primes at DVinfo.net

Jon Bickford · November 27th, 2005, 08:50 PM

Anyone think Canon would ever build a set of XL primes? i'm pretty sure they'd be a very hot ticket in the low budget feature world, if they could build say, 20,35,50 and 100mm equivalents with something ultra fast like an f1.2 you could narrow the depth of field to 2/3" levels, not to mention the obvious low light advantages. no matter how many engineers are working on it a 20x lens will never have the level of clarity of a prime, I for one would be willing to spend whatever they asked for something like that.

Chris Hurd · November 27th, 2005, 11:31 PM

It's an excellent idea, but I seriously doubt they'd ever do it. Limited demand wouldn't be nearly enough to match R&D costs, tooling up and production etc. Although I'd love it if they proved me wrong.

You're from Pedro? Say hi to Watt for me.

Ray Van Eng · November 28th, 2005, 04:16 AM

I think we zoom too much in video. With primes, we just have to move the camera more often to get the framing and perspective that we want. Good for a change I would say. A compromise solution would be great too. Like a 20mm, 28mm-105mm and 100mm-400mm. Still photogs carry all that stuff day in and day out, would the video pros go for it? I wouldn't mind. For toting around, I'd just keep the 28mm-105mm zoom on.

Jon Bickford · November 28th, 2005, 08:02 PM

it seems like anytime enough people talk about a certain needed product on these boards a solution shows up on the horizon within months. So come on everyone let's campaign for XL primes!

a third party could make them fairly easily i would think, they don't need autofocus and i'd be happy with a mechanical aperture ring, so it's really just scaling them for 1/3" and hd resolution, and to help recoup costs i would think they could have an optional mount for the JVC proHD. no electronics would be necessary, no zooming back focus issues, just super nice, super fast small size glass.

yeah Chris, i ran into Mike about a month ago, he's still playing randomly around here all the time.

Pete Bauer · November 28th, 2005, 11:05 PM

Agree with Chris that Canon is really unlikely to develop primes for this camera. I know there are trade-offs, but there are two available solutions: EF adaptor and mini35.

Jon Bickford · November 29th, 2005, 12:38 AM

I have to disagree on this one, I think there definetely IS a market for a set of HD XL primes.

Who else is going to spend $9k on a camcorder but professional freelancers, TV, and SERIOUS hardcore posers? who else could Canon be trying to market this camera to? I think there would be a larger market for ultra fast prime lenses than there would be for an uncompressed HD SDI jack and the HVX could never ever touch something like that, I think an option like primes would be the best case to beat out the HVX. or maybe a canon made 35mm eos adapter that lets the camera control aperture (1-1 ratio) that might be a cheaper bet.

Tom Hardwick · November 29th, 2005, 01:36 AM

I'm with you guys. I've always loved primes for their compactness, speed, weight, lack of flare and lack of distortion.

The 28 to 105 mm that came with my Canon SLR is certainly useful. It's also pretty compact, but oh the distortion. If I'm shooting anything such as a building I have to shoot at 30 mm - any less and it barrel distorts horribly, and any more and the evil pincushion sets in.

So I'd love a flare-free and distortion free 3 mm f/1.4 with a 6 bladed iris and a perfect petal hood. It'd weigh next to nothing and could be kept in your top pocket.

Sigh. I can but dream.

tom.

Nick Hiltgen · November 29th, 2005, 02:16 AM

I think primes would rock but I have to say that for the cost of hd primes you probably could get a few zeiss primes and a P+S adapter, which would give you not only primes but also 35mm d-o-f. Personally I would much rather someone come out with an HD-SDI recorder...

Matt Irwin · November 29th, 2005, 02:17 AM

I'll give Cooke Optics a dollar to make some S4HD XL-mount primes... How could they say no for a dollar?

Steve House · November 29th, 2005, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Van Eng

I think we zoom too much in video. With primes, we just have to move the camera more often to get the framing and perspective that we want. Good for a change I would say. ....

