DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Sony VX2100 / PD170 / PDX10 Companion (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-vx2100-pd170-pdx10-companion/)
-   -   lens quality (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-vx2100-pd170-pdx10-companion/25933-lens-quality.html)

Michael Bendixen May 13th, 2004 12:56 AM

lens quality
 
Could anyone fill me in on the quality and reputation of the PD-170's glass (especially when compared to the dvx-100a leica and the canon). I haven't found out much about it in my research.

Thanks,

Michael

Frank Granovski May 13th, 2004 02:04 AM

What about Zeiss? Nikon? Fujinon? Etc.

I'm sure the glass is more than adequate for miniDV's low resolution compared with film cams, or high resolution digi still cams.

It's not so much the name on the lens as how well it is designed, made and finished; and the PD lens is all of that.

Tom Hardwick May 14th, 2004 01:51 PM

Frank's nailed it. The Sony lens is a cracker, but in the wrong (shaky) hands the pictures will look awful. So it comes down to how you shoot for DV rather than what you shoot with.

On a technical note the Sony is a 12x zoom that's half a stop faster than the Panasonic 10x at full telephoto. The Sony has a 58mm filter thread as against the DVX's 72mm, so accessories are much cheaper and a good deal more plentyful for the Sony. The Sony goes to 72mm, the Panny runs out of puff at 45mm. Guess which one is going to give you differential focus?

Problem with the panny as I see it is that you need two extra lenses - a wide-angle and a telephoto. The Sony just needs a wide-angle (and needs it real bad). And the Sony VAP OIS is a lot more sophisticated than the internal version Panasonic use.

Don't be swayed by that Leica engraving. Panasonic have their design and production tolerances just as Sony do, and Leica have to supply lenses (or sell their name) at a fixed price point.

tom.

Michael Bendixen May 18th, 2004 03:22 PM

I've heard many say, dealers included, that the PD-170/150 uses Canon glass, but Canon keeps the best technology for themselves. Don't know exactly what that means but I here it often enough that I want to know if it's a bunch of bull or not.

Thanks

Mike Rehmus May 18th, 2004 04:49 PM

The Japanese sell technology and OEM bits to each other all the time. They probably barter the stuff rather than send money back and forth, they do so much of it.

The bits are designed and manufactured to a price-point. So if Canon gets more $ for a lens destined for a Sony camera than they want to spend internally for their own camera, then the Sony camera gets better optics.

The Sony 170 camera SYSTEM performs quite well when compared to the Canon XL1S, for example. I don't claim that one or the other is better, mind you.

Most of the designer lenses are designed but not manufactured by the designer in any case. I think Sony has a few Leica signature lenses but they admit that they build them, not Leica.

Jeff Donald May 18th, 2004 05:06 PM

I thought Sony was partnered with Ziess, not Leica.

Michael Bendixen May 18th, 2004 05:47 PM

I think you're right. It just seems like everyone I talk to says Canon has better optics or visaversa. It just seemed like never got a straight answer. A lot of it has to do with reputations of lens manufacturers, but you're probably right, for those prosumer cameras you get what you pay for. The advantage of the XL1s, though, is that you can put a better quality lens on it.

I'm testing the cameras out side by side tomorrow to see what look I like best.

Thanks for your help

Frank Granovski May 18th, 2004 06:02 PM

Michael, the important thing to keep in mind is that the PD170/PD150 has good glass. I sort of assume that Kenko makes the glass because they make the adaptors for the Sony VX2/PD150/170.

Tom Hardwick May 19th, 2004 12:10 AM

What's interesting is how good lenses are wide open (maximum aperture) these days. Not so long ago we were all being told to stop down two stops from maximum because of the inevitable softness you'd get at full bore, but with the new very tight tolerance manufacturing technologies and 'sealed for life' lens and chip block assemblies, things are looking much better.

There is inevitable vignetting at wide apertures, and both the TRV900 and the VX2k need to close down 2 stops to evenly expose the full frame, but the sharpness difference is barely noticeable on such a crude 720 x 576 chip. Much more noticeable is the softening effects of diffraction, so with modern camcorders be afraid of small apertures, not large ones.

tom.

Michael Bendixen May 19th, 2004 10:53 AM

Tom,
That diffraction problem at small apertures, is something that came up when I read reviews on the XL1. A lot of people said that the XL1 had a soft focus problem, but it was pointed out that this problem could be diffraction at the 32 fstop.

Tom Hardwick May 19th, 2004 11:17 AM

It most certainly is. The VX and the XL both use 1/3" chips so both suffer in the same way. I'd *never* use f11 on the VX, and I'd certainly avoid f16, f22 and f32.

