Sony NEX-VG10 AVCHD E-Mount Lens Camcorder

[Robert Young]

Originally Posted by Dave Blackhurst

This may turn out to be one of those places where the already prolific E mount adapters come in quite handy... when you have a wide selection of possible lenses via adapter, it's not so important what "mount" your imager has, only that it has the desired qualities for recording what passes through the lens.

That's definitely a good work around. All my Nikon lenses have aperature rings.
But, it's just one more detail that makes me wonder if this camera/system is quite ready for prime time yet.
It's quite possible that Sony will expand their E series to faster lenses, prime lenses, etc., but no word on that yet.

[Dave Blackhurst]

And that raises another potential issue, especially for those of us spoiled by the IS of the 500/550 series...

Part of the attraction of the "A" mount was that the camera body contained the stabilization, so you didn't have the added cost in the lenses... I'm pretty sure the NEX series and E mount have the stabilization in the lens... meaning that the adapted lenses wouldn't be stabilized... not a huge problem for a still camera, but a video camera?

I'm guessing there is some IS in the body, but in the notes it says: Active Mode image stabilization feature is within the SEL18200 lens only.

It would appear that at least to some extent that image stabilization will be tied to the Sony E lenses...

[Bill Koehler]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

But, I remember reading K-mounts were also supported. These, I hope were fully manual.

A lot of the more modern Pentax DA lenses do not have an aperture ring - it's expected that aperture will be controlled from the camera body. On the other hand I found this page with accessories supplier Novoflex with a bunch of options...among them the lens to camera adapter supplying the missing aperture ring for the lens.

Novoflex - Adapterfinder

[Robert Young]

Well, that's a cool work-around for the iris problem. Looks like the Germans are ahead of the curve on this camera.
Here is also a hands on review at a German site (Google translated)
Google Translate
The translation creates some ambiguities, but one thing that caught my eye was the observation that the autofocus was sluggish. That's unwelcome.

[William Koenig]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

"you can shoot video only with the lens wide open (not so acceptable)"

Assuming this were to be true -- one could only use shutter-speed to control exposure. On a bright day this might require a speed faster than possible. Of course ND filters could be used.

It seems unlikely Sony would develop an adaptor knowing it would be near impossible to shoot with it. I see no reason a lens with an aperature control would suddenly lose its ability to dial in an aperature.

Perhaps you mean lenses without an manual aperature?

I love Sony products. Probably bought 100s of them in the past 20 years. But, I can easily believe that they would develop this type of adaptor.

Sony made another adaptor not so long ago that wasn't optimum. The LA-100W Z7/Alpha adaptor.

Hook it up to a Z7 and it magnifies Alpha lenses 7x. With no IS.

Alpha system has IS in-camera. On the Z7, IS is in the 412 and 308 lenses.

The footage I've seen is shaky even on a large tripod.

It cost over $600.

Although, that adaptor does have a ring to control the aperture of the Alpha lenses (up to 1.4). So I guess it is possible to design.

But, given the lack of IS on the LA-100W and the apparent lack of aperture control the LA-EA1, per Sony's footnotes, both adaptors seem like an after thought.

Half baked at best, to be frank.

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Robert Young

The translation creates some ambiguities, but one thing that caught my eye was the observation that the autofocus was sluggish. That's unwelcome.

I suspect this was a comment about the still camera's zoom and MAY not apply to the VG10's zoom lens. I hope!

I'm puzzled by the Sony adaptor not allowing control of a lens given it passes the electrical signals. I'm wondering if the footnote applies to AE while shooting.

Hard to believe that when one sets Manual Iris, an attached lens would not read the signal.

PS: About aliasing. I'm not sure any camera that also is intended to take hi-rez stills can have an optical anti-aliasing filter. Which would also open the door to Morie. (SP)

Reading BBC reports it seems low-cost HD camcorders have very simple low-pass filters which are hard pressed to suppress aliasing from really HIGH rez sensors.

[Lawrence Bansbach]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

About aliasing. I'm not sure any camera that also is intended to take hi-rez stills can have an optical anti-aliasing filter. Which would also open the door to Morie. (SP)

Reading BBC reports it seems low-cost HD camcorders have very simple low-pass filters which are hard pressed to suppress aliasing from really HIGH rez sensors.

I believe you are correct. With a sensor pixel count of 14 MP, an OLPF optimized for 1,920 x 1,080 would not yield good results at full sensor resolution.

