Anyway, I managed to find this ultra-high-res shot of the camera we're talking about:

http://news.sel.sony.com/images/large/b2b/broadcast_production/content_create_edit/Sony_XDCAM_EX_Camcorder_lg.jpg

Focus looks manual to me, you would engage or disengage the focus servo for autofocus by moving the focus ring forward or backward.

Now the zoom appears to go from 6.8mm-81.2mm for a 12x zoom. Don't even think about trying to get tight with it. Wide end gives you an 86 degree diagonal angle of view, that's 23mm equivalent for you SLR photographers, and 4.5mm equivalent for 1/3" chips (i.e. HDxx0). It's decent, but probably lacking for POV applications. I always find myself wanting to go a bit wider than that. But then I'm a huge freak for wide-angle looks.

Focus looks manual to me, you would engage or disengage the focus servo for autofocus by moving the focus ring forward or backward.

I thought so too, but then I noticed a PUSH AUTO knob (between the zoom and iris), so that might suggest even the manual will be servo... (like the canon XL-series)? At least the Iris and zoom seem already fully manual - that's a start already...

Form factor amongst other things make it no camera for me, but I can imagine competition with this camera - still a long way to go to the production model, I suppose?

I thought so too, but then I noticed a PUSH AUTO knob (between the zoom and iris), so that might suggest even the manual will be servo... (like the canon XL-series)? At least the Iris and zoom seem already fully manual - that's a start already...

It could be closer to the way Canon's still photography lenses with full-time manual focusing work. They don't feel like I'm focusing by wire like on an XL1, they feel like I'm actually grabbing the focus, but the autofocus motor can still do its own thing. If Canon had made their XL lenses work like this I'd have no complaints!

Now the zoom appears to go from 6.8mm-81.2mm for a 12x zoom. Don't even think about trying to get tight with it. Wide end gives you an 86 degree diagonal angle of view, that's 23mm equivalent for you SLR photographers, and 4.5mm equivalent for 1/3" chips (i.e. HDxx0). It's decent, but probably lacking for POV applications. I always find myself wanting to go a bit wider than that. But then I'm a huge freak for wide-angle looks.

That could be a 5.8 for exactly a 14x zoom ratio. It is clearly something .8 but the first number could be a 5 or a 6 from the part you see.
That would make it equivalent to a 3.8mm lens on a HD200 I think (around 20mm on 35mm?). If so thats pretty good for a camera like this. Is there a 1/3" lens that wide?

There is an optional 13x3.5 lens for the JVC cameras. I believe Canon has an XL lens that comes back that wide too.

I think 6.8 is more likely for a couple reasons. First off, all of the 1/2" ENG cameras I've ever used have had a lens attached with either a 6.7mm or 6.8mm wide end. Second, wide angle lenses require a bulky retrofocal design that I don't believe would fit into the small size of that camera.

According to the pics that Chris posted here (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=91612), the focal length is 5.8-81mm (14X). And according to Fujinon (http://www.fujinonbroadcast.com/cgi-bin/faq.cgi?idFaq=11), the conversion factor for 1/2" to 35mm photo is .178. So that makes 5.8 equal to about 32.6mm, which isn't that wide but it matches the Z1U, HVX200 and XH-A1.

The reason they were able to fit such a small 1/2" lens on there is probably because it's 14X and not 18X and the max aperture is slightly smaller than Fujinon's ENG XDCAM-HD lens (f/1.9 vs f/1.4).

I didn't think it would be 6.8. That would be a 11.94x zoom. At 5.8 it is a 14.00x zoom, as said before.

I was basing my 1.3" & 35mm conversions from Stephans 6.8 results. Clearly if they were wrong too, so were mine for 5.8.

My lens on my GY-DV500 (1/2") is about 7mm so 5.8 would be welcoming wider for me.

Mmkay, 5.8mm it is. That actually is pretty decently wide, I take back what I said about that. On a side note, I think it's hilarious that they stamped the cinealta logo on that thing.