Now a lot of folk are going to be saying, "Ah, but f11 is the smallest aperture and after that the diaphragm blades close." Quite right - but if you film in the auto exposure mode with the auto shutter turned off in the menu and ignore the silent scream for the ND2, the camera will indeed film at these very tiny apertures. It'll give you a correctly exposed but very low resolution image. I can't think of a possible use for it. Avoid.

tom.

Michael Bendixen May 19th, 2004 12:58 PM

So with that thinking, at what times would you want to use those small fstops?

Jeff Donald May 19th, 2004 01:02 PM

When you run out of ND filters and shutter speeds.

Tom Hardwick May 19th, 2004 01:04 PM

Er - what don't you understand about the word 'avoid', Jeff? ;-)
The answer is never to use those small apertures, and stay away from f8, f9.5 as well if you can. You can always Gausian blur in post, if that's your thing.

tom.

Tom Hardwick May 19th, 2004 01:06 PM

Sorry Jeff - I meant Mike. Jeff - you're perfectly correct.

Bill Pryor May 20th, 2004 12:09 PM

I'm reasonably certain the Sony lens is made by Zeiss, not Canon, but I can't document where I read that. I've found the lens on the 150s and 250s I've used are pretty good for an electronic lens. I think the standard lens on the XL1 is the weakest point of that camera. Canon makes good professional lenses and still camera lenses, but I don't think that same engineering goes into the electronic ones. Actually, I don't like any of the electronic lenses I've used, but the ones on the Sonys, at least the recent models, manage to retain back focus they way they are supposed to. I'd gladly pay another 500 bucks for any of the 1/3" chip cameras if they'd put the money into the lens. I'd give 'em 200 bucks for back focus adjustment, and another 300 for mechanical focusing.

Frank Granovski May 20th, 2004 04:18 PM

Why would they get Zeiss to make their built-in lenses and get Kenko to make their adaptors? Never mind. :-))

Bill Pryor May 20th, 2004 04:40 PM

Probably because Zeiss doesn't make adapters?
Or, maybe Kenko owns Zeiss which owns Burbleflork Industries, which owns Halliburton, which owns the U.S. Government, which owns Sony which outsources everything to India anyway?
And that makes about as much sense as attaching any importance to the name the manufacturers stick on the lenses on consumer/prosumer cameras. The Leica on a Panasonic has no relationship to legendary 35mm Leica lenses, other than the name of the company; and I'm sure the same goes for Zeiss and Canon, in relation to their "real" lenses.

Frank Granovski May 20th, 2004 04:50 PM

Ah, thanks, Bill. :-))

Bill Pryor May 20th, 2004 04:55 PM

You're welcome--always glad to add clarity and insight to the situation.

Michael Bendixen May 20th, 2004 06:44 PM

So I'm getting the impression that the stock XL1 lens and the PD-150/170 lens, and the dvx-100 lens are in the same ballpark and the name doesn't mean a whole lot, right? It's enlightening to know because that's not the tune I hear on the "street".

Frank Granovski May 20th, 2004 07:27 PM

That's exactly so, except when it comes to some consumer cams and their plastic lenses---and a few may even have "Zeiss" stamped on them. :-))

PS: keep up the good work, Bill!

Jeff Donald May 20th, 2004 07:49 PM

The street is not a good place to get an education, at least about most things.

Bill Pryor May 20th, 2004 09:17 PM

There are some things you can learn on the street, but learning about lenses on the street is much like learning about that other thing on the street--it'll cost ya and you will probably also get .....never mind, I better not pursue that bad analogy any further. Suffice to say that the internet's "street" is probably the most unreliable place in the world to get true facts about things. Opinions out the wazoo, but not too strong in the fact department.

You should also not believe everything I say, for that matter. I usually only speak from my own experience, and it is rather limited in many areas.

There is one thing I've noticed from hanging out on the DV camera boards for some time...it doesn't seem to matter which camera a person buys, when he talks about it, it is almost always the best camera ever made, in most cases it "looks just like film," and the other competing brands are totally crap. What is it about cameras that makes them like religion?

Oops, it's after 10...time for me to go take a cynicism pill.

Frank Granovski May 20th, 2004 11:51 PM

Quote:

...doesn't seem to matter which camera a person buys, when he talks about it, it is almost always the best camera ever made, in most cases it "looks just like film...."
You got that right too. My MX300 is the best consumer 3 chip ever made and in frame mode it does look like film. :-))

Bill Pryor May 21st, 2004 09:29 AM

Heheheh--good one, but you need to renew the licensing fee for my ironically-challenged disclaimer.

Is anybody but me old enough to remember Kodak's VNF? Video News Film. A reversal 16mm film stock designed to look more like video.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:01 PM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2024 The Digital Video Information Network