VERY large pics.....

[Anders Holck]

I haven't seen these before:
http://www.jvcpro.co.uk/getResource2/gy-hd100.jpg?id=5639
http://www.jvcpro.co.uk/getResource2/gy-hd100_right.jpg?id=5641

[Anders Holck]

That lens is weird. 7.5mm on a 1/3" CCD equal to a 50mm SLR lens, pretty tight compared to 4.5 (32.5) of the z1.
F1.9 is slower than the F1.6 of DVX100 and FX1.
The Close Focus is far at 1m.

[thisiswells]

Anders wrote: "7.5mm on a 1/3" CCD equal to a 65mm SLR lens, pretty tight."

Thanks for the link. Good observation. Yup... Sounds like a half-inch lens. Good news is they're supposed to offer a 13X and 16X option. Let's hope the 13X is a little wider at the wide end.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://www.hdvinfo.net/articles/jvcprohd/hd100teaser.php&e=9888

[thisiswells]

I remember reading (related to the XL1 when it came out in 1997) a 7.2 crop factor for an SLR lens on the XL1..

brian wells

[Erik Olson]

I've never been a big fan of JVC form factor on their cameras - can't really put my finger on it. Layout seems odd - all the way to the choices they make on switches. That thing looks beta to me (not the Sony format from the early 80's, but like a test model or mock-up) and I guess I'll have to wait and shoot one in person.

I like the Sony and Panasoic form-factor much better, though I'd love to have somewhat more of a lens choice moving forward. Canon's DV designs are plain repulsive to me too, so there goes that option.

Odd to get hung up on how something looks, but I'm guilty of it.

e

[Anders Holck]

This lens is the 16x7.3, that is mentioned in the press release, as the included one:

developed by Fujinon for this new 16:9, 1/3" CCD is the new 16x zoom lens which comes fitted as standard
the wide angle converter and the 13x3.5 is optional:

A wide-angle converter is available for the 16x lens, or a dedicated 3.5mm wide-angle, 13x lens can be fitted


7.5mm lens would be closer to a 50mm
If you take the sony Z1 as the reference as it also uses 1/3" 16/9 sensors:
The lens is 4.5 to 54.0mm and sony states in the manual that it's equivalent to 32.5 to 390 mm, 35mm.
That would indeed make the "Crop-factor" 7.2 :thumbsup:
(so I have edited my post, so I don't spread FUD)

On the shoulder it will be pretty front heavy, and like the Canon XL a lot of the weight will be supported by your right wrist, as the center of gravity is at the top handgrip but the shoulderpad is at the rear.

[Mediacre]

I think 7.3mm is a bit narrow for a 1/3" camera. My bet is that is just a 1/2" lens they used for the picture because maybe Fujinon was not ready with the 1/3" by the time. Fujinon has a S16x7.3mm lens for 1/2". So I'm sure that is what the lens in the pic is.

[thisiswells]

13x3.5 sounds really good, though.

[Anders Holck]

I think 7.3mm is a bit narrow for a 1/3" camera. My bet is that is just a 1/2" lens they used for the picture because maybe Fujinon was not ready with the 1/3" by the time. Fujinon has a S16x7.3mm lens for 1/2". So I'm sure that is what the lens in the pic is.

Yes, but a 1/2" lens will not fit the flange, you will need a 1/2">1/3" adapter:

An adaptor from JVC gives the cameraman the facility of using existing ½" lenses

13x3.5 is nice, if the Close Focus is lower than 1 meter...

[Mediacre]

What I'm saying is that lens might be just for the picture. A 1/2 lens can easily be converted to fit a 1/3". If Optex can do it for the XL1, they can do it too for a promo shot.

[Anders Holck]

That could be. We'll see after NAB.

[redindian]

can somebody translate this into 35mm terms ?

also, how come these cameras come consistently with f1.6/1.9 ? In photographic lenses even a f2.8 is so expensive. also the lower you go it is plagued with CA, vigenettes, flares and light falloffs. so whats the deal with these lenses?

is that because of tiny CCDs? or lesser quality point that SLR lenses?

