Extensive HD100 / Mini35 Hands-On Test: Articles, Photos and HD Video

[Michael Maier]

Originally Posted by Stephen van Vuuren

I aware of that - my error. To clarify, I meant adaptor for 16mm cine lenses and other lenses that can be found in the $2000 - $ 4000 range. I tend to think quality 16mm glass will do just fine for HDV.

I see. You can be sure adapters will follow.
Watch Optex website. They have a huge selection of adapters available for broadcast, film and the XL series. I'm sure they will come up with something. ;)

[Joe Carney]

>>Now, after having worked with it, I can't wait to get mine. I understand what it can do well, and what it can't do well, and accept it on those terms. It's a big enough leap from what I had (a DVX) that I feel it's worth the $3500 upgrade.<<

Thanks Nate, so you feel you can make quality video within the limits of the camera, as is with all cameras.

Michael, I'm aware of the tremendous drop in cost compared to existing HD, but since it's not the only game in town (never was) it's fare to compare cost issues with other brands like Panasonic and Sony.

My issue was not having to upgrade to SCSI raid drives, the latest greatest CPU, motherboard...but using this camera to get another year out of my existing equipment, plus not having to get a 35mm adaptor to make it useful. If the 16x can work for at least awhile, other adaptors like the micro35 will be out at far less cost the the ps teknik. Then renting glass becomes an affordable , even attractive option. I suppose renting the JVC 13x could be an option too....

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Stephen van Vuuren

My point is that I don't care for JVC decision to sell the camera with a throwaway lens

You have the option of buying the body-only kit without that lens.

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

You have the option of buying the body-only kit without that lens.

I understand, but just like the XL2 failing to ship with a new lens choice (like a nice 5X true manual lens with OIS), I feel the JVC did not make enough effort to have something else than the very expensive 13X wide available (which I don't think it is even for sale right now).

I realize true HD lenses cost big bucks, but for 720p HDV JVC could have worked with someone (Optex etc.) to have a reasonable sub $5000 option available.

Sure, it looks great with mini35 and great glass, but if you don't have it you have to deal with pretty ugly chromatic abberation until other lens choices are available. That's my beef right now.

I'm hoping to be proven wrong as I think Panasonic has a big engineering challenge with the lens and CCDs on the HVX200 delivering quality 1080p and I don't think Sony is near to releasing 24p (or any true progressive scan) cams under $10k.

I love my DVX100a but I really want native 16:9 and resolution greater than DV since 90% of my work screens on 30ft screens in film festivals.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Stephen van Vuuren

just like the XL2 failing to ship with a new lens choice

Drifting off-topic again, but the XL2 *did* ship with a new lens choice; the L-series 20x with focus & zoom presets. Unfortunately it wasn't the lens you wanted though.

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

Drifting off-topic again, but the XL2 *did* ship with a new lens choice; the L-series 20x with focus & zoom presets. Unfortunately it wasn't the lens you wanted though.

I guess the 20x was a "new" lens but I saw it just as the latest revision of the standard XL series lenses with a little more telephoto. But I haven't used it, so what I do I know :)

[Michael Maier]

Stephen, the whole point is that JVC already cut 5,000 off the cheapest HD lens available which cost 15K. The 13x is rumored to cost 10K. 5,000 is already a great drop in price. Just look around. There are SD lenses which cost much more. (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...goryNavigation)

I'm mean, we can all wish as much as we want. I wish Panasonic would sell the Varicam for 20k, I wish Sony would release a HDCAM 1/2" exchangable lens 1080p camera for 10k with lens, but that's not realistic right now.
The thing is glass is not only expensive, but hard to make and engineer. Asking a true HD lens for 5,000, which is a price range where most SD lenses are selling these days, is just not realistic. That's the problem with your approach.

Check this lenses. They are 1/2" SD lenses. Not even 2/3". They all cost over 5,000. Some well over:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...goryNavigation

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...goryNavigation

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...goryNavigation


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...goryNavigation

Asking for a 5,000 top HD lens in this day and age is just asking too much. I think a 10k HD lens is already very cheap. I remember not long ago, HD lenses costing 4 times as much.

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Originally Posted by Michael Maier

Stephen, the whole point is that JVC already cut 5,000 off the cheapest HD lens available which cost 15K.

I think you are missing my point. The lens shipping with could have been substantially better for a few thousand more. Not for $10,000 more, just a few thousand more.

e.g. Make it 10x rather than 16x and increase the price by a $1500.

Unless Barry and others have exaggerated the problems with chromatic aberration, it seems like the bundled lens was engineered poorly.

[Michael Maier]

Originally Posted by Stephen van Vuuren

I think you are missing my point. The lens shipping with could have been substantially better for a few thousand more. Not for $10,000 more, just a few thousand more.

e.g. Make it 10x rather than 16x and increase the price by a $1500.

