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.

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.

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.

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: 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.

You can buy those 13x lenses second hand for around 4500 bucks.

May I require your reason for this statement?

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".

Bruce,
I would sure like to find one used, do you know of any place to look?
mark

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.

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.

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