[thisiswells]

Please don't accept this as doctrine, but this is my assessment:

Aberrations: I can't imagine a video lens is better in this regard; no way hose'
Aperature: The spot size is smaller so perhaps they can open the lens without concern of falloff
Vingettes: Same. Smaller sensor, can't imagine a vingette being noticeable and in fact it isn't
Flares: Same problems, but you normally use a flag to shade your lens in video (as least I do)

This you can take as fact:
To figure a comparitive field of view with 35MM SLR with a frame size of
24mmx36mm (NOT 35mm or Super35mm motion picture) do this:

divide by focal length of the lens by 7.2,
so the field of view of a 72mm lens on film would be the equivalent
of the field of view presented by a 10mm lens on 1/3" video.

brian wells

[thisiswells]

Also, they're only f/1.6 at the wide end of the zoom.
At telephoto, you lose a couple of stops... like f/1.6 at 4.5mm and f/3.4 at 45mm.

Ya, same as film, but it's still brighter at the end of the zoom. I wonder if because
the focal lengths are soo much smaller is a contributing factor to open aperature.
Seems to reason that it is. It's not like f/3.4 is bright for a 45mm lens, you know.
The standard 90mm for Hassleblad is like a f/2.8, and that as you said, is expensive.
I bet there is a corriliary between focal length and aperature. I mean, duh. But, I
hadn't thought about it much until now.

brian wells

[redindian]

so a crop factor of 7.2 - then CCDs shd be pretty small. Nikon Digital's crop factor is 1.5, and Canon Digital's is 1.6 - so they have a lot more challenging optical design than a video lens... that would be directly propotional to the quality/price i guess.

the most versatile all-in-one SLR lens I've seen are tokina 24-200 (f3.5-5.6), canon/tamron 28-300 (f3.5-5.6), sigma digital 18-125 (3.5-5.6) & 50-500 (4-6.3)digital lens, so a 32-324 (f1.6-f3.4) video lens covers a lot of ground with a decent aperture at 324mm!

Also, since video lens quality is analysed as a collection of moving pictures and not a single static frame as a photo lens - I guess they can be a bit more liberal on the quality side.

[Mediacre]

That lens is weird. 7.5mm on a 1/3" CCD equal to a 50mm SLR lens, pretty tight compared to 4.5 (32.5) of the z1.
F1.9 is slower than the F1.6 of DVX100 and FX1.
The Close Focus is far at 1m.

Who said it's a f1.9? I see a f1.4 for the HD100. Faster than DVX and Z1.

[Justin_Kirch]

Good lord, are those high-def stills? Dang, those are big pics with no grain! ;)

[Anders Holck]

Who said it's a f1.9? I see a f1.4 for the HD100. Faster than DVX and Z1.

Well I see a F1.9 as the largest aparture:
http://panasonic.andersholck.com/gy-hd100.jpg

No, if you see F1.4 in the data it's the light loss in the Prism, and has nothing to do with the lens. The 16x Fuji lens in the still is F1.9 at 7.5mm.

The reason why you can make a fast lens for 1/3" CCD is that the F number is a function of the focal length. So for a F1.9 on a 7.3mm lens, the diameter of the iris would only have to be 3.84mm. Compare that to a 50mm SLR lens where the Iris diameter would be 26,3mm and a LOT more glass is needed to cover that area.

Regarding errors in the lens like distortion and chromatic aberrations it's way more difficult to get rid of these in a smaller lens.
If you think of a 28mm wide angle on a SLR, and you scale that lens down by 7.2, you get a 3.9mm, but to get the same quality lens your precision in your optics just went up by 7.2 as well...

Vignetting is not only a function of the lens, but also a bi-product of the CCD. Microprisms like most CCD's use today recover a lot of the light that is lost by the non senitive area between the photosensors. But they also exaggerate the falloff at the edges of the frame especially with wide angles, creating vignetting.

We should also remember that this press release is done by the marketing at JVC.
A line like "Specially developed by Fujinon for this new 16:9, 1/3" CCD is the new 16x zoom lens", if written by the technicians would read "Fujinon has modified their existing 1/2" 16x7.5 zoom lens, to fit this new 16:9, 1/3" CCD" :shocked:

[Mediacre]

I see 1.4 in the other picture. Not in the dadate sheet. The point here is the only thing we know about the stock lens is that it will be a 16x. We don't know how wide. It wasn't annouced yet. The lens in the first pictures could be a 1/2 Fuji S16x7.3, used only for the promo shot till the 1/3" Fuji was ready.