wide angle lens at DVinfo.net

Dennis Robinson · July 9th, 2008, 09:05 PM

hi,
I have the JVC111 and have recently hired the Fujinon 13x lens which was amazing.
I also tried the new Sony EX1 to try out and was amazed that the standard lens was almost as wide as the 13x Fujinon. I can imagine that the EX1 with the WA conversion lens would be as wide as the JVC with the 13x. Can anyone help with the answer? The JVC with the 13 x lens is really good with low light and it made a huge difference.
The EX1 also excels in low light performance and of course the LCD is fantastic. Pointing the JVC in my lounge in the evening produced almost black images while I almost dropped dead when i turned the EX1 on. I couldnt believe the low light capabilities in comparison.
To be honest, I hate the small form brick look of the Sony camera. The trouble is what do i do? i have had a taste of the advantages of the Sony over the JVC but need to use wide angle for my work. Do I buy the Fujinon and keep the JVC? Or do I buy the new EX3 which is ugly but has amazing LCD, wide angle lens in standard form and amazing low light. The vision of 1080P is so much better than 720P. I feel confused. Any advice?

Dennis Robinson · July 11th, 2008, 03:50 AM

Gee,. is there no one that has compared these 2 cameras?

Carlos Rodriguez · July 11th, 2008, 05:34 PM

the sony uses larger chips. bigger image sensor means more light captured. that's why it looks better in low light.

Steve Oakley · July 11th, 2008, 08:47 PM

larger chips doesn't always equate to better light sensitivity and here's why -

with a smaller chip, you focus the image from the lens into the smaller area of the chip, thereby increasing the photons / mm2 so that in the end, it comes out about even assuming that the sensors are made from the same basic fabrication.

where there is a difference is between SD and HD sensors of the same physical size. in this case the photons/mm2 is the same, but the sensors are smaller.

that said, there is a lot of adjustment on the HD100 which can dramatically change the look of the camera and its light sensitivity level. gamma and black stretch can make a VERY big difference in how the camera performs in low light.

Dennis Robinson · July 11th, 2008, 09:08 PM

Hi,
I guess I didn't really ask the right question. I accept that the Sony is much much better in low light but I have the dilemma where I love the look of my JVC and with the 13x lens I am up for $10,000 while I can buy the ugly Sony EX1/3 and have amazing low light capabilities, 1080P, an excellent LCD which has to be seen to be believed plus I believe the wide angle lens that comes complete at just a few grand more.
I do this for a living and while i know a lot of people like the small form of the Sony, I just can't turn up to shoot a corporate video and have the respect of the client with what looks like a consumer cam. I feel that I could fit it out with matte box etc and give it a bit more pro look. I know a lot of people will say that it's the image that is more important and the Sony will certainly kill the JVC, but if a client is paying $5000 upwards for a video or commercial to be produced they like to be impressed with the gear one uses. It is different if it is just a hobby.
I just wonder if it's best to keep the JVC and buy a 13x lens knowing full well that the Sony EX1/3 is a much better camera or buy the Sony and try to pimp it up a bit so that it looks professional. I am not so worried of the cost, as the camera will well and truly pay for itself in a month.
I am a true JVC fan but the Sony in 1080P on a HD plasma is unreal. The Sony footage in 720P is similar on the plasma to the JVC.
Any ideas?

David Knaggs · July 11th, 2008, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dennis Robinson

I do this for a living and while i know a lot of people like the small form of the Sony, I just can't turn up to shoot a corporate video and have the respect of the client with what looks like a consumer cam. I feel that I could fit it out with matte box etc and give it a bit more pro look. I know a lot of people will say that it's the image that is more important and the Sony will certainly kill the JVC, but if a client is paying $5000 upwards for a video or commercial to be produced they like to be impressed with the gear one uses. It is different if it is just a hobby.

That's very true. I've done quite a bit of corporate shooting (indoors) in the past week and was amused at how people in the offices go, "Whoa!" when I pull the 101E out of the case (especially with the A-B battery mounted on the back). Corporate clients are businessmen and usually aren't particularly interested in the technical side of video. When they see the form factor of the ProHD camera they are impressed. And so are their colleagues. This does no harm to your chances of getting repeat business. I've been looking at the PMW-EX1/3 solution myself, but efforts to improve the form factor such as this:

http://www.vortexmedia.com/EX1DVD/VSB1.html

look a bit dinky for corporate work (in my opinion) compared to the JVC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dennis Robinson

I just wonder if it's best to keep the JVC and buy a 13x lens knowing full well that the Sony EX1/3 is a much better camera or buy the Sony and try to pimp it up a bit so that it looks professional. I am not so worried of the cost, as the camera will well and truly pay for itself in a month.

