Right Tom.

And indoors for getting ready segments I can move closer than I would normally and get some closeups, which I've done, but I hate asking for a minute while I do that. When I'm at very close range and don't have to zoom as much there isn't too much of a problem.

The time it interferes most just happens to be at the time I least need it to; it's that distance between the first row of pews and the wherever the bride and groom are on the altar. As you can imagine I'm not trying for these closeups from the back of the church, but from the front.

Additionally, I find myself pulling back and staying out of the way more than ever as I have matured as a shooter. I have found more and more it is really appreciated when I am barely noticed, and I try to shoot accordingly. Unfortunately with my FX1000 it demands the opposite in many cases.

You might notice a common "thread" in my posts. My "irish" comes out if it seems people act like I'm bashing a camera when I'm in fact complaining about aspects of it. Then I will go overboard in the severity of my tone. What I have figured out finally is that those who are least concerned with the issues I'm concerened with are not wedding videographers for the most part, or they have a completely different shooting style. Now that I have a handle on this it will help me to see the differing points of view.

Jeff, I fully understand your dilemna. I'm actually a bit surprised that you haven't had issues with the autofocus. Since you're often zooming in on faces, that's the one area that I've found the autofocus to pretty 'reliably' fail. To me that would probably be the biggest frustration.

I've learned workarounds for that, but if I were doing wedding videography with a constantly moving subject, even manual focusing or using focus assist, would go south as soon as the subject left the plane that I had last focused on. Obviously the more zoomed you are the more you are subject to focus errors. So it does surprise me this hasn't bothered you. I often see focusing issues with professional HD broadcasts and it bugs me no end.

As to the lens ramping, yes, you could limit your zoom ratio but I understand that the 20X on the G lens isn't as close as you might expect given the very wide image that it starts off with. But I'm wondering if you couldn't just shorten your distance a bit to the subject to fill up the frame before the lens ramping begins.

It would seem to me that you wouldn't have to move up much to approximate the 12X zoom you had with the 2100. To me this is an easier workaround than the rolling shutter issue.

As far as the rolling shutter issue is concerned, I guess we all have different tolerances for different artifacts. As I've mentioned I've looked closely at the rolling shutter issue and it just doesn't bother me as it does some others. Again, the fact that clients don't complain either, shows that many people don't see any significant issue. On the other hand, minor focusing issues bug the hell out of me and might not others. Thus I'm particularly sensitive to the autofocus issues on the Z5/1000. The only shots I was less than thrilled with were a couple of shots of my wife, zoomed up, with a nice shallow depth of field that were slightly out of focus. I'm still learning to focus this beast consistently and effectively.

But with all that said, I've now reviewed my HD footage from San Francisco as well as my SD footage from my first Z5 shoot, and all in all I couldn't be happier. This is a second go-around for this client and I was able to compare some shots in the same environment as I shot with the 2100. The Z5 is simply a much more professional looking image. The CMOS sensors are less prone to flare and have a greater exposure latitude. That, together with the greater sharpness, gives a much nicer image in my opinion. At times it may not have quite the 'hyped' contrast of a 2100, but I actually find that creates a more professional looking image with greater texture and detail.

For you Jeff, the Z7 could be the answer. Good luck.

I have found the auto focus to be a bit slow, but it is nothing that learning to operate the camera better will not fix.

Unfortunately the other two things are not as easily fixed. I did try moving closer to get a closeup during the vows Saturday, but the priest stopped the ceremony and ordered me to leave the altar.

Actually that didn't happen, but I have heard of videographers/ photographers who actually have gone onto the altar during a ceremony. Can you imagine that?

I've seen a number of wedding videos where the videographer did go onto the altar. I guess some don't mind being obtrusive if they got the OK from the priest. I'd feel very uncomfortable doing that.

Yeah, I couldn't do that either...you likely would lose any potential customers in the audience to boot. Additionally I can imagine someone seeing a photo with me in it and asking "who's that guy with a camera up there?".

I think it is morally acceptable for you to do your part in the economic recovery by having a succesful business and continuing to grow your business. If buying a Z7 helps your business and you can afford it, then you should go for it.

Well Greg, as I mentioned I will flip-flop with this decision several times before I decide finally. I feel best when I look at this kind of thing after looking at it from many angles.

