the 13x3.5BRMU Fujinon Lens or a 35mm ADAPTER???? - Page 2 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > JVC ProHD & MPEG2 Camera Systems > JVC GY-HD Series Camera Systems

JVC GY-HD Series Camera Systems
GY-HD 100 & 200 series ProHD HDV camcorders & decks.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old December 3rd, 2008, 10:43 PM   #16
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Burbank
Posts: 1,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Luce View Post
No that's just the stock lens with the iris nearly wide open. No tricks.

Just a personal opinion, but I think DOF is excessively obsessed about.
Sergio Leone shot lots with as much light as possible (broad daylight bright) specifically so he could get deep focus shots.

Watch "Once Upon a Time in the West" for example.

I see a lot of movies. Sharpness and good composition is much more important than shallow DOF. Mushy pictures where some parts are less mushy than others is irritating.

If shallow depth of field is most important, one can always smear vasoline around on the lens where you want to lose focus.

I would vote for the HZ-CA13U or the 13x for anything that is going to be seen large in the theater (either film transfer or digital projection). I would stay away from adapters that look through the inferior standard lens.
Jack Walker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2008, 08:07 PM   #17
Major Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: california North and South
Posts: 635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Walker View Post

I would vote for the HZ-CA13U or the 13x for anything that is going to be seen large in the theater (either film transfer or digital projection). .
I'll second that. Another way to get a similar effect is while blocking (staging) make set the background farther away, less colorfull, more subdued lighting etc, as well as using smoke to help seperate the subject from the background without having to use longer lenses. We used that exclusively in 1997's TITANIC for the period scenes.
Alex Humphrey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2008, 02:10 PM   #18
Major Player
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 457
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Spear View Post
Now... I am seriously debating to shoot a feature (low budget) with the 13x3.5BRMU Lens or with a 35mm ADAPTER. I am leaning towards the former... 13x3.5BRMU Lens given the time and the fact that we'll be shooting in the actual locations. I'm shooting with the JVC GY HD 110U and this lens seems to have very good credentials. Tim Dashwood and others who have shot features with the lens swear by it. I'm doing research. I'm a bit doubtful of adapters because of all the extra glass elements and the bulkiness of the stock lens on the 110U. A relay would be in place but I don't know... I think I'll move faster with the lens. A nice wide shot with no barrel effect at its widest is what I hear. What do you think? I appreciate the input.
This my 2 cents. I don't think I would spend my cash on either. When I calculated the cost of 13x3.5 lens, which is $6600 bucks I might as well buy a new Sony EX1.
Robert Rogoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2008, 06:03 PM   #19
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia (formerly Winnipeg, Manitoba) Canada
Posts: 4,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Rogoz View Post
This my 2 cents. I don't think I would spend my cash on either. When I calculated the cost of 13x3.5 lens, which is $6600 bucks I might as well buy a new Sony EX1.
If you like the form factor of the EX1, go for it. I was faced with the reality of having $x to spend and I decided I wanted a shoulder cam with an inexpensive archival media (tape) that accepted industry standard batteries (Anton Bauer) and could power industry standard accessories like on camera lights from one power source. I also specifically didn't want CMOS sensors so I bought two 200's and my JVC PL mount adaptor should be here Monday.

Know HOW you're MOST likely to use your camera and what you expect to be doing 3 years from now and buy accordingly. I expect to be looking at disc based XDCam HD stuff in 2 - 3 years so I wanted ~12v power stuff that I can take forward with me. This isn't the right solution for everybody.

Do I wish I had better low light performance? Sure. DO I wish my stock lens went wider? Absolutely. Am I willing to give up a semi-fullsize shoulder form factor for those? No thanks. The Sony EX's are engineering marvels but I needed a solution that worked for me and MY workflow.

Will I buy a 13x wide? Probably, but not until next year. I need to play with my new PL adaptor for a while first.
__________________
Shaun C. Roemich Road Dog Media - Vancouver, BC - Videographer - Webcaster
www.roaddogmedia.ca Blog: http://roaddogmedia.wordpress.com/
Shaun Roemich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2008, 08:04 AM   #20
Major Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun Roemich View Post
If you like the form factor of the EX1, go for it. I was faced with the reality of having $x to spend and I decided I wanted a shoulder cam with an inexpensive archival media (tape) that accepted industry standard batteries (Anton Bauer) and could power industry standard accessories like on camera lights from one power source. I also specifically didn't want CMOS sensors so I bought two 200's and my JVC PL mount adaptor should be here Monday.

Know HOW you're MOST likely to use your camera and what you expect to be doing 3 years from now and buy accordingly. I expect to be looking at disc based XDCam HD stuff in 2 - 3 years so I wanted ~12v power stuff that I can take forward with me. This isn't the right solution for everybody.

Do I wish I had better low light performance? Sure. DO I wish my stock lens went wider? Absolutely. Am I willing to give up a semi-fullsize shoulder form factor for those? No thanks. The Sony EX's are engineering marvels but I needed a solution that worked for me and MY workflow.

