2/3rd lens on the HD110 at DVinfo.net

Mat Thompson · April 28th, 2008, 12:16 PM

Hey guys.

I thought I'd throw something up that I've been pondering. Could I use a lens such as the Canon 2/3rds YJ20x8.5B KRS on the HD110 and what sort of results would it yield. I know it would be give about twice the focal length which is fine as it will be for wildlife work anyway. I've also read good things about this lens and imagine its much better than the stock 16x5.5. However it is SD glass and obviously built for 2/3rd format so anyone hazzard a guess as to the picture quality I might expect !?

I can get an adapter to attach it so theres no problems there and I'm gussing everything can be done manually on it which is fine by me. It would basically be an alternative to using 35mm stills lenses and in theory at least seems to have have a number of advantages.

Thoughts very welcome on this ???

Liam Hall · April 28th, 2008, 12:58 PM

It won't change the focal length, it will change the field-of-view.

Tim Dashwood · April 28th, 2008, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liam Hall

It won't change the focal length, it will change the field-of-view.

Just to clarify...the field/angle-of-view will be about half that of 2/3" cameras using the same focal lengths.

The adapter you need is the ACM-17. It is a simple bayonet converter mount but it does have a piece of clear glass in it... I presume simply as protection.

Mat Thompson · April 29th, 2008, 04:09 AM

Hey guys.

Yeah ok I understand the focal length doesnt actually change its the fov but effectively the lens will act like it has double the focal length...

I've been told this setup should yield very nice results IQ wise.

Does anyone know whether the lens connection will fit/work and supply power/communication from/to the camera?

Noah Yuan-Vogel · May 6th, 2008, 11:51 PM

actually it is a different focal length.. and the fov is smaller because of it... right? i mean you are comparing a 8.5mm lens to a 5.5mm lens, so the 8.5 will not be as wide as the 5.5 no matter the projected image format it was intended for. i would be concerned about sharpness and aberrations. if the 2/3" lens is an SD lens, it might not be acceptably sharp on your 1/3" HD camera. if the lens is designed simply to resolve about 500 lines of vertical resolution which might look fine on a 720x480 camera, you are cropping that to about 280 lines of resolution on your 1/3" sensor, which could look pretty soft at 720p. in all likelyhood, if it is good glass it resolves quite a bit more than 500 lines. this is just rough math and the lens might be overengineered enough that this wont be noticeable, but just keep it in mind. i would test it out first.

Mat Thompson · May 7th, 2008, 03:49 PM

Hi Noah

Thats interesting reading although I'm not sure I quite follow about glass resolving a certain amount of lines as such. I mean the 2/3rds glass is designed to capture an image onto a larger sensor so I follow that it will use less of the lens to capture onto a 1/3rd sensor. However the most optically 'pure' part of a lens is the center is it not. I mean if you use a 35mm stills lens on a 1/3rd camera your using even less of the glass but that doesnt mean you have the optical ability to resolve even less of the image does it?

From what I have been told by a repected Uk camera engineer this sort of setup works very well. I'm not doubting that HD glass would produce a much sharper image. Anyway we will see soon enough, adapter and lens should be here by Saturday.

I will post some results....hopefully pleasing ones :-) !

Noah Yuan-Vogel · May 7th, 2008, 05:32 PM

my concern is simply that you are basically cropping out the center of a potentially SD image and recording it as HD. does that make sense? is the SD glass in question considered sharp even for 1080p applications? if so, then it is probably fine for 1/3" 720p. yes the center of the lens is usually the best, but it still may not be good enough to resolve fine detail at HD resolution, especially if the lens cant do HD in its native sensor format.

Sean Adair · May 7th, 2008, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noah Yuan-Vogel

my concern is simply that you are basically cropping out the center of a potentially SD image and recording it as HD. does that make sense? is the SD glass in question considered sharp even for 1080p applications? if so, then it is probably fine for 1/3" 720p. yes the center of the lens is usually the best, but it still may not be good enough to resolve fine detail at HD resolution, especially if the lens cant do HD in its native sensor format.

No - it doesn't make sense. If you were cropping the resolving chip, yes it would be less resolution, but optics don't work this way. There is much more required from a lens to resolve on a larger image plane. The center is the sweet spot. If it's a "broadcast quality" 2/3" lens, it will probably perform very well with the adapter - especially in the tele range where the standard 16x falls apart. Some of these lenses are $30,000+ hunks of glass.
BTW - take a look at some of Eric's frame grabs with the Nikon adapter using even less of the resolving plane

Mat Thompson · May 9th, 2008, 07:54 AM

Hey guys.

Well I got my adapter+2/3rd lens today and I'm very impressed with this rig so far!!!

The difference in handling this over the XL2+SLR long lenses (300mm) is huge. Focusing, zooming, balance and control is all much improved. I also have even greater reach but in a lens that apart from wide angle establishing shots will do everything. From about 100mm-2350mm (35mm equiv).

