How wide is the HM 100 lens with adapter? at DVinfo.net

Dennis Robinson · May 29th, 2009, 11:40 AM

Hi,
I have a JVC111 with the 13x Fujinon lens and am thinking of the HM100 for a second camera. the only trouble is I need a wide angle lens for real estate video. Does anyone have an idea how wide the HM100 with adapter be compared with the 13x on the JVCHD111.

Robert Rogoz · May 29th, 2009, 01:00 PM

HM100 has 39-390 mm lens in 35 mm equivalent. It depends then what kind of adapter are you going to use. JVC wide angle is 0.7x, which will give you roughly 28 mm. I would not go past 0.6, as it will start giving a "barrel distortion" fish eye effect.
There is a separate discussion on this topic here as well.
Personally I think both JVC and 16x9 are way overpriced. I don't see how a 2 element unit with no autofocus can cost more then a prime lens from Canon or Nikon?
Looks like Nikon was selling a 46 mm converter for their Coolpix 9000 series and I am leaning towards purchasing one. They run in 35-45 bucks range. Someone on this site was going to test the picture quality, but knowing Nikon it should be way better then any JVC proprietary junk.

Jack Walker · May 29th, 2009, 01:34 PM

Here are the wide numbers in 35mm equivalent:

Fujinon 13x lens on JVC cameras:
24 mm

HM 100:
39 mm - standard
27.3 mm - .7x JVC converter (zoom thru)
25.5 mm - Century .65 adapter (not yet released, not zoom thru)
21.5 mm - Century .55 adapter (not yet released, not zoom thru)

for comparison, here is the Canon XH-A1
32.5 mm - standard
24.4 mm - .75x Canon WD-72 converter (zoom thru)
19.5 mm - Century .6x adapter (not zoom thru)

Robert Rogoz · May 29th, 2009, 02:10 PM

Did you test your NIkon lens yet?

Jack Walker · May 29th, 2009, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Rogoz

Did you test your NIkon lens yet?

I'm not the one with the Nikon. I am also waiting to hear how it works.

Dennis Robinson · May 29th, 2009, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Walker

Here are the wide numbers in 35mm equivalent:

Fujinon 13x lens on JVC cameras:
24 mm

HM 100:
39 mm - standard
27.3 mm - .7x JVC converter (zoom thru)
25.5 mm - Century .65 adapter (not yet released, not zoom thru)
21.5 mm - Century .55 adapter (not yet released, not zoom thru)

for comparison, here is the Canon XH-A1
32.5 mm - standard
24.4 mm - .75x Canon WD-72 converter (zoom thru)
19.5 mm - Century .6x adapter (not zoom thru)

Thanks Jack, I dont understand numbers so much but Am I right in thinking that the HM100 with the JVC converter (.7) is almost as wide as my fujinon 13x lens?

Jack Walker · May 29th, 2009, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dennis Robinson

Thanks Jack, I dont understand numbers so much but Am I right in thinking that the HM100 with the JVC converter (.7) is almost as wide as my fujinon 13x lens?

Yes, it's getting close. The HM100 with the .7x converter would be like the 13x zoomed in just a bit.

The 13x at 24mm equivalent is a little wider.

However, the JVC//7x combo is not to far off at 27.3 mm.

A good standard wide angle in 35 mm photography is 28 mm.

The JVC converter gives a nice picture with very little distortion. The HM100 with the full zoom thru .7x should be useful for most things. Then getting a Century .55x adapter for getting really wide in smaller spaces would be a nice addition.

Dennis Robinson · May 29th, 2009, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Rogoz

HM100 has 39-390 mm lens in 35 mm equivalent. It depends then what kind of adapter are you going to use. JVC wide angle is 0.7x, which will give you roughly 28 mm. I would not go past 0.6, as it will start giving a "barrel distortion" fish eye effect.
There is a separate discussion on this topic here as well.
Personally I think both JVC and 16x9 are way overpriced. I don't see how a 2 element unit with no autofocus can cost more then a prime lens from Canon or Nikon?
Looks like Nikon was selling a 46 mm converter for their Coolpix 9000 series and I am leaning towards purchasing one. They run in 35-45 bucks range. Someone on this site was going to test the picture quality, but knowing Nikon it should be way better then any JVC proprietary junk.

