HVX200 82mm non-removeable lens

[Ryan_W]

I'm massively excited about this camera and am already trying to think up ways to scam the money to buy this thing. Electronically, this camera looks nearly perfect (given the price range) and so the one last element that always seems to separates stuff that looks like film from stuff that looks like video is the image obtained through the lens. I will admit I really don't know that much about lenses, but I'm sure there are some folks around here who do. What I'm wondering is whether the lens on the HVX200 is going to rock, suck, or something in between. Will "professionals" still want to add various kinds of adapters onto it, etc, as they seem to like doing with the DVX100(a)? And when they do this, what is it they are trying to achieve? Just steping up to a larger lens so you to bring in more light, get better DOF, etc? Better controls for focusing, zooming, etc? I'm wondering if the lens on this puppy is good enough for those shooting features and want to get the most cinematic/film-like image possible, or if it will have to be suppplimented in some way(s).

Thanks

[Neil Rowe]

..im sure it will be adequate for what you want to do, but we cant know anything about it other than it being made by leica until we actually get to use it or see some images from the camera. im sure it will equivilently do for the HVx200 what the lense on the DVx100 did for it.

people add lenses to the dvx lense to get more telephoto or wider angle or shot anamorphic ect.. and add filteres for coloration or image control. but no lense you can add ever increases the quality of the fixed optics or resulting imagery as far as the optics are concerned. it would only decrease or keep it the same at very best . so whether or not they want to add adaptors to it depends on what they are trying to do. so im sure people will with the HVx as well, but im sure the stock lense will suit alot of people just fine.

[thisiswells]

the one last element that always seems to separates stuff that looks like film from stuff that looks like video is the image obtained through the lens.

I have no idea what you mean by that. I really don't.



I will admit I really don't know that much about lenses, but I'm sure there are some folks around here who do. What I'm wondering is whether the lens on the HVX200 is going to rock, suck, or something in between.

Everything about the lens on this camera will be better than any other handheld camera in this price range because of the level of manual control, the electronic representation of focus marks, and longer zoom range (13X) it will be the most useful of any camera in this category, out of the box.



Will "professionals" still want to add various kinds of adapters onto it, etc, as they seem to like doing with the DVX100(a)?

Yes. You can be certain there will be a Wide-Angle converter and a Tele-Converter made for this camera. To see what people are using currently for the DVX camera, visit http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/prod...x100/dvx100.htm



And when they do this, what is it they are trying to achieve? Just steping up to a larger lens so you to bring in more light, get better DOF, etc? Better controls for focusing, zooming, etc?

Any number of things. Could be that someone needs a wider field of view than the built-in lens offers, so they use a Wide-Angle converter or adapter. This would be useful for, say, shooting inside of a car where you need more field of view. Someone may need less field of view (more "zoom") so they would use a Tele-Converter, which extends the focal length ("zoom") of the camera for more reach, but at the expense of a reduction in wide field of view at the wide ("non-zoom") end of the lens.



I'm wondering if the lens on this puppy is good enough for those shooting features and want to get the most cinematic/film-like image possible, or if it will have to be suppplimented in some way(s).

Of course it will be good enough. There are hundreds of movies that have been shot with a DVX100 and released on film.. If you want to know more about some of those movies, you might check out In|Dig|Ent for successful movies shot on video. www.indigent.net


Thanks
Sure thing. Feel free to ask questions here anytime and please be aware that a discussion group is only a supplement, not a replacement, to independent research and book study. You're on the right track.

[10s]

Given that "Open Water" was shot on a far lessor camera and made good $ at the box office, I think the HVX will deliver more than enough quality to exercise your cinematic talent. The DVX sure did ( it's used on TV shows) and the Pana team are not going to blow it, the competetion is too fierce. So I'd bet we will be happy with the lens.

Now I also agree that having a option for changing lenses is nice for those with large pockets. I could see a HVX300 model for offering interchangable lenses but most of us will learn to work within our tools limitations and still deliver surprising results. We were able to do so with the DVX so I'll assume the HVX will be even better.

Film look:

DOF: The shallow DOF common is modern film is a combination of a few things, a 35mm size chip and lens focal length create this effect. We will have to work extra hard for shallow DOF once again because of the small chip size, but this can be overcome. Check the board for ideas. It seems like smaller chips would be more difficult to make and be more expensive...like everthing else made small.