Hi Jeff,

Why would you consider the Z7 if it also has cmos? Same rolling shutter issue.

I think I am looking into the XH-A1. I know the low light is not great but at least no Rolling shutter problems and not that severe of a lens ramp. I might have to see if I can rent one and check it out.

Just to put you right Todd - the XH-A1 lens ramping is exactly the same as the FX1000's - f/1.6 to f/3.4 20x zoom.

I would look at the Z7 because of the lens ramping, or lack thereof. It's not gone, but it's much less.

And you are correct to look at the Canon also. I've been amazed at the level of "love" the Canon owners have for their cams.

In my case I know next to nothing about the Canons. All I do know about them is when I see footage shot with them I am usually very impressed. They are great cameras, and initially I didn't look at them because of poor auto focus (so I heard) and relatively poor low-light. I had been waiting for two years for the Sony HD replacement for the VX2100, so I never really looked anywhere else. That might have been a mistake on my part, maybe not.

Now, any Canon users out there don't beat me up because of my statement about the poor low-light...I am not stating that as fact but simply repeating what I heard. I must say I also read a number of people state they thought the Canons were just fine in low light, and from footage I've seen it would seem to be true.

Wow, Tom, that's too bad about the LR on the Canon. Todd you're just having a devil of a time getting this sorted out, aren't you?

Tom is right, I have the A1 and it is f3.4 at the end, my advice is learn how to use the camera, know its strong and weaknesses and use that to your advantage, and research before you buy, rolling shutter and lens ramping has been mentioned every since these camcorder came out, why buy it before you do your research and now hated it, if you think you can live with rolling shutter fine, if you think you can overcome lens ramping by using auto gain or stand a little closer or slower shutter then fine, if not don't buy it.

Just so you know where your particular aperture value comes in the scale, have a look at this line-up of numbers. It shows all the half-stop values between f/1.4 and f/11

1.4 1.7 2 2.4 2.8 3.3 4 4.8 5.6 6.7 8 9.5 11

So a 20x zoom that starts at f/1.6 is actually slightly wider than the half-stop value at f/1.7, but it's f/3.4 is a smaller aperture than the half-stop at f/3.3. This means (in theory) that the lens loses nearly 2.5 stops as you zoom. As a comparison the Z7 loses just over half a stop - impressive for a 12x zoom.

I say 'in theory' because design and production tolerances mean that even if it loses 3 whole stops it will still pass inspection. And if it's a 18.7x zoom it will still pass inspection

tom.

You got that right!!! This is very frustrating. I am with you on the extrme close ups. They are a must and I don't want to fight the lens ramping.

I use GL2's now and I figured I could get past the low light performance of the XH-A1 but not if the lens ramping is the same. I guess the biggest deal breaker on the Sony is the cmos. I can't afford post production time with that problem. What to do, what to do??

How about a Canon CCD cam with interchangeable lenses? No rolling shutter, and your lens ramping is a non-issue.

Wow, why didn't I think of that earlier?

Yeah, that shouldn't set you back more than $6,000-$7,000. :)

New JVC camcorders
 

There will be 2 new JVC camcorders available soon:
JVC Press Release - New Final-Cut-Pro™-Ready Solid State Camcorders

Well the one you'd want to look at is the 700 with 1/3" imagers, but that puppy weighs about 9lbs! I for one wouldn't bother with the 100 with its 1/4" imaging chips. Chips that small will never perform as well as 1/3" or 2/3" imagers. The 100 is supposed to come in at around $4,000, so I have no idea what the price of the 700 would be.

I didn't mention them for the same reasons Ken.

Tom, that is priceless info on the Z7. Great stuff. Thanks for breaking it down.

Rolling shuuter thumbs up
 

On the subject of rolling Shutter I have just edited a dance concert two camera using a Z1 and FX1000.

The concert had a huge light show with lights flashing everywhere and it was really full on.

Happy to report that I had no issues at all with rolling shutter. The two cameras handled the lights the same.

The editing involved a bit of slow motion and I didn't see anything that made me go "Wow look how bad that is" in relation to rolling shutter.

The FX1000 was a little better in low light.