Any ideas?

One thing that might help is where you buy the 13X lens from.

In Australia, it is listed at A$11,550.

On the B&H website (and B&H is a DV Info sponsor), it is listed at US$6,600. Which is A$6,830 (our dollar is almost the same as the US dollar nowadays). And add in $100 for freight.

But, as to which to go with, it's a tough decision. More clients are getting large plasmas/LCDs (1080p) and HD projectors. So full 1080p delivery is an increasing concern. If JVC were to release a new 1080p model (with at least 1/2" chips) and recording to hard drive or CF cards, they would take the high ground from Sony because of the superior ergonomics and the lovely way it can render color (one of the major reasons I'm such a fan of ProHD).

Another (more expensive) option which would impress clients and deliver great 1080p images (due to oversampling) is the RED camera. But it would cost about $33,000 for a stripped-down version.

Robert Adams · July 12th, 2008, 02:32 AM

Dennis, have you looked at the Sony HVR S270? I haven't seen one yet, but it appears to have a lot of really key features - including a "pro" form. I'm starting to think about upgrade/renewal options from my HD111 for about this time next year. I'll be looking for integrated tapeless recording with optional tape back up (I really don't need the duct tape and external firewire to a Firestore bodged on the top of the camera solution to tapeless recording that we are stuck with on the ProHD).

Plus I also want a pro ergonomic form factor, interchangeable lenses, 1080 format but with as many other options as possible, for around the USD10k / GBP6k mark. Far as I can see, the HVR S270 hits all the right buttons for me. If you do get a look at one, I'd really like to hear what you think of it compared to the JVC ProHD.

Dennis Robinson · July 12th, 2008, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Adams

Dennis, have you looked at the Sony HVR S270? I haven't seen one yet, but it appears to have a lot of really key features - including a "pro" form. I'm starting to think about upgrade/renewal options from my HD111 for about this time next year. I'll be looking for integrated tapeless recording with optional tape back up (I really don't need the duct tape and external firewire to a Firestore bodged on the top of the camera solution to tapeless recording that we are stuck with on the ProHD).

Plus I also want a pro ergonomic form factor, interchangeable lenses, 1080 format but with as many other options as possible, for around the USD10k / GBP6k mark. Far as I can see, the HVR S270 hits all the right buttons for me. If you do get a look at one, I'd really like to hear what you think of it compared to the JVC ProHD.

Hi Robert,
I have had a look and play with one and it does look good. The only trouble is it only has 1/3 chips. Apart from that it does look better.

Robert Adams · July 12th, 2008, 03:12 AM

Dennis, the one bit of data I can't find anywhere is the actual physical size of the 270. How does it compare to the HD111? bigger, smaller? weight and balance? There's a review of the
HVR Z7, which seems to use much the same chipset and so on as the 270, here:

http://www.videolifestyle.com/reviews/z7/z7.html

From that, it looks like the 1/3" CMOS chips have got pretty good numbers. Certainly better than what we are used to on the ProHD series (not that that is hard to achieve!)

Dennis Robinson · July 12th, 2008, 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Adams

Dennis, the one bit of data I can't find anywhere is the actual physical size of the 270. How does it compare to the HD111? bigger, smaller? weight and balance? There's a review of the
HVR Z7, which seems to use much the same chipset and so on as the 270, here:

http://www.videolifestyle.com/reviews/z7/z7.html

From that, it looks like the 1/3" CMOS chips have got pretty good numbers. Certainly better than what we are used to on the ProHD series (not that that is hard to achieve!)

Hi Robert,
Thats a tough one to answer. It looks like the larger XDCAM HD Sony but a lot smaller (like it's fallen from a tree before it was picked) I would say it is smaller than the Pro HD but hard to say as mine is rigged up with matt box etc and battery so it is much larger than normal. The Sony does look like a decent pro camera ENG look but smaller. I never took it off the tripod so cant say as to balance and feel etc.

Robert Adams · July 12th, 2008, 03:33 AM

Thanks mate. As I said, it'll be a year or so till I'm ready to upgrade, and maybe by then JVC will have come up with an integrated tapeless recorder. My vote would be for a unit that fits into the OE battery mount, and has a V-lok or AB battery mount at the back.. I'm sure they could come up with something like that. No external wires, of course...

I'll make time to have a play with the 270 next time I'm up in the real world.

All the best.

