Where or when is the HZ CA13U ?

[Brian Drysdale]

You can only tell if something is worth the money when you see the figures for developing the product. From what I've read this hasn't been that easy - the simplest route would been some form of ground glass device. However, most of the cheaper adapters to date use the stock zoom lens that already has CA.

The cost is compatible with the new cost of PL mount lenses that you'd be using. Although, Optar prime lenses cost around $2600 each, the Zeiss Master Primes are listed at over $18,000 each. I haven't seen a quality second hand PL mount lens for $400.

The sales volume will also need to be factored in: only a small percentage of JVC cameras will be using these adapters. JVC seem to see film schools that already have 16mm camera kits as a potential market. They'll be aiming it at low budget features and dramas, which can't afford the higher end HD cameras, but have enough to put higher quality glass onto the cameras. Although, it'll be reduced gap using a HD250 with the adapter and extremely basic rigs from RED and SI.

I'd imagine JVC see the Mini 35 as the pricing point.

[Sean Adair]

The R&D that went into this product are certainly extensive, and with a fairly limited market probably this amortization is a larger part of the price than the manufacturing.

However, perhaps the research could be applied to a new, similar product for a wider lower-end market at a lower price point, keeping this for it's specialized area (film schools, rental houses, larger budget films).

I'm thinking about a nikon 35mm slr lens mount with this optical path. Ideally we'd want to have the 35mm frame resolved on the 1/3" chip, but even if it were 16mm equivalent for DOF, which is what my admittedly non-expert understanding is what would occur with the current optics and 35mm lens - it would still be very useful.

It really is much more attractive than using a standard lens/moving ground glass based adapter. If they could make it for $1500 everyone with this camera series would be looking at it (and the market for used mf nikon lenses on ebay would blow way up!)

[Carlos E. Martinez]

Whatever the argumnts used to justify the JVC adapter, I agree with Robert completely on that its price is totally disproportionate with its potential market placing.

Paying for the adapter almost as much as the camera itself is completely crazy.

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Carlos E. Martinez

Whatever the argumnts used to justify the JVC adapter, I agree with Robert completely on that its price is totally disproportionate with its potential market placing.

Paying for the adapter almost as much as the camera itself is completely crazy.

With people wanting to put 35mm motion picture prime lenses on 1/3" CCD cameras that cost a 1/4 or even less the price of the lens. It's all depends on how disproportionate you want to get. Personally, I'd go to a 2/3" CCD camera first.

The HZ CA131U does make a bit more sense on the HD 200 and DH 250 than the HD 110.

Unfortunately, the more specialized kit becomes, the smaller the volume of production and so it only gets manufactured in small batches.

[David Cubbage]

You should think yourselves lucky living in the US. I live in the UK and the price I was quoted for the adapter was £5000 + 17.5% VAT. That equates to 9,806 USD. I often ask myself how much longer must we pay higher prices for our equipment here in the UK?

[Carlos E. Martinez]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

With people wanting to put 35mm motion picture prime lenses on 1/3" CCD cameras that cost a 1/4 or even less the price of the lens. It's all depends on how disproportionate you want to get. Personally, I'd go to a 2/3" CCD camera first.

First of all, I agree with your "going to a 2/3" camera first" argument.

In this case, the adapter was made for 16mm lenses, not 35mm. And I believe the reasoning behind the price tag might be "compared to 16mm film camera", or something like that.

These adapters should be extensive to 35mm photo lenses, when the high price argument crumbles down.

The HZ CA131U does make a bit more sense on the HD 200 and DH 250 than the HD 110.

Unfortunately, the more specialized kit becomes, the smaller the volume of production and so it only gets manufactured in small batches.

With other adaptors, like the M2, in the vicinity of $1,200, I don't see why prices can't be there for JVC too. In fact the RedRock might have a smaller volume than JVC.

[Tim Dashwood]

Originally Posted by Robert Schaller

1) how did JVC establish the price for this? I've been puzzled to see reaction here that this price is reasonable, but then it gets compared to other film-video lens adapters and, indeed, they are expensive. But then, is this just a price that was picked because that's what everyone else is charging, or is it a meaningful reflection of how much it costs JVC to produce? I know it sounds old fashioned to say it, but shouldn't prices reflect production costs and not just how much the market will bear?

I don't know, but I would imagine they made the price as low as possible to still justify the extensive R&D and production costs that went into it. You can't really compare the JVC adapter to any of the 35mm ground glass adapters on the market (even the P+S mini35 at $9000+) It is totally different in almost every respect. The closest comparitive product is the Angenuix/Zeiss CLA-35, which I believe sells for around $30,000.

Originally Posted by Robert Schaller

2) by pricing it this high, JVC has dramatically reduced the number of them that will sell. Why not charge less, and sell more units?