Just to make things even clearer, hopefully, f stops are mathematically derived from the ratio of the iris opening to the focal length.

So you could have two lenses side by side, both with the same focal length and maximum aperture. One could be made of the finest glass and be beautifully multi-coated. The other could be made from cloudy plastic and have dead insects stuck to one of the glass elements.

Guess what - they're both the same specification, but one lens passes a lot more light than the other. OK, now we have two lenses with the same spec but one is made up of 8 elements, the other has four. The 8 element lens is probably better corrected, but it certainly won't pass as much light even if they both claim (accurately) that they're f/2.8.

So real and proper cameras have lenses marked in T stops. T for transmission, and this sorts the men from the boys. Generally a 20x f1.6 zoom won't pass as much light as a 10x f/1.6 zoom simply because there are far more elements in the long zoom's lineup. But if both lenses are marked T 1.6 then they will indeed both pass the same amount of light. The 20 x zoom will be manufactured with a wider maximum f stop to counteract its greater light losses. Bench testing determines the lens' T stop - it has nothing to do with the f stop.

We're sold f stops because it looks more impressive. Remember your lens is still an f/1.6 even with the lens cap on, and it's transmitting no light at all.

tom.

This is a critically important point, and I'm glad you made it. It belongs in the lens ramping discussion as well. Most of those who are most hysterical about this issue seem to fail to understand that the f-number is changing as you zoom, merely because the ratio of iris size to focal length is changing, and you aren't losing my nearly as much light as the numbers would indicate. When you go from, say, 1.4 to 2.8 as you zoom, it only means the focal length has doubled -- you are not really losing 75% of the light -- the iris size is relatively unchanged and your only light loss is as the elements shift (so T-value would change).

As you and others have pointed out, to have no ramping, you'd need a lens with the diameter of a dinner plate -- which the pro studio and sports cameras do, even though they still have relatively small 2/3" chips. And the iris would have to open up dramatically as you zoomed to maintain the same "f-stop."

Most of this hysteria over this non-phenomenon is just uninformed nonsense.

We're indeed fortunate to that you see fit to straighten us out Andrew.

Maybe someone will tell us soon that these things are actually benefits, but that since we don't understand them we can't appreciate them. :)

Wow guys!!! what a wonderful site this is with all the info you can get. You know, you can google everything, but it's not the same, because here, you get people who interact with each other and you "hear" other opinions too. I have learned so much in these forums that I would have never learned anywhere else.

Stelios

I agree Stelios. There is LOTS to learn here!

Not quite on your side here Adam. If your f/1.4 lens has smoothly changed into an f/2.8 lens you'll need to quadruple the light in the room to get the same exposure on your chips.

Or to put it another way. If you can film at f/1.4 with two 100 watt lamps lit (say) then at f/2.8 you'll need to turn on eight 100 watt lamps to get the same exposure. This shows how dramatic a two stop loss can be, and the Z5 loses two stops, wide to tele.

tom.

"This non-phenomenon is just uninformed nonsense" is your opinion!! At the end of the day when you zoom all the way in you loose to much light too be of any benefit plain and simple!!!

Calm down Todd. This situation *only* occurs when light levels are so low that even using +18dB of gain you're forced into using apertures wider than f/3.4. For most of a camcorder's life this just doesn't happen - in fact I'd think that for most filmmakers using ND filters is much more common.

tom.

As you know Tom, I feel similarly as Todd. But what you say it absolutely correct, 90% of the time it is a non- issue, maybe 95%!

I think for typical shooting, for most any typical shooter, it really is not a big deal. I agree on that wholeheartedly. We know that is true because so few complain about it.

On the other hand, for the few of us for whom the indoor extreme closeups at about 10 feet are important, the lens ramping goes from being unimportant to "Oh my God!".

I remember how I freaked out when I discovered it. I didn't even know it existed. There I am about 8 feet or less, and I could not fill my LCD with my bride's face...because the exposure changed and it was unusably dark.

I do feel hopeful with your post Tom re: the V7. That, again was really great info, and for the likes of me it seems like the solution.

I've said how god-awful the rolling shutter can look, and I meant it. But I can and will live with it.

