Fujinon's Th16x5.5BRMU VS HTs18x4.2BRM

Eric Gulbransen · October 15th, 2007, 02:59 AM

Same eye, camera, & settings.

Fujinon Th16x5.5BRMU

Fujinon HTs18x4.2BRM

These "eye grabs" actually were NOT taken at the same distance from Tracy's eye. Instead, they were each taken as close as either lens could focus on a subject - without getting into macro focus. Oddly, even though the 16x zooms to 88mm, it could not focus on Tracy as close as the 18x could. For the record, the closest you can get to a subject with the:

16x = 37 inches

18x = 24 inches

Marc Colemont · October 15th, 2007, 03:29 AM

At IBC last month I tried the 18x4.2BRM. It's a nice piece of equipment, but I was turned off and surprized to see still a lot of CA while zoomed in all the way.

Brian Luce · October 15th, 2007, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Gulbransen

Same eye, camera, settings, and distance.

Fujinon Th16x5.5BRMU

Fujinon HTs18x4.2BRM

Less CA to be sure. But I dunno if it's $10,000 worth of improvement. I could buy a lot of drugs and alcohol with 10 grand.

For some reason I thought it'd give you a jump in sharpness. Guess not.

Stephen L. Noe · October 15th, 2007, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Gulbransen

Same eye, camera, settings, and distance.

Fujinon Th16x5.5BRMU

Fujinon HTs18x4.2BRM

Absolutely obvious the 18x is better. If you have any plan to blow up the image to 1080p or further yet to 35mm then you'll enjoy the benefit of the higher detail holding better.

S.

Eric Gulbransen · October 15th, 2007, 09:34 AM

Same profile, settings, distance, etc.

Fujinon Th16x5.5BRMU

Fujinon HTs18x4.2BRM

Brian Luce · October 15th, 2007, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen L. Noe

Absolutely obvious the 18x is better. If you have any plan to blow up the image to 1080p or further yet to 35mm then you'll enjoy the benefit of the higher detail holding better.

S.

I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but I've yet to meet anyone who has done a filmout with video. Any kind of video. I've never even heard of anyone that's done it in these forums. I've read a millon posts about "If I need a filmout which camera should I get" etc. But should filmout capability really be a criterion when evaluating a camera/lens? Filmout capability seems like something pitched to starry eyed indies who *know* with 100% certainty that their low budget Zombie movie is going to get picked up by Miramax.

A 11,000 dollar lens on a 6,000 camera seems like an awkward ratio. Nearly 2:1. Anyone know what ratios the big boys use? Or is 2:1 common?

Richard Alvarez · October 15th, 2007, 10:12 AM

Damn my eyes.

When I look at the first set of pix, and particularly at the boundary between the edge of the cheek and the hairline, I see MORE Chromatic Abberation in the 18x. I also note slightly better resolution along the bridge of the nose(in the 16x)... but then again, the 16x seems 'warmer' to me as well, and I'm pre-disposed towards warmer images.

Stephen L. Noe · October 15th, 2007, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Luce

I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but I've yet to meet anyone who has done a filmout with video. Any kind of video. I've never even heard of anyone that's done it in these forums. I've read a millon posts about "If I need a filmout which camera should I get" etc. But should filmout capability really be a criterion when evaluating a camera/lens? Filmout capability seems like something pitched to starry eyed indies who *know* with 100% certainty that their low budget Zombie movie is going to get picked up by Miramax.

A 11,000 dollar lens on a 6,000 camera seems like an awkward ratio. Nearly 2:1. Anyone know what ratios the big boys use? Or is 2:1 common?

I have done a filmout with the HD-100. Andrew Young has done a filmout with the HD-100 and there are others. I mention us two because we are members here. Although I know what you mean. Still the lens does make a difference.

S.

Eric Gulbransen · October 15th, 2007, 12:13 PM

These grabs shed more light on the differences in clarity between the lenses. Both lenses were at full zoom here. Focused on the yellow bag each time - my guess is 50 yards but I'm no golfer.

I shot the scene in the full zoom range of both lenses, in 10mm increments. I'll post more grabs later.

Fujinon Th16x5.5BRMU @88mm

Fujinon HTs18x4.2BRM @76mm

Stephen L. Noe · October 15th, 2007, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Gulbransen

These grabs shed more light on the differences in clarity between the lenses. Both lenses were at full zoom here. Focused on the yellow bag each time - my guess is 50 yards but I'm no golfer.

I shot the scene in the full zoom range of both lenses, in 10mm increments. I'll post more grabs later.

Fujinon Th16x5.5BRMU @88mm

Fujinon Th16x5.5BRMU @76mm

88mm is definately NOT the sweet spot for the 16x.

Brian Drysdale · October 15th, 2007, 12:36 PM

You can't really tell how good a lens is until you start pushing it into the darker areas. How sharp is it wide open? How good is it at handling flare? How much distortion does it introduce? How about the contrast?

You could easily spend many times the cost of camera for a specialist lens on a stills camera.

Eric Gulbransen · October 15th, 2007, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen L. Noe

88mm is definately NOT the sweet spot for the 16x.

You are right Steven. I completely agree.

Fujinon Th16x5.5BRMU @45mm

Fujinon Th16x5.5BRMU @45mm

Stuart Campbell · October 15th, 2007, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Luce

A 11,000 dollar lens on a 6,000 camera seems like an awkward ratio. Nearly 2:1. Anyone know what ratios the big boys use? Or is 2:1 common?

