older Fujinon widelens suitable? at DVinfo.net

Gabor Heeres · January 25th, 2009, 04:03 AM

On a dutch auctionsite called "Marktplaats", a Dutch daughter of Ebay I found this lens:

Marktplaats.nl > Fujinon 3.8 x 12

It's handling about an older 1/3"Fujinon widelens, the 3.8x12. The cost of it is € 2000, about $ 2300. Will this lens work with the S270E and how will it be performing in addition to the supllied standardlens? And what do you think of the price. Of course i eventually will inspect and pickup the lens personally at the seller.

Steve Phillipps · January 25th, 2009, 04:48 AM

It's a standard definition lens I assume, so you'd have to worry a little about it's HD capabilities. I'm sure it would mount and handle OK, but it seems a little pricey to me. These old SD are really not in demand any more and people are often just giving them away.
Steve

Luc De Wandel · January 26th, 2009, 03:14 AM

The ideal way to get really stunning wide-angle shots is to buy a Canon 5D Mark II still camera. It shoots video in the highest HD-resolution on a full-frame sensor and the price is way below a wide-angle lens for videocamera's. Moreover, if you use a 14mm-lens on that body, you almost get a fish-eye effect. And of course, as an extra, you have a fantastic still camera!

Barry Wilkinson · January 26th, 2009, 06:24 AM

I would suggest the opposite as a stills camera is not designed for video operation. Things like tripod use (panning shots etc) would be really difficult using an LCD screen on the back of a stills camera especially in daylight when you would not be able to see the screen. The camera is ok for now and then use as a video source but operationally is a non starter in my opinion. I suppose it could be ok for a single wide angle shot but then you would have to carry two cameras.

Gary Nattrass · January 26th, 2009, 06:36 AM

But Barry its the way ahead, the still guys use their cameras for video and we take stills to memory stick on our video cameras.
Now lets see the sound recordists with an SQN linked into the stills camera or maybe the stiils camera go on the end of the boom :)

Steve Phillipps · January 26th, 2009, 11:45 AM

Or let's just do video and audio on our mobiles!
Steve

Gary Nattrass · January 27th, 2009, 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Phillipps

Or let's just do video and audio on our mobiles!
Steve

Thats it! thats the way forward then everyone can be a video maker, maybe RED can come up with a fone that has all the features :)

Barry Wilkinson · January 27th, 2009, 09:10 AM

Whats's a fone?
Call me old fashioned but if I want to watch a good programme, I want to watch it on a big screen ,preferably in high definition with top production values (not on my PC ,or mobile ,or some gadget with a 2" screen) I understand these clever items can do loads of exciting things and I am a technology fan myself (speak to my wife!!) but technology doesnt make programmes, people with ideas do. Just because a Japanese genius can produce things that are smaller, faster and more complicated doesnt mean that it has to be the way forward, it may be useful for something like U tube but if thats the future of TV as I understand it then maybe I should pack it all in ( don't all shout "go on then "at once!)
All these developements have their place but do not necessarily show the future of quality TV.

Zach Love · January 27th, 2009, 11:38 AM

Gabor Heeres, the lens could probably work (as long as it is the right mount & cable), but it is probably a softer lens than the stock Sony or Sony's wide lens. Just figure out what it is worth to you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luc De Wandel

The ideal way to get really stunning wide-angle shots is to buy a Canon 5D Mark II still camera. It shoots video in the highest HD-resolution on a full-frame sensor and the price is way below a wide-angle lens for videocamera's. Moreover, if you use a 14mm-lens on that body, you almost get a fish-eye effect. And of course, as an extra, you have a fantastic still camera!

Yeah, but to have full control over focus, shutter & iris you have to pat your head, rub your tummy, sing your ABCs backwards and do your taxes all at the same time. (I won't even mention audio or jello-cam worries on the Canon.)

Sony's VCL308BWH HD wide angle lens is about $300 cheaper than the Canon body (obviously way more if you have to buy new glass for the Canon).

Don't get me wrong, I think the Canon 5D II is an amazing camera. If I had a spare $5k I'd buy one.

