Extensive HD100 / Mini35 Hands-On Test: Articles, Photos and HD Video

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Barry Green

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.

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

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 :)

[Charles Papert]

Originally Posted by Stephen van Vuuren

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 van Vuuren]

Originally Posted by Charles Papert

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.

[Michael Maier]

Originally Posted by Stephen van Vuuren

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.

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Originally Posted by Michael Maier

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.

[QUOTE=Michael Maier]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).

Originally Posted by 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.

[Michael Maier]

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.

[Jiri Bakala]

Originally Posted by Stephen van Vuuren

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.

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Originally Posted by Jiri Bakala

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.

[Jiri Bakala]

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.

[Jiri Bakala]

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

[Barry Green]

Originally Posted by Michael Maier

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.

[Charles Papert]

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

[Michael Maier]

Thanks Barry and Charles.

[Robin Hemerik]

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 ;)