Yep,

Some of my normal cameras (Digi Beta, SP etc) have lenses that far outweigh the value of the camera. Glass rules!

For example, there's 12 grands worth of glass on the front of a 4 grand SP camera. (I do swap the lenses around)!! The price difference is nearer with the digi B, but if you pay for a quality backside, you've got to pay for quality glass. If you don't you're wasting your money on the backside!

By the way, I talk UK pounds!

Earl Thurston · October 15th, 2007, 04:08 PM

Lens are ultimately what create the image. The camera just records it. The same comparison can be made with stereos -- spend your money on good speakers, because that's where the sound comes from.

Adam Letch · October 15th, 2007, 04:47 PM

every shot you've posted clearly show the 18x is a sharper lens, it could be in part due to different exposure, or that the nature of the lens leads to a different white balance. But the the detail is sharper in all the 18x pics, but I definitely agree, the price of the 18x means really only studios etc will pick it up, in Australia its almost $19,500. Thats crazy money, especially when you see the 13x now is only $11,350, the 17x is now only $3950, and the 20x is now $13,000.
One of the features of this lens if I wonder is pure marketing garbage is the following cut and paste from the features:

VFormat Correction
Achieving 4:3 aspect ratios from a 16:9 CCD is usually performed by cutting off the sides of the imager, effectively making the minimum focal length more telephoto. Fujinon's VFormat technology preserves the same picture angles by shortening the original focal length. Shots in standard 4:3 hold the same image size as if shot in 16:9.

Any substance to this?

Adam

October 15th, 2007, 02:59 AM	#1
Eric Gulbransen Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Palo Alto, California Posts: 520	Fujinon's Th16x5.5BRMU VS HTs18x4.2BRM - how good are your eyes Same eye, camera, & settings. Fujinon Th16x5.5BRMU Fujinon HTs18x4.2BRM These "eye grabs" actually were NOT taken at the same distance from Tracy's eye. Instead, they were each taken as close as either lens could focus on a subject - without getting into macro focus. Oddly, even though the 16x zooms to 88mm, it could not focus on Tracy as close as the 18x could. For the record, the closest you can get to a subject with the: 16x = 37 inches 18x = 24 inches Last edited by Eric Gulbransen; October 15th, 2007 at 12:34 PM.

October 15th, 2007, 09:34 AM	#5
Eric Gulbransen Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Palo Alto, California Posts: 520	Same profile, settings, distance, etc. Fujinon Th16x5.5BRMU Fujinon HTs18x4.2BRM Last edited by Eric Gulbransen; October 15th, 2007 at 09:21 PM.

October 15th, 2007, 12:13 PM	#9
Eric Gulbransen Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Palo Alto, California Posts: 520	These grabs shed more light on the differences in clarity between the lenses. Both lenses were at full zoom here. Focused on the yellow bag each time - my guess is 50 yards but I'm no golfer. I shot the scene in the full zoom range of both lenses, in 10mm increments. I'll post more grabs later. Fujinon Th16x5.5BRMU @88mm Fujinon HTs18x4.2BRM @76mm Last edited by Eric Gulbransen; October 15th, 2007 at 09:22 PM.

October 15th, 2007, 04:08 PM	#14
Earl Thurston Major Player Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Burnaby & Maple Ridge BC Posts: 289	Lens are ultimately what create the image. The camera just records it. The same comparison can be made with stereos -- spend your money on good speakers, because that's where the sound comes from. __________________ Earl R. Thurston, Stargate Connections Inc. Made with GY-HD100: The Container Adventures: The Rescue

October 15th, 2007, 04:47 PM	#15
Adam Letch Major Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 414	Actually its strange every shot you've posted clearly show the 18x is a sharper lens, it could be in part due to different exposure, or that the nature of the lens leads to a different white balance. But the the detail is sharper in all the 18x pics, but I definitely agree, the price of the 18x means really only studios etc will pick it up, in Australia its almost $19,500. Thats crazy money, especially when you see the 13x now is only $11,350, the 17x is now only $3950, and the 20x is now $13,000. One of the features of this lens if I wonder is pure marketing garbage is the following cut and paste from the features: VFormat Correction Achieving 4:3 aspect ratios from a 16:9 CCD is usually performed by cutting off the sides of the imager, effectively making the minimum focal length more telephoto. Fujinon's VFormat technology preserves the same picture angles by shortening the original focal length. Shots in standard 4:3 hold the same image size as if shot in 16:9. Any substance to this? Adam

October 15th, 2007, 03:29 AM	#2
Marc Colemont Major Player Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Belgium Posts: 695	At IBC last month I tried the 18x4.2BRM. It's a nice piece of equipment, but I was turned off and surprized to see still a lot of CA while zoomed in all the way.

October 15th, 2007, 10:12 AM	#7
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	Damn my eyes. When I look at the first set of pix, and particularly at the boundary between the edge of the cheek and the hairline, I see MORE Chromatic Abberation in the 18x. I also note slightly better resolution along the bridge of the nose(in the 16x)... but then again, the 16x seems 'warmer' to me as well, and I'm pre-disposed towards warmer images.

October 15th, 2007, 12:36 PM	#11
Brian Drysdale Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Belfast, UK Posts: 6,152	You can't really tell how good a lens is until you start pushing it into the darker areas. How sharp is it wide open? How good is it at handling flare? How much distortion does it introduce? How about the contrast? You could easily spend many times the cost of camera for a specialist lens on a stills camera.