But I'm waiting for Canon to mix all the positives of the 5D w/ an XL-series camera, they could easily take the lead over JVC, Sony & Panasonic w/ the release of one amazing camera. Although, Red probably has a better chance of actually shipping one of their new cameras in 2009 than Canon coming out w/ a super still / video camera.

Luc De Wandel · February 3rd, 2009, 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zach Love

Yeah, but to have full control over focus, shutter & iris you have to pat your head, rub your tummy, sing your ABCs backwards and do your taxes all at the same time. .

Hey Zach, I do this all the time when I shoot concerts with my 5D, plus I kneel down on my bare knees every two minutes and say my prayers to Saint Varilite, begging him not to sweep those lights too often into my face.

I must admit that I'm a litte biased here, as I'm going to have to buy the 5D mark II for my business anyway (Concertpix' homepage). For someone who doesn't need the camera for anything else than the wide-angle video application, it's probably not such good deal. But again, the videolens that gets you the equivalent of a high-quality 14 mm-FF-still-lens costs a fortune...

Stuart Nimmo · February 5th, 2009, 06:01 PM

Call me old fashioned …… technology doesn’t make programmes, people with ideas do. Just because a Japanese genius can produce things that are smaller, faster and more complicated doesn’t mean that it has to be the way forward, it may be useful for something like U tube but if that’s the future of TV as I understand it then maybe I should pack it all in (don’t all shout "go on then "at once!)
All these developments have their place but do not necessarily show the future of quality TV.[/QUOTE]

There speaks a BBC trained man! Not Ron Watley at TFS was it Barry? I'm with you all the way mon vieux, let’s sink together.

We haven't seen any technology that successfully (or even unsuccessfully) writes a script, frames shots, lights scenes, constructs or paces sequences, track-lays or even finds ***$$^ budgets for that matter. Yet television channels are stuffed with content ‘crafted’ by folk who clearly think it all exists. That said I’m no Luddite and would bet that the 1080p iStrain, stereo mobile phone with PixelKissing soft-light and ExtendableStork (sic) lapel (lav) mic is just around the corner. The unmissable 5 + 1 free 1 offer with 1 half price!! “U-boat” underwater ffone housing, we would have everything to start-up another fully collapsible television channel. You’re old-fashioned Barry, but not as old fashioned and proud of it as I am … (TFS ‘61)

Luc De Wandel · February 6th, 2009, 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zach Love

Sony's VCL308BWH HD wide angle lens is about $300 cheaper than the Canon body.

I can't find anywhere what the widest-angle focal length (equivalent 35mm) of this lens is. Does anyone here know?

Tom Hardwick · February 6th, 2009, 05:09 AM

24 mm to 192 mm f/1.6 to f/2.4. Nominally.

Luc De Wandel · February 6th, 2009, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick

24 mm to 192 mm f/1.6 to f/2.4. Nominally.

Thanks Tom. 24mm-equivalent is not what I call spectacular wide-angle though. 14mm is. But I imagine a lens like that would cost more than the whole camera... hence my point with the 5D MII: if someone buys the cam anyway and has a 16-35 zoom (like I do), it certainly is the cheapest and still high-quality way to get stunning wide-angle (14mm!) shots. But I have to admit that I too hate the idea of filming with a still camera. Just as I hate the idea of taking pictures with a cell phone. Apple couldn't care less though.

Tom Hardwick · February 6th, 2009, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luc De Wandel

Thanks Tom. 24mm-equivalent is not what I call spectacular wide-angle though.

I agree. It's a 'useful' wide-angle, but certainly to a public raised on dramatic, frightening widies, it's a bit tame. My 17 mm on the Z1 looks pretty good though.

Say - how do you get 14 mm focal lengths out of a 16 - 35 mm zoom?

tom.

January 25th, 2009, 04:03 AM	#1
Gabor Heeres Major Player Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Eindhoven, The Netherlands Posts: 322	older Fujinon widelens suitable? On a dutch auctionsite called "Marktplaats", a Dutch daughter of Ebay I found this lens: Marktplaats.nl > Fujinon 3.8 x 12 It's handling about an older 1/3"Fujinon widelens, the 3.8x12. The cost of it is € 2000, about $ 2300. Will this lens work with the S270E and how will it be performing in addition to the supllied standardlens? And what do you think of the price. Of course i eventually will inspect and pickup the lens personally at the seller.

