|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 11th, 2006, 08:05 PM | #31 |
Major Player
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: san miguel allende , gto , mexico
Posts: 644
|
thanks Matthew- don't you just love it when minds are inquiring. I don't think you'd be this seriously investigating if this was a bash. But lenses are always different & they're mass produced within certain technically specs. Some turnout better than others. I own 2 canon digitals and even the L lenses vary. I returned my first 17-40L and the second was much improved. Probably , like the 5d , we're reaching the current edge of lens technology/cost benefits. Kurth
|
January 11th, 2006, 09:48 PM | #32 | |||
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Las Vegas, NV / Branson, MO
Posts: 63
|
Quote:
I was not comparing it directly to the Varicam, and never expected it to perform as well. I used the chart from the Varicam to pinpoint lens characteristics that people claimed they were'nt seeing. You need a reference benchmark anytime you compare something, it let's you really have an idea of performance. When miniDV came out people could only compare it to Betacam camcorders and Hi-8 camcorders, this is no different, it let's you know where the product falls in terms of performance. Quote:
Quote:
So please, I haven't nor would I attack you personally, I'm just not going to state that a lens is great when it's really adequate at best, I can't say that the edges on the resolution wedge are as razor sharp as the sensor should let them be when they're not. Since I am not paid by Canon to pitch the lens I am making real observations about what I see, and I also said that I don't mind paying for a better lens for the H1. I just got pretty reliable info that Canon indeed has plans for a better manual lens anyways, so I guess they might even agree that the 20x zoom isn't the greatest lens for this camera. |
|||
January 12th, 2006, 02:48 AM | #33 |
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 155
|
Peace. If you can get me a new Varicam for $50K, I'll throw in a couple thousand $ tip. I happen to know someone who was looking for one.
|
January 12th, 2006, 03:34 AM | #34 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Las Vegas, NV / Branson, MO
Posts: 63
|
I want you know that I really had no intentions to take anything we might disagree upon further than just an argument about pieces of glass and plastic. I respect your opinions, you're entitled to them but we don't have to settle for each other's opinions either.
I'm afraid our corporation doesn't offer brokering services :o) but I gave you the company's name if you're serious about giving it a shot, remember this was within the context of a larger package and not just for the head, however our economy was better a year ago so don't beat me up for that. Have you seen this clip? http://www.hd-channel.com/videos/mou...op_reasons.wmv It compares Super16, F900, SD video and Varicam. It's self explanatory even if you don't speak the language. They zoom in on the image at certain points for a closer look. I have a clear favorite but I won't bias your observation. Can you guess? |
January 12th, 2006, 06:03 AM | #35 |
Trustee
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 1,589
|
"...I just got pretty reliable info that Canon indeed has plans for a better manual lens..."
I wonder if that lens is going to be a 16X, 20X, or 3X? - And how long before that lens actually hits the shelves...months or years? |
January 12th, 2006, 07:01 AM | #36 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 201
|
A 16x manual zoom lens
Quote:
__________________
http://www.songesdemoai.com/ |
|
January 12th, 2006, 12:18 PM | #37 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Las Vegas, NV / Branson, MO
Posts: 63
|
Quote:
|
|
January 12th, 2006, 12:19 PM | #38 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Las Vegas, NV / Branson, MO
Posts: 63
|
Quote:
|
|
January 12th, 2006, 12:23 PM | #39 |
Major Player
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 201
|
No, I don't think so because Canon is claiming everywhere that HD needs specifics lenses. That's why they've designed the new 20x and encourage us to buy new ones...
__________________
http://www.songesdemoai.com/ |
January 12th, 2006, 12:46 PM | #40 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: California
Posts: 667
|
Page 149 of the manual shows the 16x as a option for the H1. If I go the H1 , it will be head only and I will get the 16x....
Quote:
|
|
January 12th, 2006, 01:26 PM | #41 |
Trustee
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 1,334
|
We all want great glass at affordable pricing, but I don't see that
happening . . . yet. Anyone who knows, knows that Canon, who makes great PRO HD lens, cannot possibly put one of those on the HD1 and sell a kit for under $10K . . . or at the very least they won't. I am going to be shooting wildlife docs and *need* long telephoto lens. I plan on using 35MM EF/EOS adapter for it's 7.2 mag factor. If that proves to do a good enough job it is an inexpensive solution. If anyone wants great glass and super sharp images @ 1:1, one might want to wait for Kinetta, RED or some other offering that as a 35mm chip set and real lens mount. In anycase, the price point will be over $10K including that great glass.
__________________
Jacques Mersereau University of Michigan-Video Studio Manager |
January 12th, 2006, 01:30 PM | #42 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Las Vegas, NV / Branson, MO
Posts: 63
|
Completely agreed, I don't think anyone expects great glass to go for cheap, but it's nice to have the option for those that do value and can afford a good lens.
|
January 12th, 2006, 09:10 PM | #43 |
Major Player
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: McLean, VA United States
Posts: 749
|
With some trepidation I have posted horizontal MTF curves for 1 set of conditions (60i,f/2.8, 1/60th short focal length) for the 20X stock, 16X manual and 3X wide angle lenses. The three are pretty darn close but the stock lens is the worst - if not by much. This makes me a little suspicious of the results but I have done it twice this time with a proper test chart (the results were very similar with the test chart from the office printer).The curves are at http://www.pbase.com/agamid/image/54766171 and the previous image is the reconstructed edge (for the 16X lens) from which the MTF curves are calculated. The reason this is of interest is because it clearly shows that the camera is shapening the edge. I've debated as to whether I should disable this sharpening or not but decided that as it is the default state of the camera to have it active I had better leave it active. The edge picture also has a description of the process I used to calculate these MTFs.
The one thing these tell me for sure is that I've got to do more tests in the real world with the 3x and 16x. I have always thought of the 3x as a soft lens (or at least I did when I used it with the XL2). |
January 13th, 2006, 08:52 AM | #44 |
Trustee
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 1,334
|
<<<I have always thought of the 3x as a soft lens>>>
Agreed.
__________________
Jacques Mersereau University of Michigan-Video Studio Manager |
January 13th, 2006, 09:31 AM | #45 |
Major Player
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: McLean, VA United States
Posts: 749
|
Thinking about the 3X a bit I realized that the lens usually gave me soft results when it was used for what I bought it for i.e. as a wide angle. In the MTF test I was at the maximum focal lenght and up pretty close and it was plain during focusing that I was acheiving focus. In typical wide angle use you are at the minimum focal length and everything is this effectively at "infinity". Under these conditions I have never felt that I was really in focus but that just a smidgeon more CCW rotation of the ring would do it but that the lens wouldn't accept that wee bit more (this sort of thing was discussed extensively in the XL2 forum). So it's clear what I should do tonight: try to get an MTF curve at minimum focal length.
|
| ||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|