You could be right, but I don't think it scales that way. Going back to your earlier post, if we were talking t-stops that would undoubtedly be true as those are an actual measure of light. But with f-stops, as you pointed out, these are merely numerical expressions of physical measurements and have nothing to do with light transmission. There really isn't an exact link between f number and, say, lumens.

Here's an experiment: Take a wide shot full open (say 1.6) and then zoom in fully. Go to your NLE and zoom up the wide shot so it matches the tele you took in the cam. Even though there are at least two, maybe three, stops difference between either end of the zoom, is the luma of the CU really only 25% of the wide shot? (Obviously you'd have to shoot on full manual with fixed gain and shutter.) I'm betting it isn't, but will happily be proven wrong if it means we all learn something.

After reading the latest postings, and Adams post from yesterday, in particular, I did a test with my Z7. I have a broadcast (style?) Fujinon lens for my Z7. It will maintain f1.4 from full wide to full telephoto. Since I have doubts that anyone's eye is so finely calibrated to tell very minimal exposure differences, I used the zebras to evaluate the exposure. And what I found was that from full wide to full telephoto a grey object would show virtually negligible change throughout the entire range of the lens. And realistically, I would never need to adjust the exposure to compensate for the zoom. No matter what the zoom was, the 70% zebra indicated that the subject was correctly exposed right at f1.6 to f1.7.

That is awesome Greg. Got to get me one.

This is obviously an intentional benefit -- if the lens held at f1.6 through the whole zoom, then the depth of field at 20x, focused on a subject 10 feet away, would be so shallow that you couldn't get the entire face in focus! The tip of the nose to the ears would be too far off the focal plane to be sharp! So that F3.4 is a good thing :-)

Yes, I jest.

-Terence

I thought that was why Sony gave us only 1/3" chips, so the DOF wouldn't be too shallow.

[QUOTE=Greg Laves;1017775]I have a broadcast (style?) Fujinon lens for my Z7. It will maintain f1.4 from full wide to full telephoto./QUOTE]

What is this Fujinon lens you have on the Z7 Greg, and how much zoom does it have? The stock 12x Fujinon that comes with the Z7 most certainly doesn't have an f/1.4 maximum aperture - it ramps from a nominal f/1.6 to f/2.0.

tom.

I'm afraid the answer is yes Adam. In your example the grey card would be correctly exposed at full wide but be two or three stops under-exposed (depending on the amount of ramping built in to your test lens) at full telephoto. It's what Jeff's so upset about, and why he should buy a Z7.

In fact the test you describe is best done like this. Go full wide, max aperture. Fill your frame with a pretty picture, lots of colours and tones. Now step back, zoom to full tele and frame fill the same picture, again using max aperture. Your NLE will be able to 'rescue' this under-exposure to a degree, and give you a numerical readout of the compensation applied.

tom.

tom.

I found this last night.

"What is ramping and why do lenses ramp?
Ramping is when the diameter of the lens glass is not larger enough for a lens to maintain the minimum F No. and therefore it will increase in a linear function. As a result you will see in a lens specification some thing similar to “1:1.8 (4.5 to 41mm), 1:2.6 (59mm)” which means that this lens will hold the F No. of 1.8 until 41mm and than ramp to F 2.6 when the lens is zoomed to 59mm. When lenses are designed there is a compromise between size and weight and performance. There are lenses which do not ramp, like the Fujinon Cine lens HAe12x9.5 which has a flat F1.6 across the whole range but the weight is 10kg."

Stelios

[QUOTE=Tom Hardwick;1018076]Fujinon TH16x5.5BRMU. The standard 12x lens is not a Fujinon. It is made by Zeiss.

Zeiss - of course. Brain-fade this end.

Yes, that's exactly what I was talking about doing, although I was applying a zoom ("stepping back" or actually forward) in the NLE to make the picture composition the same, although your way makes more sense. Has anyone actually done this and put the results on a scope? That's what I'm curious about -- actual numbers rather than anecdotal personal perception polluted by the placebo effect. Some will see the f-number go from 1.6 to 3.4 and panic and assume they are losing 3/4ths of the light, when it may or may not in fact be so. Numbers, man, I need numbers!

I'm wondering if Chris or another Moderator can split this off and append to the ramping thread, as we're really OT at this point.