I haven't done any real IQ tests yet...but my first impressions is that the picture is better in sharpness and colour than the stock lens which feels like a toy in comparison...and this is a cheap lens for 2/3rds. Oh imagine a 2/3rds HD lens on this...............heaven! Just got to get a lotto win for that one :-) !

Robert Bale · May 9th, 2008, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mat Thompson

Hey guys.

Well I got my adapter+2/3rd lens today and I'm very impressed with this rig so far!!!

The difference in handling this over the XL2+SLR long lenses (300mm) is huge. Focusing, zooming, balance and control is all much improved. I also have even greater reach but in a lens that apart from wide angle establishing shots will do everything. From about 100mm-2350mm (35mm equiv).

I haven't done any real IQ tests yet...but my first impressions is that the picture is better in sharpness and colour than the stock lens which feels like a toy in comparison...and this is a cheap lens for 2/3rds. Oh imagine a 2/3rds HD lens on this...............heaven! Just got to get a lotto win for that one :-) !

Hey if you have time could you post a few photos so we can see your setup ?

Mat Thompson · May 10th, 2008, 08:31 AM

Hi Robert

Well here's some of the adapter/lens. To be honest not a lot of difference from the standard format......to look at !!! (Wieghs just over half a kilo more I guess.)

I'm going out will it this arvo and will do some IQ tests and post them.

Gary Williams · May 10th, 2008, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mat Thompson

Hey guys.

I thought I'd throw something up that I've been pondering. Could I use a lens such as the Canon 2/3rds YJ20x8.5B KRS on the HD110 and what sort of results would it yield. I know it would be give about twice the focal length which is fine as it will be for wildlife work anyway. I've also read good things about this lens and imagine its much better than the stock 16x5.5. However it is SD glass and obviously built for 2/3rd format so anyone hazzard a guess as to the picture quality I might expect !?

I can get an adapter to attach it so theres no problems there and I'm gussing everything can be done manually on it which is fine by me. It would basically be an alternative to using 35mm stills lenses and in theory at least seems to have have a number of advantages.

Thoughts very welcome on this ???

Mat what did your lense and adapter cost you and what adapter our you using (made by who)? Thanks Gary Williams

John Thomason · June 9th, 2008, 08:22 AM

Hi Guys
I am new here, I have been looking trying to find a answer for this question. I well be receiving a HD 250 in 2weeks, it will be coming without a lens. I will be getting a HD lens at a later date ,but in the mean time I want to use one of my existing lenses for this camera. I have a Cannon 2/3 lens off my KY29 camera and A Cannon 1/2 lens of my DV550. I need to buy a adaptor from JVC,my question is which one is best to use. any help will be greatly appreciated

Tim Dashwood · June 9th, 2008, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Thomason

...I need to buy a adaptor from JVC,my question is which one is best to use. any help will be greatly appreciated

ACM-12 adapter for 1/2" and ACM-17 for 2/3".

John Thomason · June 9th, 2008, 09:54 AM

Thanks Tim for you speedy response. I think maybe I did not explain myself well. What I want to know is quality wise witch one would be better. A 1/2 " lens or a 2/3" lens . I don't want to purchase both adaptors. I am hoping that one of them will work for a while. I stayed with the JVC camera so I could ease into HD. I have the infrastructure for JVC studio setup and I assumed this would be a good fit. I have the DR HD 100 , the BR-HD50 and the HD250U studio adaptor as well as HD 250 camera coming and was hoping that one of these lenes will give me good HD quality on this camera

On another note Tim I purchased your DVD on this camera it was excelent. I see that you are located in Toronto. I am just a stones through across the river from Sarnia.

April 28th, 2008, 12:16 PM	#1
Mat Thompson Trustee Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kent UK Posts: 1,397	2/3rd lens on the HD110 Hey guys. I thought I'd throw something up that I've been pondering. Could I use a lens such as the Canon 2/3rds YJ20x8.5B KRS on the HD110 and what sort of results would it yield. I know it would be give about twice the focal length which is fine as it will be for wildlife work anyway. I've also read good things about this lens and imagine its much better than the stock 16x5.5. However it is SD glass and obviously built for 2/3rd format so anyone hazzard a guess as to the picture quality I might expect !? I can get an adapter to attach it so theres no problems there and I'm gussing everything can be done manually on it which is fine by me. It would basically be an alternative to using 35mm stills lenses and in theory at least seems to have have a number of advantages. Thoughts very welcome on this ???