I agree completely! Nothing says "amateur" to me like an unmotivated zoom during a shot. I think of a zoom lens as a variable focal length lens allowing you to precisely frame the shot while holding a desired geometry between the visual elements inside the frame. But once it's framed, action takes place inside the frame and the focal length doesn't usually change during the shot itself. There are exceptions to every rule, of course, but IMHO, the use of the zoom instead of a camera movement, or as a transition between two framings that really should have a cut between them such as going from MS to CU is way too common.

Tom Hardwick · November 29th, 2005, 10:50 AM

I must say though that I zoom all the time during my weddings and events. It's on the edit that I cut them all out, and if I've zoomed fast enough the faces are still in the same place, and I have excellent continuity.

tom.

Keith Wakeham · November 29th, 2005, 02:12 PM

I think this is a great idea. With high quality individual elements and some work it could be done. Its a little unlikely that really high quality lens elements are available. Their are places out their to get all the optics to put together a lense but I wonder how good it would be.

Someone posted an optics simulation software a few days ago somewhere. Someone want to start designing?

Steve House · November 30th, 2005, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick

I must say though that I zoom all the time during my weddings and events. It's on the edit that I cut them all out, and if I've zoomed fast enough the faces are still in the same place, and I have excellent continuity.

tom.

That's a different thing altogether. Sounds like you are using the zoom appropriately. I was referring to leaving the zoom motion intact in the final edit, so it ends up looking like the lens is a firehose swinging around the scene and using the zoom as a substitute for a dolly in or out..

Bill Pryor · November 30th, 2005, 12:22 PM

The basic rule for zooming is to shoot enough head and tail on the shot so you can cut out the zoom part of the zoom.

Primes for small cameras would be very cool. But I doubt it will happen. Lots of design and development work there for a very limited market.

Keith Wakeham · November 30th, 2005, 01:01 PM

Maybe some C mount or CS mount lens for 1/2" could be adapted and someone make a primes series for the canon mount. I'd be interested in work on it but don't currently own an XL series camera.

November 27th, 2005, 08:50 PM	#1
Jon Bickford Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Las Vegas, NV., Los Angeles, CA, Posts: 220	primes Anyone think Canon would ever build a set of XL primes? i'm pretty sure they'd be a very hot ticket in the low budget feature world, if they could build say, 20,35,50 and 100mm equivalents with something ultra fast like an f1.2 you could narrow the depth of field to 2/3" levels, not to mention the obvious low light advantages. no matter how many engineers are working on it a 20x lens will never have the level of clarity of a prime, I for one would be willing to spend whatever they asked for something like that. __________________ Jon Bickford, Trepany Films San Pedro, CA Trephine001@aol.com

November 27th, 2005, 11:31 PM	#2
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	It's an excellent idea, but I seriously doubt they'd ever do it. Limited demand wouldn't be nearly enough to match R&D costs, tooling up and production etc. Although I'd love it if they proved me wrong. You're from Pedro? Say hi to Watt for me. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

November 28th, 2005, 08:02 PM	#4
Jon Bickford Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Las Vegas, NV., Los Angeles, CA, Posts: 220	it seems like anytime enough people talk about a certain needed product on these boards a solution shows up on the horizon within months. So come on everyone let's campaign for XL primes! a third party could make them fairly easily i would think, they don't need autofocus and i'd be happy with a mechanical aperture ring, so it's really just scaling them for 1/3" and hd resolution, and to help recoup costs i would think they could have an optional mount for the JVC proHD. no electronics would be necessary, no zooming back focus issues, just super nice, super fast small size glass. yeah Chris, i ran into Mike about a month ago, he's still playing randomly around here all the time. __________________ Jon Bickford, Trepany Films San Pedro, CA Trephine001@aol.com

November 28th, 2005, 11:05 PM	#5
Pete Bauer Wrangler Join Date: May 2003 Location: Eagle River, AK Posts: 4,100	Agree with Chris that Canon is really unlikely to develop primes for this camera. I know there are trade-offs, but there are two available solutions: EF adaptor and mini35. __________________ Pete Bauer The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. Albert Einstein Trying to solve a DV mystery? You may find the answer behind the SEARCH function ... or be able to join a discussion already in progress!