This product is all about optical quality. It is designed for those renting Zeiss, Century, Cooke PL lenses, not some old SLR lens you find on ebay. Will it appeal to the MASS market? Probably not.
I think Redrock, Brevis, Letus, etc will still enjoy great success that segment of the market. The market of the HZ-CA13U will be film schools, small production companies (music videos, pilots, commercials,) even corporate/industrial production companies. The ability to use high quality prime lenses (as well as snorkels, shift/tilts, anamorphics, etc) and resolve an unaberrated resolution as good as the Fujinon 13x3.5mm lens ($12000?) will be the main selling feature. The ability to use longer focal lengths than 1/3" to achieve shorter DoF, and the ability to shoot in low-light, is just the icing on the cake.

Originally Posted by Robert Schaller

3) so, it's essentially a relay lens, that reprojects a focused lens image onto the camera's sensor. That's complicated, and also relatively bulky. Why not make a simpler adapter that accepts a pl lens (or a c-mount, for that matter) and changes the back-focal length so that it hits the camera sensor directly? Granted, I am not particularly knowledgeable about optics, but is this not a simpler idea (to have just the camera sensor focal plane) than a full-on relay lens system that essentially results in two (matching) focal planes? Couldn't such an adapter be less bulky, have fewer optical elements, and be less expensive?

Zörk and Les Bosher make simple mechanical lens adapters for Nikon, Canon, PL, etc. There is nothing wrong with that except that lenses designed for film (especially 35mm) do not perform well in split prism CCD systems, and you won't gain the benefits of longer focal lengths. You mentioned the bad chromatic aberration of the stock zoom lens... and that lens was designed for the system! 3-CCD prisms require very well aligned glass. I'd imagine that the bulk of the R&D for the HZ-CA13U went into correcting the aberration due to the general incompatibility of film lenses and 3-CCD prisms. Keep in mind that the circle of confusion of a 1/3" CCD is probably less than half that of 35mm film, and the Depth of Focus (not to be confused with Depth of Field) is even more critical in a CCD prism system.

Originally Posted by Robert Schaller

4) could JVC make something simpler (in addition to the HZ CA13U, now that it's developed), like the above, that didn't work so hard to preserve the focal length and depth of field properties of the original 16mm lens? A 1/3" sensor is more like a Super-8 frame than 16mm, so clearly this required some doing. Why not just make the simplest possible adapter, and let the user compensate for differences? What they've released, by all reports, works really well, but for me it doesn't work at all since I don't -- and likely won't -- have one. So, why not also make a cheaper version that would allow the rest of us to at least be able to use our better lenses, even if the focal length and dof are changed?

Actually, 1/3" is around 75% the size of Super-8. See my response to #3 above or send an email to Les Bosher and/or Zörk. They have both made Nikon adapters for JVC's 1/3" mount. JVC also has a history of making fairly high quality Nikon and C-Mount adapters for the 2/3" bayonet mount. Using the ACM-17 1/3" to 2/3" adapter one of these adapters would fit perfectly, and maintain a focal length for focal length relationship to 1/3". I own some of the C-Mount adapters.

Originally Posted by Robert Schaller

5) could anyone out there convince me that this adapter really is worth the money, and that I ought to find it and buy one?

JVC is taking it on the road so you can get up close and personal. Dallas is the first stop next week, and I think they are going to 7 other cities soon. I am providing footage of my detailed tests with DoF charts for a wide range of lenses and focal lengths (Cooke S4, Zeiss Ultra Speeds, Zeiss Super Speeds, Zeiss "regular" T2.1, Century 6mm, Clairmont anamorphics, etc.) as well as practical tests.
I reviewed it for Videography magazine and that article should be in the next issue. I will also provide supplemental samples on my website when that review is published.

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by David Cubbage

You should think yourselves lucky living in the US. I live in the UK and the price I was quoted for the adapter was £5000 + 17.5% VAT. That equates to 9,806 USD. I often ask myself how much longer must we pay higher prices for our equipment here in the UK?

You can always import kit yourself from the US, although you'll have to pay the import duty and VAT. It's also worth ringing around the UK dealers, you'd be surprised how much variation there can be amongst the well known dealers.

US prices tend not to include the sales taxes, which can come as a surprise if you're not expecting them.

[Steven A. Ellison]

So with the 16mm adaptor, is the image in the 110U flipped?

[Carl Hicks]

Originally Posted by Steven A. Ellison

So with the 16mm adaptor, is the image in the 110U flipped?

Yes, the image will be flipped on the HD100 or HD110

[Joshua Litle]

Hi Carl,

Can you list the US rental houses that have purchased the adapter for rental? Thanks.

[Joe Carney]

For those that don't know, if you have cineforms' hdlink for either Aspect or the new Neo codec, it will 'flip' it back to upright during capture from tape. So in theory, you can use this with the HD100, just have to turn your monitors upside down for preview.