April 28th, 2008, 12:58 PM	#2
Liam Hall Major Player Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: London, England Posts: 969	It won't change the focal length, it will change the field-of-view. __________________ Writer-Director-DOP www.liamhall.net

May 10th, 2008, 08:31 AM	#11
Mat Thompson Trustee Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kent UK Posts: 1,397	Hi Robert Well here's some of the adapter/lens. To be honest not a lot of difference from the standard format......to look at !!! (Wieghs just over half a kilo more I guess.) I'm going out will it this arvo and will do some IQ tests and post them. Attached Thumbnails

June 9th, 2008, 08:22 AM	#13
John Thomason Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Michigan US Posts: 28	2/3 or 1/2 lens on HD 250 Hi Guys I am new here, I have been looking trying to find a answer for this question. I well be receiving a HD 250 in 2weeks, it will be coming without a lens. I will be getting a HD lens at a later date ,but in the mean time I want to use one of my existing lenses for this camera. I have a Cannon 2/3 lens off my KY29 camera and A Cannon 1/2 lens of my DV550. I need to buy a adaptor from JVC,my question is which one is best to use. any help will be greatly appreciated

April 29th, 2008, 04:09 AM	#4
Mat Thompson Trustee Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kent UK Posts: 1,397	Hey guys. Yeah ok I understand the focal length doesnt actually change its the fov but effectively the lens will act like it has double the focal length... I've been told this setup should yield very nice results IQ wise. Does anyone know whether the lens connection will fit/work and supply power/communication from/to the camera?

May 6th, 2008, 11:51 PM	#5
Noah Yuan-Vogel Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: New York City Posts: 613	actually it is a different focal length.. and the fov is smaller because of it... right? i mean you are comparing a 8.5mm lens to a 5.5mm lens, so the 8.5 will not be as wide as the 5.5 no matter the projected image format it was intended for. i would be concerned about sharpness and aberrations. if the 2/3" lens is an SD lens, it might not be acceptably sharp on your 1/3" HD camera. if the lens is designed simply to resolve about 500 lines of vertical resolution which might look fine on a 720x480 camera, you are cropping that to about 280 lines of resolution on your 1/3" sensor, which could look pretty soft at 720p. in all likelyhood, if it is good glass it resolves quite a bit more than 500 lines. this is just rough math and the lens might be overengineered enough that this wont be noticeable, but just keep it in mind. i would test it out first.

May 7th, 2008, 03:49 PM	#6
Mat Thompson Trustee Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kent UK Posts: 1,397	Hi Noah Thats interesting reading although I'm not sure I quite follow about glass resolving a certain amount of lines as such. I mean the 2/3rds glass is designed to capture an image onto a larger sensor so I follow that it will use less of the lens to capture onto a 1/3rd sensor. However the most optically 'pure' part of a lens is the center is it not. I mean if you use a 35mm stills lens on a 1/3rd camera your using even less of the glass but that doesnt mean you have the optical ability to resolve even less of the image does it? From what I have been told by a repected Uk camera engineer this sort of setup works very well. I'm not doubting that HD glass would produce a much sharper image. Anyway we will see soon enough, adapter and lens should be here by Saturday. I will post some results....hopefully pleasing ones :-) !

May 7th, 2008, 05:32 PM	#7
Noah Yuan-Vogel Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: New York City Posts: 613	my concern is simply that you are basically cropping out the center of a potentially SD image and recording it as HD. does that make sense? is the SD glass in question considered sharp even for 1080p applications? if so, then it is probably fine for 1/3" 720p. yes the center of the lens is usually the best, but it still may not be good enough to resolve fine detail at HD resolution, especially if the lens cant do HD in its native sensor format.

May 9th, 2008, 07:54 AM	#9
Mat Thompson Trustee Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kent UK Posts: 1,397	Hey guys. Well I got my adapter+2/3rd lens today and I'm very impressed with this rig so far!!! The difference in handling this over the XL2+SLR long lenses (300mm) is huge. Focusing, zooming, balance and control is all much improved. I also have even greater reach but in a lens that apart from wide angle establishing shots will do everything. From about 100mm-2350mm (35mm equiv). I haven't done any real IQ tests yet...but my first impressions is that the picture is better in sharpness and colour than the stock lens which feels like a toy in comparison...and this is a cheap lens for 2/3rds. Oh imagine a 2/3rds HD lens on this...............heaven! Just got to get a lotto win for that one :-) !

June 9th, 2008, 09:54 AM	#15
John Thomason Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Michigan US Posts: 28	Thanks Tim for you speedy response. I think maybe I did not explain myself well. What I want to know is quality wise witch one would be better. A 1/2 " lens or a 2/3" lens . I don't want to purchase both adaptors. I am hoping that one of them will work for a while. I stayed with the JVC camera so I could ease into HD. I have the infrastructure for JVC studio setup and I assumed this would be a good fit. I have the DR HD 100 , the BR-HD50 and the HD250U studio adaptor as well as HD 250 camera coming and was hoping that one of these lenes will give me good HD quality on this camera On another note Tim I purchased your DVD on this camera it was excelent. I see that you are located in Toronto. I am just a stones through across the river from Sarnia.