![]() |
#91 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,269
|
Quote:
I see. You can be sure adapters will follow. Watch Optex website. They have a huge selection of adapters available for broadcast, film and the XL series. I'm sure they will come up with something. ;) |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#92 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Centreville Va
Posts: 1,828
|
>>Now, after having worked with it, I can't wait to get mine. I understand what it can do well, and what it can't do well, and accept it on those terms. It's a big enough leap from what I had (a DVX) that I feel it's worth the $3500 upgrade.<<
Thanks Nate, so you feel you can make quality video within the limits of the camera, as is with all cameras. Michael, I'm aware of the tremendous drop in cost compared to existing HD, but since it's not the only game in town (never was) it's fare to compare cost issues with other brands like Panasonic and Sony. My issue was not having to upgrade to SCSI raid drives, the latest greatest CPU, motherboard...but using this camera to get another year out of my existing equipment, plus not having to get a 35mm adaptor to make it useful. If the 16x can work for at least awhile, other adaptors like the micro35 will be out at far less cost the the ps teknik. Then renting glass becomes an affordable , even attractive option. I suppose renting the JVC 13x could be an option too.... |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#93 | |
Obstreperous Rex
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#94 | |
Space Hipster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Greensboro, NC
Posts: 1,508
|
Quote:
I realize true HD lenses cost big bucks, but for 720p HDV JVC could have worked with someone (Optex etc.) to have a reasonable sub $5000 option available. Sure, it looks great with mini35 and great glass, but if you don't have it you have to deal with pretty ugly chromatic abberation until other lens choices are available. That's my beef right now. I'm hoping to be proven wrong as I think Panasonic has a big engineering challenge with the lens and CCDs on the HVX200 delivering quality 1080p and I don't think Sony is near to releasing 24p (or any true progressive scan) cams under $10k. I love my DVX100a but I really want native 16:9 and resolution greater than DV since 90% of my work screens on 30ft screens in film festivals. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#95 | |
Obstreperous Rex
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#96 | |
Space Hipster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Greensboro, NC
Posts: 1,508
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#97 |
Trustee
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,269
|
Stephen, the whole point is that JVC already cut 5,000 off the cheapest HD lens available which cost 15K. The 13x is rumored to cost 10K. 5,000 is already a great drop in price. Just look around. There are SD lenses which cost much more. (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...goryNavigation)
I'm mean, we can all wish as much as we want. I wish Panasonic would sell the Varicam for 20k, I wish Sony would release a HDCAM 1/2" exchangable lens 1080p camera for 10k with lens, but that's not realistic right now. The thing is glass is not only expensive, but hard to make and engineer. Asking a true HD lens for 5,000, which is a price range where most SD lenses are selling these days, is just not realistic. That's the problem with your approach. Check this lenses. They are 1/2" SD lenses. Not even 2/3". They all cost over 5,000. Some well over: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...goryNavigation http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...goryNavigation http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...goryNavigation http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...goryNavigation Asking for a 5,000 top HD lens in this day and age is just asking too much. I think a 10k HD lens is already very cheap. I remember not long ago, HD lenses costing 4 times as much. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#98 | |
Space Hipster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Greensboro, NC
Posts: 1,508
|
Quote:
e.g. Make it 10x rather than 16x and increase the price by a $1500. Unless Barry and others have exaggerated the problems with chromatic aberration, it seems like the bundled lens was engineered poorly. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#99 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,269
|
Quote:
Look at this: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...goryNavigation http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...goryNavigation http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...goryNavigation Now how do you expect a HD lens for 5k? You say Optex. Well, they can't do miracles I'm afraid. If Fuji can't, a smaller company sure can't. The issues you talk about will be worked out. If not in the first bash of cameras, the second. I don't see how they wouldn't. But besides the chromatic aberrations, the lens seems to be fine for it's price. if all you have against it is the chromatic aberrations, then you will be alright after they work it out. But honestly, that's not how your posts come across. Now you are saying you just would like it be slightly better and slightly more expensive. Well, you know, they can't make one lens grade for each person based on what they want to pay vs the quality they expect. The very botom line is, the HD100 is here and offer 720p. If you don't like it, wait for the HVX200. We will see if it's fixed lens is any better. if it's not, buy a Varicam or Cinealta. If you can't afford them, well, there's only SD left for you then. if you prefer SD than the HD100, go for it ;-) |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#100 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 45
|
I think Stephen is right. Eneryone seems to bite on this "true HD" lens talk, forgetting that in digital photography you can get excellent 8 megapixel "HD" pictures from a $600 zoom prosumer. That's 3x HDV resolution. I see good glass as good glass, no labels attached. Besides, 1/3" lens is not in the same category as 2/3". It's like comparing 35mm to medium format glass. Less glass should cost less money. I bet my 1/2" 20x fujinon (with adaptor) is better than the stock lens. Only problem is, the lens is longer than the body.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#101 | |
Space Hipster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Greensboro, NC
Posts: 1,508
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#102 | |
Space Hipster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Greensboro, NC
Posts: 1,508
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#103 |
Obstreperous Rex
|
We shall berate you for your abberations, Stephen. Abbreviated,
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#104 | ||
Barry Wan Kenobi
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 3,863
|
Quote:
I'm in agreement with most of your points Stephen, I'm just saying that we don't know the lens manufacturing business, and to put words in their mouth isn't necessarily fair to them. Quote:
Speaking of which -- is there nobody in England/Wales who has an HD100, who'd be willing to let said engineer handle the camera for a few hours to do some measurements and photos? |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#105 | |
Space Hipster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Greensboro, NC
Posts: 1,508
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
| ||||||
|
|