January 26th, 2009, 06:24 AM	#4
Barry Wilkinson Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Grange over Sands UK Posts: 99	I would suggest the opposite as a stills camera is not designed for video operation. Things like tripod use (panning shots etc) would be really difficult using an LCD screen on the back of a stills camera especially in daylight when you would not be able to see the screen. The camera is ok for now and then use as a video source but operationally is a non starter in my opinion. I suppose it could be ok for a single wide angle shot but then you would have to carry two cameras. __________________ Cameraman BBC and ITV since 1966

January 26th, 2009, 06:36 AM	#5
Gary Nattrass Trustee Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Cornsay Durham UK Posts: 1,992	But Barry its the way ahead, the still guys use their cameras for video and we take stills to memory stick on our video cameras. Now lets see the sound recordists with an SQN linked into the stills camera or maybe the stiils camera go on the end of the boom :) __________________ Over 15 minutes in Broadcast Film and TV production: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1044352/

January 27th, 2009, 09:10 AM	#8
Barry Wilkinson Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Grange over Sands UK Posts: 99	Whats's a fone? Call me old fashioned but if I want to watch a good programme, I want to watch it on a big screen ,preferably in high definition with top production values (not on my PC ,or mobile ,or some gadget with a 2" screen) I understand these clever items can do loads of exciting things and I am a technology fan myself (speak to my wife!!) but technology doesnt make programmes, people with ideas do. Just because a Japanese genius can produce things that are smaller, faster and more complicated doesnt mean that it has to be the way forward, it may be useful for something like U tube but if thats the future of TV as I understand it then maybe I should pack it all in ( don't all shout "go on then "at once!) All these developements have their place but do not necessarily show the future of quality TV. __________________ Cameraman BBC and ITV since 1966

January 25th, 2009, 04:48 AM	#2
Steve Phillipps Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 2,130	It's a standard definition lens I assume, so you'd have to worry a little about it's HD capabilities. I'm sure it would mount and handle OK, but it seems a little pricey to me. These old SD are really not in demand any more and people are often just giving them away. Steve

January 26th, 2009, 03:14 AM	#3
Luc De Wandel Major Player Join Date: May 2008 Location: Knokke-Heist, Belgium Posts: 963	The ideal way to get really stunning wide-angle shots is to buy a Canon 5D Mark II still camera. It shoots video in the highest HD-resolution on a full-frame sensor and the price is way below a wide-angle lens for videocamera's. Moreover, if you use a 14mm-lens on that body, you almost get a fish-eye effect. And of course, as an extra, you have a fantastic still camera!

January 26th, 2009, 11:45 AM	#6
Steve Phillipps Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 2,130	Or let's just do video and audio on our mobiles! Steve

February 5th, 2009, 06:01 PM	#11
Stuart Nimmo Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Paris France Posts: 89	Call me old fashioned …… technology doesn’t make programmes, people with ideas do. Just because a Japanese genius can produce things that are smaller, faster and more complicated doesn’t mean that it has to be the way forward, it may be useful for something like U tube but if that’s the future of TV as I understand it then maybe I should pack it all in (don’t all shout "go on then "at once!) All these developments have their place but do not necessarily show the future of quality TV.[/QUOTE] There speaks a BBC trained man! Not Ron Watley at TFS was it Barry? I'm with you all the way mon vieux, let’s sink together. We haven't seen any technology that successfully (or even unsuccessfully) writes a script, frames shots, lights scenes, constructs or paces sequences, track-lays or even finds ***$$^ budgets for that matter. Yet television channels are stuffed with content ‘crafted’ by folk who clearly think it all exists. That said I’m no Luddite and would bet that the 1080p iStrain, stereo mobile phone with PixelKissing soft-light and ExtendableStork (sic) lapel (lav) mic is just around the corner. The unmissable 5 + 1 free 1 offer with 1 half price!! “U-boat” underwater ffone housing, we would have everything to start-up another fully collapsible television channel. You’re old-fashioned Barry, but not as old fashioned and proud of it as I am … (TFS ‘61)

February 6th, 2009, 05:09 AM	#13
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	24 mm to 192 mm f/1.6 to f/2.4. Nominally.