I use diagonal angle of view for my focal length conversions, Fuji may be using horizontal or vertical in theirs. Here's the math I use:

35mm is 36x24mm, Pythagoras tells us the image circle diameter is sqrt(36^2+24^2) = about 43mm, which is 1.7 inches.

1/3", 1/2" and 2/3" are named after their diagonal lengths, so simply divide them into each other or 1.7 to get the multiplier. 1.7/(1/3) = 5.11, 1/2" is 3.4, and 2/3" is 2.56.

For angle of view I use this angle of view calculator (http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/photos/angles.html) and use pythagoras + some algebra to get actual width and height for image sensors.

1/3", 1/2" and 2/3" are named after their diagonal lengths, so simply divide them into each other or 1.7 to get the multiplier. 1.7/(1/3) = 5.11, 1/2" is 3.4, and 2/3" is 2.56.

I think this might be causing the error in your calculations. The type designation (1/3", 1/2", etc.) isn't the diameter of the image circle of the sensor but rather the outer diameter of the long glass envelope of the old camera tubes, which his about 1/3 bigger than the sensor size. So unfortunately you can't just ratio it from the 35mm still photo image diameter. It's all very confusing. Here's an article that explains it pretty well: article (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0210/02100402sensorsizes.asp).

Either way, it's good to see that this camera comes with a decently wide standard lens.

Hmm, I did not know that. Learn something new every day I guess.

Isn't the 1/3" etc a measure of the diagonal dimension of the sensor? Hence why we are told it has a 1/3" sensor?

Looks like a decent camera with a lot of features.

The JVC PRO HD series still offers a LOT more for me though. Interchnageable lenses really do it for me ( I bought an XL-1 when if first came out and own(ed) most of the XL lenses), and having to work with a fixed lens is unacceptable. If Sony had taken a DSR-250ish body and VF, added these HD features, AND offered interchangeable lenses, then we'd have a camera.

lol, I'd guess that would kill a lot the sales of their 330/350/355 though.

Got me there. The big-boy XDcams are excellent, but the old 250s didn't cost in the neighborhood of 20k either.

Isn't the 1/3" etc a measure of the diagonal dimension of the sensor? Hence why we are told it has a 1/3" sensor?

Unfortunately Guy, it's not. The inch type designation goes way back to the days of the vacuum tubes. It's a measure of the glass tube envelope, but the usuable imaging area is less that that tube diameter. When CCDs came around, they sized them to this same usuable image area so that they could use the same lenses. Of course, we don't use vacuum tubes anymore but they're still using this crazy inch type designation. Another thing to make it more confusing is that a native 16:9 sensor isn't the same size as a native 4:3 sensor whose dimensions are show in that DPReview article.

Anyhow, I thought Sony might have come up with a 1/3" compact shoulder mount interchangeable lens camera to compete against JVC but it looks like their strategy is to go straight to 1/2". The good news is JVC is going to have to do something to respond to this camera and maybe with the new owner's backing they will.

As it stands JVC win on form factor and lens (outside the body), Sony win the imaging and electronics (inside the body, in theory at least), but that's not until this beast is on the street some 6-9 months away. Having said that I can happily wait that long, if not another 6-9 months again without a problem. I might want HD, but I certainly don't need it.

Another thing to make it more confusing is that a native 16:9 sensor isn't the same size as a native 4:3 sensor whose dimensions are show in that DPReview article.

16:9 chips are designed to have the same diagonal width as the 4:3 chips. If you take the diagonal length of a 4:3 chip and throw the pythagorean theorem at it you can get the dimensions of a 16:9 chip. It ends up being a little wider and not as tall. Like the move from tubes to chips, this was done so you could use the same lenses for 4:3 and 16:9 (since the imaging circle size can stay the same), though for HD you need new lenses anyway because the old SD lenses aren't designed for HD tolerances.

Well in anycase, and getting back to the thread topic, competition at this level seems to be picking up. With all the variety of players on the scene, and the rapid pace of development, the future for low-cost video aquisition seems to be bright. JVC and Panasonic seem to be heading in the right direction for those who like Pro shouldermount form factors. Canon and Sony (Sony in the low end) seem to be going for ultra feature rich palmcorders.

At least thats what it looks like to me.