November 29th, 2005, 12:38 AM	#6
Jon Bickford Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Las Vegas, NV., Los Angeles, CA, Posts: 220	I have to disagree on this one, I think there definetely IS a market for a set of HD XL primes. Who else is going to spend $9k on a camcorder but professional freelancers, TV, and SERIOUS hardcore posers? who else could Canon be trying to market this camera to? I think there would be a larger market for ultra fast prime lenses than there would be for an uncompressed HD SDI jack and the HVX could never ever touch something like that, I think an option like primes would be the best case to beat out the HVX. or maybe a canon made 35mm eos adapter that lets the camera control aperture (1-1 ratio) that might be a cheaper bet. __________________ Jon Bickford, Trepany Films San Pedro, CA Trephine001@aol.com

November 28th, 2005, 04:16 AM	#3
Ray Van Eng Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada Posts: 25	I think we zoom too much in video. With primes, we just have to move the camera more often to get the framing and perspective that we want. Good for a change I would say. A compromise solution would be great too. Like a 20mm, 28mm-105mm and 100mm-400mm. Still photogs carry all that stuff day in and day out, would the video pros go for it? I wouldn't mind. For toting around, I'd just keep the 28mm-105mm zoom on.

November 29th, 2005, 01:36 AM	#7
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	I'm with you guys. I've always loved primes for their compactness, speed, weight, lack of flare and lack of distortion. The 28 to 105 mm that came with my Canon SLR is certainly useful. It's also pretty compact, but oh the distortion. If I'm shooting anything such as a building I have to shoot at 30 mm - any less and it barrel distorts horribly, and any more and the evil pincushion sets in. So I'd love a flare-free and distortion free 3 mm f/1.4 with a 6 bladed iris and a perfect petal hood. It'd weigh next to nothing and could be kept in your top pocket. Sigh. I can but dream. tom.

November 29th, 2005, 02:16 AM	#8
Nick Hiltgen Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Atlanta GA Posts: 1,427	I think primes would rock but I have to say that for the cost of hd primes you probably could get a few zeiss primes and a P+S adapter, which would give you not only primes but also 35mm d-o-f. Personally I would much rather someone come out with an HD-SDI recorder... __________________ I have a dream that one day canon will release a 35mm ef to xl adapter and I'll have iris control and a 35mm dof of all my ef lenses, and it will be awesome...

November 29th, 2005, 02:17 AM	#9
Matt Irwin Major Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 327	I'll give Cooke Optics a dollar to make some S4HD XL-mount primes... How could they say no for a dollar? __________________ Matt Irwin DP / matt.irwincine.com

November 29th, 2005, 10:50 AM	#11
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	I must say though that I zoom all the time during my weddings and events. It's on the edit that I cut them all out, and if I've zoomed fast enough the faces are still in the same place, and I have excellent continuity. tom.

November 29th, 2005, 02:12 PM	#12
Keith Wakeham Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: St. John's, NL, Canada Posts: 416	I think this is a great idea. With high quality individual elements and some work it could be done. Its a little unlikely that really high quality lens elements are available. Their are places out their to get all the optics to put together a lense but I wonder how good it would be. Someone posted an optics simulation software a few days ago somewhere. Someone want to start designing? __________________ www.engr.mun.ca/~wakeham/index.htm

November 30th, 2005, 12:22 PM	#14
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	The basic rule for zooming is to shoot enough head and tail on the shot so you can cut out the zoom part of the zoom. Primes for small cameras would be very cool. But I doubt it will happen. Lots of design and development work there for a very limited market.

November 30th, 2005, 01:01 PM	#15
Keith Wakeham Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: St. John's, NL, Canada Posts: 416	Maybe some C mount or CS mount lens for 1/2" could be adapted and someone make a primes series for the canon mount. I'd be interested in work on it but don't currently own an XL series camera. __________________ www.engr.mun.ca/~wakeham/index.htm