Unless Barry and others have exaggerated the problems with chromatic aberration, it seems like the bundled lens was engineered poorly.

Look at this:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...goryNavigation

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...goryNavigation

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...goryNavigation

Now how do you expect a HD lens for 5k? You say Optex. Well, they can't do miracles I'm afraid. If Fuji can't, a smaller company sure can't.

The issues you talk about will be worked out. If not in the first bash of cameras, the second. I don't see how they wouldn't. But besides the chromatic aberrations, the lens seems to be fine for it's price. if all you have against it is the chromatic aberrations, then you will be alright after they work it out. But honestly, that's not how your posts come across.
Now you are saying you just would like it be slightly better and slightly more expensive. Well, you know, they can't make one lens grade for each person based on what they want to pay vs the quality they expect. The very botom line is, the HD100 is here and offer 720p. If you don't like it, wait for the HVX200. We will see if it's fixed lens is any better. if it's not, buy a Varicam or Cinealta. If you can't afford them, well, there's only SD left for you then. if you prefer SD than the HD100, go for it ;-)

[Chris Basmas]

I think Stephen is right. Eneryone seems to bite on this "true HD" lens talk, forgetting that in digital photography you can get excellent 8 megapixel "HD" pictures from a $600 zoom prosumer. That's 3x HDV resolution. I see good glass as good glass, no labels attached. Besides, 1/3" lens is not in the same category as 2/3". It's like comparing 35mm to medium format glass. Less glass should cost less money. I bet my 1/2" 20x fujinon (with adaptor) is better than the stock lens. Only problem is, the lens is longer than the body.

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Originally Posted by Chris Basmas

I think Stephen is right. Eneryone seems to bite on this "true HD" lens talk, forgetting that in digital photography you can get excellent 8 megapixel "HD" pictures from a $600 zoom prosumer. That's 3x HDV resolution. I see good glass as good glass, no labels attached. Besides, 1/3" lens is not in the same category as 2/3". It's like comparing 35mm to medium format glass. Less glass should cost less money. I bet my 1/2" 20x fujinon (with adaptor) is better than the stock lens. Only problem is, the lens is longer than the body.

Thanks Chris - I don't buy the "true HD" lens thing either. I've used plenty of nice lenses on 16mm motion and 35mm still that cost $500 to $1500 and had excellent results. The 1/3" inch chips pose challenges, for sure, but I think th FX1 and ZR1 seem to do okay with much less than $10K glass.

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Originally Posted by Michael Maier

Now how do you expect a HD lens for 5k?

The ZR1 fixed glass does fine and clearly it's not $10K glass. I guess we have a design value difference of opinion. I really don't think it's an all or nothing proposition. However, I don't design camera and camera price points for a living - just speaking as a potential buyer. The lens issue is real for me. Perhaps I'm an "aberration" about chromatic aberrations :)

[Chris Hurd]

We shall berate you for your abberations, Stephen. Abbreviated,

[Barry Green]

Originally Posted by Stephen van Vuuren

I think you are missing my point. The lens shipping with could have been substantially better for a few thousand more. Not for $10,000 more, just a few thousand more.

I always get a little antsy when people declare what a manufacturer could or couldn't do. Let's keep in mind that we're not lens engineers. It may turn out that they couldn't do any different with a few thousand; it may turn out that as far as Fujinon was concerned, the 13x lens at $11,995 *is* the lowest-cost full-spec lens they could deliver.

I'm in agreement with most of your points Stephen, I'm just saying that we don't know the lens manufacturing business, and to put words in their mouth isn't necessarily fair to them.

Unless Barry and others have exaggerated the problems with chromatic aberration, it seems like the bundled lens was engineered poorly.

I've posted clips, and I have a lot of stills that someone sent me that I'm not necessarily free to post. I prefer that everyone reach their own conclusion, rather than base it off my opinion -- that's why I conduct tests and post the results. If you see the aberration and think "that's acceptable", then you're empowered to move forward. If you see the aberration and say "holy crap, that's outrageous", then you have a basis to seek alternatives. I think it's outrageous, and that's why I'm pursuing getting a camera engineer to custom-make an Arri Bayonet lens adapter so I can use my Zeiss 10-100 on the HD100... perhaps it'll perform better...

Speaking of which -- is there nobody in England/Wales who has an HD100, who'd be willing to let said engineer handle the camera for a few hours to do some measurements and photos?

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Originally Posted by Barry Green

I'm in agreement with most of your points Stephen, I'm just saying that we don't know the lens manufacturing business, and to put words in their mouth isn't necessarily fair to them.

Valid point Barry. I did mention in a later comment that I'm not a lens engineer and only speaking as potential buyer. However, based on the Sony HDV lens performance it seems reasonable that JVC/Fujinon might have done better. But then again, you are right, maybe not.