Adam Letch · July 13th, 2008, 08:58 PM

had a look at the same camera as Dennis though we missed each other, definitely looks the part, the standard lens I found quite odd though, odd focusing ring, and placement of the ring, also this is interlaced camera only I think??
And like everybody else, the look of the JVC gets attention (sometimes unwanted in doco circumstances), and as talent mentioned the other day on a TV series I'm shooting, it makes them switch-on when the JVC points at them.
Even though obviously we've already invested in the JVCs, there would be an obvious need for JVC to implement a 1/2inch version at minimum, and 1080p support as well. But having said that, we might regain a lot of ground with the new convergent design SDI box and record to 100mbps at 4:2:2, and maybe even shoot 3 to 6db with minimum noise with the advantages of shooting with this product to keep up in the short term.

cheers

Adam

Robert Adams · July 14th, 2008, 04:27 AM

Hi Adam.

I know the JVC is a good looking camera, though it is still a toy compared to a HDW 750 or a AP 400. Personally i would always prefer a shoulder mounted cam for my main unit, and a pocket handicam for the discreet stuff.

Interesting comments about the OE lens; I wonder how the fujinon 13x would work on the 270? Should be ok, I guess.

And yes, there's lots of ways of adding on to the JVC and making it better. But ultimately there are a handful of more or less unchangeable limitations; for instance - 1/3" chips make for lousy low light and radical depth of field issues in dusty conditions. The 6 pin firewire connector is riddled with problems (getting knocked, loose fitting, prone to blowing, on the side of the camera so vulnerable.. you know, all that stuff). And (without wanting to sound flash) it's not an expensive bit of kit really. I always assumed that it would be an interim measure. Technology and standards are moving too fast for it to be worth my while spending 40k on a new camera like I used to ten, twelve years ago. These days I'd rather spend ten and upgrade every couple of years.

Mine has paid for itself three times over, after 18 months. If I can keep it going for another year, I'll be ready to move on up. At that point, I'll be looking for a camera that does not need anything duct-taped to the side to make it do what I want. Sure, maybe JVC will have done the smart thing and come up with a SxS or SD card + tape system. Maybe they will have sorted out their differences with Apple, and designed a codec that works seamlessly with FC Pro. Maybe they will use a rear mounted 4 pin firewire jack, not a side mounted 6 pin firewire. Maybe they will finally get round to fitting the audio XLR sockets so they point up, not out, or fitting the mic with a 90 degree XLR plug.

Whatever, I'll be looking to chuck 12k+ of my own hard-earned cash at a camera that is smart, light enough to be comfortable, big enough to be solid on the shoulder, flexible, looks good, is robust, has good low light capability, and is at home filming wildlife in the Zambezi valley, a beer commercial in Durban, or being hauled in and out of a Humvee wherever...

If JVC make that camera, well and good. If Sony make it, I guess I'll be buying Sony!

And the beauty is, a year is a LONG TIME in this business! I'm sure that someone will be making pretty much precisely what I want by the time I come to deploy my credit card at the problem.

David Knaggs · July 25th, 2008, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dennis Robinson

... knowing full well that the Sony EX1/3 is a much better camera or buy the Sony and try to pimp it up a bit so that it looks professional.

Hi Dennis.

I was taking a closer look at the PMW-EX3 and noticed that it's form factor seems quite different to the PMW-EX1. For one thing, it is about 3 1/2 inches longer than the EX1. That's quite a difference in terms of the "impress the client" stakes. And they seem to have made a large enclosure around the LCD screen to act as a sort of viewfinder. That also tends to make it look bulkier and more "impressive". Of course, to know for sure you'd have to take a look at it "in the flesh" when it's released next month.

And during the week, I was told by a Sony rep that there will be a hard drive attachment (60 GB or something) to place on the camera as an alternative to the expensive SxS cards. If you mounted that drive on the very back of the EX3 (similar to the way an A-B battery mounts on the JVC 101/111E) you could have a fairly impressive (to corporate clients) rig which would shoot 1080p on 1/2" chips.

Dennis Robinson · July 25th, 2008, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Knaggs

Hi Dennis.

I was taking a closer look at the PMW-EX3 and noticed that it's form factor seems quite different to the PMW-EX1. For one thing, it is about 3 1/2 inches longer than the EX1. That's quite a difference in terms of the "impress the client" stakes. And they seem to have made a large enclosure around the LCD screen to act as a sort of viewfinder. That also tends to make it look bulkier and more "impressive". Of course, to know for sure you'd have to take a look at it "in the flesh" when it's released next month.