Thanks Robert for your help. I am not worried about cost etc as i do this for a living and the camera will pay for itself 4 times over the first month.

Keith Moreau · May 29th, 2009, 11:50 PM

Sorry for the delay. I haven't had time to really test the wide lens and optimizing exposure, focus, etc. Looking at a few seconds I did shoot with it I don't think it's too bad. I'm not jumping to get something else at this time. If you zoom all the way it gets a bit soft, but wide it seems pretty sharp. I believe it does have some multicoating, it seemed fairly clear. I've posted one screen cap, I believe it was fully wide when I shot it.

One thing that bugs me is the kind of crappy plastic threads the put on camcorders nowadays. I think even the EX1 is plastic. You can easily mess up the threads if you screw on and off often under the gun. Also lens adapters don't always have a lot of thread so you're depending on a couple threads on this plastic on the camcorder to hold maybe a pound or 2 of glass. Scary.

I've talked with a bunch of lens adapter makers, they don't seem to be rushing to make a bayonet mount for the HM100. I'd definitely consider something if they did. I'm considering making a bayonet adapter of my own for it.

Shaun Walker · May 30th, 2009, 06:56 PM

Is the JVC 0.7X converter bayonet mount or do you have to tediously screw it on to he 46mm threads (adapter needed? no?) and then again screw it off each time?
(I like shooting more than screwing, in this particular instance!)

Anybody know if the 16x9 .7X wide is slow, screwy screw-on or brisk, better bayonet?

Thanks!

~ Shaun

Matthias Krause · May 30th, 2009, 07:04 PM

they are all screw-ons

Shaun Walker · May 30th, 2009, 07:16 PM

How lame ... Maybe I'll buy an extra HM100 lens hood and make my own screw on. I'll post pics if I do so.

I also will almost certainly be building a basic little handle mount for my HM100 for when I'm doing ultra-portable cam tiny videos for the web and sound is not nearly as important.

Keith Moreau · May 31st, 2009, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaun Walker

How lame ... Maybe I'll buy an extra HM100 lens hood and make my own screw on. I'll post pics if I do so.

I also will almost certainly be building a basic little handle mount for my HM100 for when I'm doing ultra-portable cam tiny videos for the web and sound is not nearly as important.

If you do manage to get an extra HM100 hood let me know, I contacted JVC parts and they don't currently have any HM100 parts in their system.

Shaun Walker · June 1st, 2009, 11:47 AM

I'll post it on here if I ever do that ... though the bayonet/plastic of the lens hood shouldn't be trusted with a heavy wide lens on it, probably, so I doubt I'll do that project after all.

Dan Chung · August 11th, 2009, 11:47 PM

I've just been playing with some old w/a adapters on the hm-100 with success. I bought an 46mm filter, knocked out the glass, then added step up rings from 46mm to 58mm, then 58mm whatever size I needed. Looks great with the Fujinon wide convertor from the GY-HD standard lens, also my trusty Bolex Aspheron convertor.

Dan

May 29th, 2009, 11:40 AM	#1
Dennis Robinson Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Perth, Australia Posts: 250	How wide is the HM 100 lens with adapter? Hi, I have a JVC111 with the 13x Fujinon lens and am thinking of the HM100 for a second camera. the only trouble is I need a wide angle lens for real estate video. Does anyone have an idea how wide the HM100 with adapter be compared with the 13x on the JVCHD111. __________________ Dennis Robinson G5, , 30 inch display, FCP6 Studio 2, JVC-GYHD111