Will I buy a 13x wide? Probably, but not until next year. I need to play with my new PL adaptor for a while first.
Hi Shaun,
I bought the 13 x lens and its the best thing I have ever done. I also could not get my head around using the toy looking EX1 even though I know it is a great camera. the 13x lens has boosted my low light most of all and I will never buy a camera without the true wide angle from now on. It has changed my business so much and has paid for itself many times and i have only had it about 4 months.
__________________
Dennis Robinson
G5, , 30 inch display, FCP6 Studio 2, JVC-GYHD111
Dennis Robinson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2008, 08:36 AM   #21
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia (formerly Winnipeg, Manitoba) Canada
Posts: 4,087
Dennis: I realize the 13x is a true wide angle lens (which inevitably means a short zoom and therefore a short maximum focal length) but do you find that you are ever limited by having a shorter lens? Do you leave the 13x on the camera all the time or use it when you are likely to require the wide side? Does your 16x (or 17x) come out in the field with you? In my TV news days, we kept the "normal" lens on the camera and the "wide" in the truck until we needed it. Curious to see how others use their lenses.
__________________
Shaun C. Roemich Road Dog Media - Vancouver, BC - Videographer - Webcaster
www.roaddogmedia.ca Blog: http://roaddogmedia.wordpress.com/
Shaun Roemich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2008, 09:00 AM   #22
Major Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun Roemich View Post
Dennis: I realize the 13x is a true wide angle lens (which inevitably means a short zoom and therefore a short maximum focal length) but do you find that you are ever limited by having a shorter lens? Do you leave the 13x on the camera all the time or use it when you are likely to require the wide side? Does your 16x (or 17x) come out in the field with you? In my TV news days, we kept the "normal" lens on the camera and the "wide" in the truck until we needed it. Curious to see how others use their lenses.
Hi Shaun,
Good question but I cant tell much difference between the zoom on the 13x or the stock lens. I have never and will never have the need to put the old one back on. As well as having a beautiful wide angle shot, I just love the way it makes footage look from a dolly. Simply stunning. I shoot TV commercials mainly and now I can stand a little back from a business and take a shot whereas before I had to go back across the road to get the business in. At the distance it was impossible to see the signage on the business. I am rapt and the low light benefits are amazing.
__________________
Dennis Robinson
G5, , 30 inch display, FCP6 Studio 2, JVC-GYHD111
Dennis Robinson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2008, 11:06 AM   #23
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,290
You can buy those 13x lenses second hand for around 4500 bucks.
Brian Luce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2008, 06:31 PM   #24
Major Player
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun Roemich View Post
I also specifically didn't want CMOS sensors so I bought two 200's and my JVC PL mount adaptor should be here Monday.
May I require your reason for this statement?
Robert Rogoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2008, 06:42 PM   #25
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia (formerly Winnipeg, Manitoba) Canada
Posts: 4,087
Rolling shutter drives me mad. It may be the future but even the first generation CDs sounded like crap compared to the vinyl UNTIL the manufacturers got it "right".

Oh, and pan and tilt "smear".
__________________
Shaun C. Roemich Road Dog Media - Vancouver, BC - Videographer - Webcaster
www.roaddogmedia.ca Blog: http://roaddogmedia.wordpress.com/
Shaun Roemich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7th, 2008, 03:19 PM   #26
New Boot
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 16
Bruce,
I would sure like to find one used, do you know of any place to look?
mark
Mark Cowherd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2008, 03:12 PM   #27
Major Player
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Luce View Post
A lot of people, probably most people, use stock lens. The 13x is arguably the most high end accessory available for the JVC. It was $9,000 when the camera was a new kid on the block. It's a true luxury item, most learn to love the stock lens.
I was buying a couple of items from B&H, I mentioned popular belief about 13x lens letting more light through. According to B&H this is not true. 13x lens is simply wider lens, that's all. It has exactly same number of F stops. It has a different configuration of the optics allowing more detail to get to the CCD.
Robert Rogoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2008, 04:25 PM   #28
Major Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Rogoz View Post
I was buying a couple of items from B&H, I mentioned popular belief about 13x lens letting more light through. According to B&H this is not true. 13x lens is simply wider lens, that's all. It has exactly same number of F stops. It has a different configuration of the optics allowing more detail to get to the CCD.
Never heard such nonsense. The 13x lens on my JVC111 has made an enormous difference to my camera for low light. Matter of fact, I had an EX1 on loan the other night and there is not much difference between the low light of the Sony compared to the JVC with 13x lens. With the stock lens on the JVC, the Sony EX1 is truly amazing in comparison of low light capabilities.
__________________
Dennis Robinson
G5, , 30 inch display, FCP6 Studio 2, JVC-GYHD111
Dennis Robinson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2008, 04:32 PM   #29
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia (formerly Winnipeg, Manitoba) Canada
Posts: 4,087
It may TECHNICALLY not increase the aperture but a wider field of view MAY allow for more light to hit the CCDs. Don't know.
__________________
Shaun C. Roemich Road Dog Media - Vancouver, BC - Videographer - Webcaster
www.roaddogmedia.ca Blog: http://roaddogmedia.wordpress.com/
Shaun Roemich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2008, 04:50 PM   #30
Trustee
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Allen, Texas U.S.A
Posts: 1,117
Robert,

Good quality lenses give better overall illumination as compared to others. Even if the have the same f stop. A case in point are my nikons which i also use with my JVC. My 85mm f2 renders a darker background than my 80-200 f2.8(this is in theory suppose to be slower).

The 80-200 at 85mm f2.8, which is much more expensive and robust, renders a brighter overall image than the 85mm at f2.

Just as, different brand lenses supposedly marked at same fov values don't exactly have the same fov.

In your statement you are referring to two things, illumination and detail. this are two different qualities. some lenses due to quality, provide more detail and perceived sharpness than others brightness is another quality as well. Both are affected by the quality of the optics.


Ted
Ted Ramasola is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > JVC ProHD & MPEG2 Camera Systems > JVC GY-HD Series Camera Systems

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:41 AM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network