And during the week, I was told by a Sony rep that there will be a hard drive attachment (60 GB or something) to place on the camera as an alternative to the expensive SxS cards. If you mounted that drive on the very back of the EX3 (similar to the way an A-B battery mounts on the JVC 101/111E) you could have a fairly impressive (to corporate clients) rig which would shoot 1080p on 1/2" chips.

Thanks David,
I feel that would work. A bellows matte box on the front would also help.

July 9th, 2008, 09:05 PM	#1
Dennis Robinson Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Perth, Australia Posts: 250	wide angle lens hi, I have the JVC111 and have recently hired the Fujinon 13x lens which was amazing. I also tried the new Sony EX1 to try out and was amazed that the standard lens was almost as wide as the 13x Fujinon. I can imagine that the EX1 with the WA conversion lens would be as wide as the JVC with the 13x. Can anyone help with the answer? The JVC with the 13 x lens is really good with low light and it made a huge difference. The EX1 also excels in low light performance and of course the LCD is fantastic. Pointing the JVC in my lounge in the evening produced almost black images while I almost dropped dead when i turned the EX1 on. I couldnt believe the low light capabilities in comparison. To be honest, I hate the small form brick look of the Sony camera. The trouble is what do i do? i have had a taste of the advantages of the Sony over the JVC but need to use wide angle for my work. Do I buy the Fujinon and keep the JVC? Or do I buy the new EX3 which is ugly but has amazing LCD, wide angle lens in standard form and amazing low light. The vision of 1080P is so much better than 720P. I feel confused. Any advice? __________________ Dennis Robinson G5, , 30 inch display, FCP6 Studio 2, JVC-GYHD111

July 11th, 2008, 03:50 AM	#2
Dennis Robinson Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Perth, Australia Posts: 250	Gee,. is there no one that has compared these 2 cameras? __________________ Dennis Robinson G5, , 30 inch display, FCP6 Studio 2, JVC-GYHD111

July 11th, 2008, 09:08 PM	#5
Dennis Robinson Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Perth, Australia Posts: 250	Hi, I guess I didn't really ask the right question. I accept that the Sony is much much better in low light but I have the dilemma where I love the look of my JVC and with the 13x lens I am up for $10,000 while I can buy the ugly Sony EX1/3 and have amazing low light capabilities, 1080P, an excellent LCD which has to be seen to be believed plus I believe the wide angle lens that comes complete at just a few grand more. I do this for a living and while i know a lot of people like the small form of the Sony, I just can't turn up to shoot a corporate video and have the respect of the client with what looks like a consumer cam. I feel that I could fit it out with matte box etc and give it a bit more pro look. I know a lot of people will say that it's the image that is more important and the Sony will certainly kill the JVC, but if a client is paying $5000 upwards for a video or commercial to be produced they like to be impressed with the gear one uses. It is different if it is just a hobby. I just wonder if it's best to keep the JVC and buy a 13x lens knowing full well that the Sony EX1/3 is a much better camera or buy the Sony and try to pimp it up a bit so that it looks professional. I am not so worried of the cost, as the camera will well and truly pay for itself in a month. I am a true JVC fan but the Sony in 1080P on a HD plasma is unreal. The Sony footage in 720P is similar on the plasma to the JVC. Any ideas? __________________ Dennis Robinson G5, , 30 inch display, FCP6 Studio 2, JVC-GYHD111

July 12th, 2008, 02:32 AM	#7
Robert Adams Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Harare Zimbabwe Posts: 162	Another option Dennis, have you looked at the Sony HVR S270? I haven't seen one yet, but it appears to have a lot of really key features - including a "pro" form. I'm starting to think about upgrade/renewal options from my HD111 for about this time next year. I'll be looking for integrated tapeless recording with optional tape back up (I really don't need the duct tape and external firewire to a Firestore bodged on the top of the camera solution to tapeless recording that we are stuck with on the ProHD). Plus I also want a pro ergonomic form factor, interchangeable lenses, 1080 format but with as many other options as possible, for around the USD10k / GBP6k mark. Far as I can see, the HVR S270 hits all the right buttons for me. If you do get a look at one, I'd really like to hear what you think of it compared to the JVC ProHD.