May 29th, 2009, 11:50 PM	#9
Keith Moreau Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Brisbane, California Posts: 530	Nikon WC-E68 early report Sorry for the delay. I haven't had time to really test the wide lens and optimizing exposure, focus, etc. Looking at a few seconds I did shoot with it I don't think it's too bad. I'm not jumping to get something else at this time. If you zoom all the way it gets a bit soft, but wide it seems pretty sharp. I believe it does have some multicoating, it seemed fairly clear. I've posted one screen cap, I believe it was fully wide when I shot it. One thing that bugs me is the kind of crappy plastic threads the put on camcorders nowadays. I think even the EX1 is plastic. You can easily mess up the threads if you screw on and off often under the gun. Also lens adapters don't always have a lot of thread so you're depending on a couple threads on this plastic on the camcorder to hold maybe a pound or 2 of glass. Scary. I've talked with a bunch of lens adapter makers, they don't seem to be rushing to make a bayonet mount for the HM100. I'd definitely consider something if they did. I'm considering making a bayonet adapter of my own for it. Attached Thumbnails

May 30th, 2009, 06:56 PM	#10
Shaun Walker Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Eureka, Calif. Posts: 98	Bayonet mount ?? Is the JVC 0.7X converter bayonet mount or do you have to tediously screw it on to he 46mm threads (adapter needed? no?) and then again screw it off each time? (I like shooting more than screwing, in this particular instance!) Anybody know if the 16x9 .7X wide is slow, screwy screw-on or brisk, better bayonet? Thanks! ~ Shaun

May 30th, 2009, 07:16 PM	#12
Shaun Walker Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Eureka, Calif. Posts: 98	¡ How lame ... Maybe I'll buy an extra HM100 lens hood and make my own screw on. I'll post pics if I do so. I also will almost certainly be building a basic little handle mount for my HM100 for when I'm doing ultra-portable cam tiny videos for the web and sound is not nearly as important.

May 29th, 2009, 01:00 PM	#2
Robert Rogoz Major Player Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bellingham, WA Posts: 457	HM100 has 39-390 mm lens in 35 mm equivalent. It depends then what kind of adapter are you going to use. JVC wide angle is 0.7x, which will give you roughly 28 mm. I would not go past 0.6, as it will start giving a "barrel distortion" fish eye effect. There is a separate discussion on this topic here as well. Personally I think both JVC and 16x9 are way overpriced. I don't see how a 2 element unit with no autofocus can cost more then a prime lens from Canon or Nikon? Looks like Nikon was selling a 46 mm converter for their Coolpix 9000 series and I am leaning towards purchasing one. They run in 35-45 bucks range. Someone on this site was going to test the picture quality, but knowing Nikon it should be way better then any JVC proprietary junk.

May 29th, 2009, 01:34 PM	#3
Jack Walker Trustee Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Burbank Posts: 1,811	Here are the wide numbers in 35mm equivalent: Fujinon 13x lens on JVC cameras: 24 mm HM 100: 39 mm - standard 27.3 mm - .7x JVC converter (zoom thru) 25.5 mm - Century .65 adapter (not yet released, not zoom thru) 21.5 mm - Century .55 adapter (not yet released, not zoom thru) for comparison, here is the Canon XH-A1 32.5 mm - standard 24.4 mm - .75x Canon WD-72 converter (zoom thru) 19.5 mm - Century .6x adapter (not zoom thru)

May 29th, 2009, 02:10 PM	#4
Robert Rogoz Major Player Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bellingham, WA Posts: 457	Did you test your NIkon lens yet?

May 30th, 2009, 07:04 PM	#11
Matthias Krause Major Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 203	they are all screw-ons

June 1st, 2009, 11:47 AM	#14
Shaun Walker Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Eureka, Calif. Posts: 98	I'll post it on here if I ever do that ... though the bayonet/plastic of the lens hood shouldn't be trusted with a heavy wide lens on it, probably, so I doubt I'll do that project after all.

August 11th, 2009, 11:47 PM	#15
Dan Chung Major Player Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Beijing Posts: 665	I've just been playing with some old w/a adapters on the hm-100 with success. I bought an 46mm filter, knocked out the glass, then added step up rings from 46mm to 58mm, then 58mm whatever size I needed. Looks great with the Fujinon wide convertor from the GY-HD standard lens, also my trusty Bolex Aspheron convertor. Dan