|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
October 1st, 2005, 09:08 PM
|
#1 |
|
Tourist
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4
|
Wide Angle Options
Hi All
Not sure if anyone has an answer to this one but it sure is worth trying. I am in the process of sorting out a purchase of the HD101. I am a broadcast camera operator who is most familiar with the likes of Digi Beta and DVCPRO cameras. I use 4.5 and 4.8 wide angles on these cameras and consider them a must for alot of jobs. The trouble Im finding with the HD101 is the lack of wide angle options. The pathetic .8x adapter supplied by Fuji is a joke. As for spending more than the camera on a dedicated wide lens also seems crazy. Here are some questions. Has anyone used the .7x adapter by Cavision. www.cavision.com Is it any good? Are there other options for wide adapters? Century etc. I want a matte box that fits both the standard lens and the wide angle. Does anyone know of such a setup? What about the 1/2inch convertor. Is there a 1/2 inch lens that would give you a suitable wide angle option similar to that of a 5.5 or 5.2 on a 2/3 lens? I have been reading about the magnification of the smaller cameras and Im starting to think there isnt a suitable option! (If I cant have a wideangle, I dont want the camera!!) The closest combination I have come across is using Cavisions .7x zoom through adapter with there 5x5 matte box. It seems to be the only matte box that will fit over the 120mm diamator of the adaptor. If anyone is using this setup, feel free to post a few pics plus and still frames showing how wide the lens is. I appreciate any advice you can offer. Hope to hear from you soon! Leigh Hubner Camera/Steadicam Operator Loose Cannon Films Australia |
|
|
|
October 1st, 2005, 11:14 PM
|
#2 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 423
|
Any wide HD 1/2" lens is going to cost a lot more than the 13x 1/3" lens, and then this camera will crop it in anyway.
While I couldn't afford the 13x, I also reaslise it is not uncommon to spend a lot more on glass than the body in photography and video. I sure know I have done this with my photographic gear where I have 3 lens which are each worth more than my DSLR body. |
|
|
|
|
October 9th, 2005, 06:45 AM
|
#3 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 68
|
Wide Angle Lens
I bought a RED Eye wide angle adapter at NAB from http://www.vfgadgets.com/ its available as 82mm screw type
attachment very similar to mounting a filter, and is exactly flush with the lens so you can mount a matt box without any problems we mount the Vocas matt box. We used this lens with both our DVCpro camera as well as the JVC HD. Negatives its not zoom thru and there is a slight amount of barrel distortion. |
|
|
|
|
October 9th, 2005, 09:39 AM
|
#4 | |
|
Contributor
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 873
|
Quote:
http://www.prohd.co.uk/page7/page7.html they may already have the wide angle as it's not as specialist as some of the other things they're making. Can't say if they're any good but I think by reputation they are. cheers John Mitchell |
|
|
|
|
|
October 13th, 2005, 02:28 AM
|
#5 |
|
Tourist
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4
|
Still No Luck!