July 13th, 2008, 08:58 PM	#12
Adam Letch Major Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 414	Hey Robert had a look at the same camera as Dennis though we missed each other, definitely looks the part, the standard lens I found quite odd though, odd focusing ring, and placement of the ring, also this is interlaced camera only I think?? And like everybody else, the look of the JVC gets attention (sometimes unwanted in doco circumstances), and as talent mentioned the other day on a TV series I'm shooting, it makes them switch-on when the JVC points at them. Even though obviously we've already invested in the JVCs, there would be an obvious need for JVC to implement a 1/2inch version at minimum, and 1080p support as well. But having said that, we might regain a lot of ground with the new convergent design SDI box and record to 100mbps at 4:2:2, and maybe even shoot 3 to 6db with minimum noise with the advantages of shooting with this product to keep up in the short term. cheers Adam

July 11th, 2008, 05:34 PM	#3
Carlos Rodriguez Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Modesto, California Posts: 206	the sony uses larger chips. bigger image sensor means more light captured. that's why it looks better in low light.

July 11th, 2008, 08:47 PM	#4
Steve Oakley Trustee Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: United States Posts: 1,158	larger chips doesn't always equate to better light sensitivity and here's why - with a smaller chip, you focus the image from the lens into the smaller area of the chip, thereby increasing the photons / mm2 so that in the end, it comes out about even assuming that the sensors are made from the same basic fabrication. where there is a difference is between SD and HD sensors of the same physical size. in this case the photons/mm2 is the same, but the sensors are smaller. that said, there is a lot of adjustment on the HD100 which can dramatically change the look of the camera and its light sensitivity level. gamma and black stretch can make a VERY big difference in how the camera performs in low light.

July 12th, 2008, 03:12 AM	#9
Robert Adams Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Harare Zimbabwe Posts: 162	Dennis, the one bit of data I can't find anywhere is the actual physical size of the 270. How does it compare to the HD111? bigger, smaller? weight and balance? There's a review of the HVR Z7, which seems to use much the same chipset and so on as the 270, here: http://www.videolifestyle.com/reviews/z7/z7.html From that, it looks like the 1/3" CMOS chips have got pretty good numbers. Certainly better than what we are used to on the ProHD series (not that that is hard to achieve!)

July 12th, 2008, 03:33 AM	#11
Robert Adams Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Harare Zimbabwe Posts: 162	Thanks mate. As I said, it'll be a year or so till I'm ready to upgrade, and maybe by then JVC will have come up with an integrated tapeless recorder. My vote would be for a unit that fits into the OE battery mount, and has a V-lok or AB battery mount at the back.. I'm sure they could come up with something like that. No external wires, of course... I'll make time to have a play with the 270 next time I'm up in the real world. All the best.

July 14th, 2008, 04:27 AM	#13
Robert Adams Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Harare Zimbabwe Posts: 162	Hi Adam. I know the JVC is a good looking camera, though it is still a toy compared to a HDW 750 or a AP 400. Personally i would always prefer a shoulder mounted cam for my main unit, and a pocket handicam for the discreet stuff. Interesting comments about the OE lens; I wonder how the fujinon 13x would work on the 270? Should be ok, I guess. And yes, there's lots of ways of adding on to the JVC and making it better. But ultimately there are a handful of more or less unchangeable limitations; for instance - 1/3" chips make for lousy low light and radical depth of field issues in dusty conditions. The 6 pin firewire connector is riddled with problems (getting knocked, loose fitting, prone to blowing, on the side of the camera so vulnerable.. you know, all that stuff). And (without wanting to sound flash) it's not an expensive bit of kit really. I always assumed that it would be an interim measure. Technology and standards are moving too fast for it to be worth my while spending 40k on a new camera like I used to ten, twelve years ago. These days I'd rather spend ten and upgrade every couple of years. Mine has paid for itself three times over, after 18 months. If I can keep it going for another year, I'll be ready to move on up. At that point, I'll be looking for a camera that does not need anything duct-taped to the side to make it do what I want. Sure, maybe JVC will have done the smart thing and come up with a SxS or SD card + tape system. Maybe they will have sorted out their differences with Apple, and designed a codec that works seamlessly with FC Pro. Maybe they will use a rear mounted 4 pin firewire jack, not a side mounted 6 pin firewire. Maybe they will finally get round to fitting the audio XLR sockets so they point up, not out, or fitting the mic with a 90 degree XLR plug. Whatever, I'll be looking to chuck 12k+ of my own hard-earned cash at a camera that is smart, light enough to be comfortable, big enough to be solid on the shoulder, flexible, looks good, is robust, has good low light capability, and is at home filming wildlife in the Zambezi valley, a beer commercial in Durban, or being hauled in and out of a Humvee wherever... If JVC make that camera, well and good. If Sony make it, I guess I'll be buying Sony! And the beauty is, a year is a LONG TIME in this business! I'm sure that someone will be making pretty much precisely what I want by the time I come to deploy my credit card at the problem.