[Thomas Richter]

Originally Posted by Robert Young

The translation creates some ambiguities, but one thing that caught my eye was the observation that the autofocus was sluggish. That's unwelcome.

Manual translation: "The autofocus is nice and slow, so it will not distract by sudden focus movements during filming. On the other hand, when you press the photo button half way, it jumps to focus. However, the focus cannot be fixed in that mode."

From my understanding they were definitely talking about the kit lens.

Hope that helps,

Thomas

[Robert Young]

Thanks Thomas.
That's an alltogether different message.
Doesn't sound so bad after all.

[Bill Koehler]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

I'm puzzled by the Sony adaptor not allowing control of a lens given it passes the electrical signals. I'm wondering if the footnote applies to AE while shooting.

Hard to believe that when one sets Manual Iris, an attached lens would not read the signal.

I will admit to being quite ignorant about the Sony Alpha mount. I do know that in the case of Pentax K-mount, it is not an electronic signal but a mechanical lever/tab in the lens that is moved by the camera.

I do understand Sony has tried to maintain backward compatibility with Minolta Maxxum lenses, so is Alpha mount in the same boat as Pentax in this regard? Thanks also for the info (Dave Blackhurst) that Sony, like Pentax, has shake reduction built into the body instead of the lens.

[Dave Blackhurst]

IIRC the iris control is electronic, not mechanical - been a while since I reviewed the mount configuration - I know there are two contact configurations, one older with fewer pins, and the current pin config - the old lenses work with the newer pin configuration, just with slightly reduced function/feaure set - I don't recall offhand what exactly isn't there, will have to go dig that up!

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Bill Koehler

I will admit to being quite ignorant about the Sony Alpha mount. I do know that in the case of Pentax K-mount, it is not an electronic signal but a mechanical lever/tab in the lens that is moved by the camera.

I do understand Sony has tried to maintain backward compatibility with Minolta Maxxum lenses, so is Alpha mount in the same boat as Pentax in this regard? Thanks also for the info (Dave Blackhurst) that Sony, like Pentax, has shake reduction built into the body instead of the lens.

More adaptors:

M42 - Sony E-mount Lens Adapter | Bokkeh.com

http://www.bokkeh.com/home/item/8-ltm-e-mount

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

PS: About aliasing. I'm not sure any camera that also is intended to take hi-rez stills can have an optical anti-aliasing filter. Which would also open the door to Morie. (SP)

Reading BBC reports it seems low-cost HD camcorders have very simple low-pass filters which are hard pressed to suppress aliasing from really HIGH rez sensors.

For any camera that has a large high-res sensor and is intended for both high-res stills AND HD video, any optical low pass filtration is likely to be useless. If it was suitable for suppressing video aliasing, it would render the stills unacceptably soft.

It's not impossible to design such a camera (good stills and video) in theory, though it may be stretching current technology to make it viable. Unlike the Canons, it needs to scan the entire sensor at frame rate (not skip most of the pixels) and then downresolve the frames with good lowpass filtration algorithms. It's possible - theoretically.

As a word about the great 24p debate, then whilst I agree with most of what Steve Mullen says in principle (30p is better), then don't forget about world compatability. 24p and 25p can be acceptably changed to each other IF the 4% speed change is accepted. Cinema films at 24fps have been shown on European TVs at 25fps for decades now, after all....

[Steve Mullen]

I agree that 24p is the most flexible although our PAL friends urge us to buy and shoot 25p. Then you can make a BD using 1080i50/25p or slow to 1080p25.

I'm not sure what LCD refresh rate Euro computers use. Is it 50Hz or 100Hz? Or, is it 60Hz. If it's 60Hz there's no problem adding pulldown to 24p. But, how is 25p and 1080i50 displayed???

PS: from a ne-5 review -- "The camera's auto-gain system also did a good job of adjusting sensitivity as sound levels got louder or softer, with no evident "breathing" in transitions from high to low sound levels."

This seems to imply a SMART AGC is being used.

Given the amount of time required for processing a frame of video (33mS), an audio DSP can do a good job of monitoring audio many samples in the future and in the past to better adjust the current sample's gain. These same DSP circuits have made digital hearing aids supposedly so much better.

Sometimes I feel folks continue to think audio works like it did in 1980 even though they are shooting HD in 2010.

[Steve Mullen]

Imagine my happy surprise to find my neighbor has a collection of Minolta lenses -- including the 500mm.