Hi all
Wel I thought I would try and keep you updated on the pathetic choice of wide angles available for the HD100. John Mitchell posted a link to a website producing wide angle adapters. Here is the email I sent to them plus their repley. Hi there, I am in desperate search of a wide angle apadter for the HD101. Looks like you have something. Is the .5x a zoom through adapter? What are its dimensions? Especially the outside diamater. I want a matte box that will fit over the end without cropping the image. Also price info would be good. Any info at all would be appeciated. I really want a nice wide angle for this camera so any advice would be fantastic. Cheers, Leigh Hubner Loose Cannon Films Their response: Dear Leigh, Thank you for your email. The 0.5x is not a zoom through adapter. The front of the wide angle will not fit into a mattebox as it is too large and the wide angle of 2.75mm would vignette. Please contact your local OpTex dealer for price and availability: http://www.optexint.com/dealernet/ozagent.html#au Best Regards. Simon Beer, Marketing Manager. OpTex Ltd. Gee, thanks again for your help. So for the jonney come latley camera guys who have no interest in using matte boxes with a bunch of filters, knock yourself out. You can bolt any olf adapter on and go shoot something. Now for more experianced operators who want to really milk their images, what do we do? When ever I hire a kit, I grab 1/2 grad NDs, 1/2 grad blues and reds, polars, pro mist etc. The lack of options really puts my off buying this camera. Maybe Im making this a bigger deal than others but I feel JVC have presented us a top little camera with some awsome features and a re al nice picture. But thats as good as it gets. Very frustrating. If anyone comes up with a suitable wide angle / matte box combination, please speak up! Thanks guys, chat soon. Leigh Hubner Loose Cannon Films Australia |
|
|
|
|
October 13th, 2005, 03:47 AM
|
#6 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 423
|
I am suprised you havn't been told to just adopt your shooting sytle and move backwards to go wider on a subject. Workarounds and acceptance seem the flavour of the month.
You say you are used to about 4.5-4.8mm on a 2/3" camera? On a 1/3" thats going to equate to about 2.2-2.4mm (I think), so I think your problem is based in the essence of using a smaller CCD based camera than what you are used too. It is not different to what photographers are experiencing with the move from film to digital sensors. Except for a about 3 options, most Digital SLRs use a sensor smaller than a 35mm film frame. Even new wide lens designed for these sensors arn't getting as wide coverage as existing wide lens get on the larger 35mm film. The 13x 3.5mm wide is about the best option you are going to get irrespective of price. That lens is still many times cheaper than any 1/2" or 2/3" HD option and I bet cheap compared to what a lens for this camera could be priced at. If the HL1 was going to use the same mount it would have been more assuring to know these lens will be usable on more than just one camera (or brand). Who really knows what the next gen cameras at this level will hold though, will they move to 1/2" for better sensitivity and less problems like SSE? if so, how far away is that? Would a 1/2" lens cost more to make than a 1/3" lens so just increase cost anyway? |
|
|
|
|
October 13th, 2005, 10:21 AM
|
#7 | |
|
Contributor
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 873
|
Quote:
It might pay to talk to the guys at JVC Australia about the problem and see if they have a beta lens they can lend you, or an alternative solution. I think Guy is probably right about 3.5 wide Fuji solution being the best long term option. I can only think of 1 other solution off the top of my head - rent a mini 35 adapter and use primes - I know it's expensive, but if you are desperate I believe there are several hire companies in Australia with the mini 35. I had a more radical idea is to use the Sony Z1 for your wide shots - I believe the guys who shot the short film with the beta unit in Australia used a Z1 as well and managed to get shots to match OK (they had the Z1 on a junior steadycam type rig). But the sony is only 32.5 wide (35mm equivalent), so not knowing the cropping factor on the JVC I don't actually know if it's any better. (I assume it's roughly 8 compared to 35mm film? Which would make the Sony lens roughly 4.1mm at the wide end) |
|
|
|
|
|
October 13th, 2005, 03:52 PM
|
#8 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Belgium
Posts: 497
|
If you're used to shooting 4.5mm on a 2/3" lens, you should know that the price of the Fujinon 13x3.5 is comparable to 4.5mm 2/3" lenses... Better go with that then....
|
|
|
|
|
October 13th, 2005, 05:46 PM
|
#9 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 423
|
The 13x is supposedly designed as a decent HD lens, is the 4.5mm 2/3" designed up to that resolution (I doubt it but I'll guess it would probably be dam close anyway).
How would you mount a 2/3" on the HD100, you'd need two adaptors wouldn't you (one to 1/2", then another from 1/2-2/3) |
|
|
|
|
October 13th, 2005, 11:27 PM
|
#10 |
|
Tourist
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4
|
Camera Price V Lens Price
Gday all
Some good ideas. I could rent the mini 35 but I feel Im steering away from the reason I want to buy this little sucker. Its to own a complete kit that will do it all. That way you can open your box of bits where ever you are, when ever your there. Perhaps for bigger planned shoots the mini 35 option would be suitable. A few have suggested the purpose made 3.5 wideangle. I aggree this lens would be the choice, but really, the price? Find me a broadcast camera of note, lets say digi beta or DVCPRO 50 where the lens costs quite a bit more than the body?? I could go buy a Digi Beta in Australia for say $60,000 AU and buy a nice 4.5 fuji lens for around $30,000AU. Rough prices but you see my point. I guess I am frustrated that JVC can promote the camera as being so well priced, then Fuji go and build a lens worth more than the camera. Quick question, can you buy the HD101 body only? That would be interesting to see a price comparrison. Anyhow, I guess its forums like these that raise questions and with any luck, produce answers! Chat soon. Leigh Hubner Camera / Steadicam Operator Loose Cannon Films Australia |
|
|
|
|
October 14th, 2005, 12:23 AM
|
#11 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 423
|
The biggest point I can take from this is how much the cost of cameras has come down yet the cost of Lens remains the same... ie you can't blame the cost of the lens on JVC or this camera, they are simply all expensive, probably a lot on money in making these lens. Then again you say the 4.5 fuji is $30K, while the 3.5 fuji is about $15K (I realise the 3.5 still isn't as wide) as the 4.5 gets on the Digibeta).
I know Video Australasia have a mini35 for rent, but I don't think they would have the 1/3" mount for it yet. From talking to them they mainly rent it with the Z1, which the say rent like hot cakes. They don't have a HD101E yet and said they havn't had any interest in one yet (this is all from Melbourne), which suprised me as they said they have a lot of people renting who will be going to film, so the HD101E is really perfect for them short of one 'little' gremlin. Ken Freed indicated the body only cost of the HD100 was about US$800 less than the kit, so you can see how little that lens is costing. What I would like to see is a nice wide lens of the same optical/build quality etc as the stock lens but only costing about US$1000. I'd suffer the small CA that these lens produce in exchange for a nice wide option at that price point, it would probably be a standard accessory for many. |
|
|
|
|
October 14th, 2005, 04:38 AM
|
#12 | |
|
Contributor
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 873
|
Quote:
Remember that we are in the infancy of one third inch detachable lens cameras and time will tell if better options emerge. The other point is even though the stock lens is only "valued" at $US800 it really has to cost more - that's probably less than the wholesale price to JVC and is just an example of how two items marketed as one can often be much cheaper than the sum of the two parts. |
|
|
|
|
|
October 14th, 2005, 05:13 AM
|
#13 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Belgium
Posts: 497
|
I don't think that's nright. Lots of broadcast cams out there with double of their price of glass on it.
JVC GY-DV700WE(cl) about $15.000 to $20.000 with a wideangle 2/3 inch lens, about $25.000 to $30.000 Especially the wide angle lenses tend to cost a lot more then the bodies. |
|
|
|
|
October 14th, 2005, 02:41 PM
|
#14 |
|
New Boot
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5
|
Wide angle
Hello,
Century optics is currently building a wide angle solution for the GY-HD100. the main problem is the fact that there is a plastic cowling around the front element of the lens which prevents atachment of a adapter. A 82mm screw on type will not allow zoom thru ability or any decent focusability. The .7 works but you cant acheive and manetain focus. The standard lens is cheap so the front element of the lens moves. The best thing so far is the Century .7 screw in, it's nice and wide and you can get close focus using the macro. This is only good if you plan on being wide all the time, but your focus is gonna be crazy, using the macro as well as the focus ring depending on where you are in the zoom range. Century is also developing a matteboxe, rods, and base plate for the JVC GY-HD100 as well. Last edited by Britt Cyrus; October 15th, 2005 at 12:16 AM. Reason: grammar |
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