Resolution: HD will solve this to a very practical extent. After the shock wears off we'll start to complain ...."it's not clear enough"....that's a given eventuality, humans are rarely satisfied for long...but that also creates progress in our world...so I guess I can't complain...at least for the next few minutes.

Overall the camera will need to come with a warning tag: "If you can't make your film look really good, then you need to practice and quit blaming the camera".

[MikeDPLD]

...and aperture (f-stop) is one of the key ingredients in achieving either a "deep-focus" look or "shallow" depth of field. (All else being equal: f16 produces more focus than f2) And getting the subject as far away from the background as possible helps too...

[Ryan_W]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_W
the one last element that always seems to separates stuff that looks like film from stuff that looks like video is the image obtained through the lens.



I have no idea what you mean by that. I really don't.

Just saying we could be a using a massive-resolution 4:4:4 24p camera, but if your lens is tiny, or inferior in any number of ways, it contributes to the "video look", setting it apart from comparable footage filmed with a superior lens setup. The image obtained through the lens... is what separates them.




Everything about the lens on this camera will be better than any other handheld camera in this price range because of the level of manual control, the electronic representation of focus marks, and longer zoom range (13X) it will be the most useful of any camera in this category, out of the box.

Cool, that's the kind of stuff I was curious about.




people add lenses to the dvx lense to get more telephoto or wider angle or shot anamorphic ect.. and add filteres for coloration or image control. but no lense you can add ever increases the quality of the fixed optics or resulting imagery as far as the optics are concerned. it would only decrease or keep it the same at very best . so whether or not they want to add adaptors to it depends on what they are trying to do. so im sure people will with the HVx as well, but im sure the stock lense will suit alot of people just fine.

Right. I figured that, but have heard of people consistently using an adapter of some kind (not just the anamorphic one, but a big honker) to get it to look how they want, which led me to suspect that the standard lens on the camera might not be as good as it could be for attaining the most film-like image. But yeah, I'm sure it's great for typical work, and sounds like it'll be pretty robust in any case.

[thisiswells]

have heard of people consistently using an adapter of some kind (not just the anamorphic one, but a big honker) to get it to look how they want

Probably this one:
http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/mini35/P1000539%20(Custom).JPG
http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/mini35/

That adapter and lenses to go with are so expensive, a more accurate way to look at it is
the camera is more like an accessory to the lens : )

[PaulC]

A lot of people have probably seen the lens comparison done on the FX-1, with the original cam/lens and then a modded cam with Fujinon lens:

http://www.eidomedia.com/hdve/ziess_fuji.htm

I'm wondering if anyone knows if the lens on the HVX200 is the same or very similar to the original lens on the FX1/Z1, or if it will be higher quality? What is the known differences, if any, and what might some of the improvements to look for be?

Is there anything else that is important to know about this lens comparison and how the HVX200 might stack up? Is it all that important for most people?

[soarprod]

Leica is much better the Ziess.

[Barry_Green]

I don't think anyone could make an informed guess as to what's different between them. Jan has said that they definitely intend to have higher-quality glass than the Z1, and that's a noble ambition, but whether those intentions turn into reality remains to be seen and tested. Once the camera's out we can make informed comparisons. Right now it's simply not possible to know.

[thisiswells]

The only thing we know for certain is the lens is made out of sand.

Glass Online - A Brief History Of Glass
http://www.glassonline.com/infoserv/history.html

[PaulC]

I don't think anyone could make an informed guess as to what's different between them. Jan has said that they definitely intend to have higher-quality glass than the Z1, and that's a noble ambition, but whether those intentions turn into reality remains to be seen and tested. Once the camera's out we can make informed comparisons. Right now it's simply not possible to know.

Thanks once again Barry. The idea of an HVX300 with removable lens is probably interesting for some people, but it will all come down to the quality. I doubt for my own purposes I would ever go that high, as the quality differences (for example, between the modded and regular FX-1) seem to only matter for the most professional uses. Of course, there are then other considerations such as price, compactness, etc etc.

But, the lens spec'd on the HVX200 is listed as an "HD" lens, so hopefully it would not suffer as much chromatic abberation as the original FX-1 lens seems to. Is this abberation mainly a function of the lens? I presume it has something to do with the size of the lens and the angle of refraction, as well as the quality of the glass? Any people will more lens knowledge can explain this?

[thisiswells]

Proof of the pudding is in the tasting.

[Bill__Turner]

Paul C.

Lens performance is directly related to how much money you are willing to spend making it and the design parameters. It is harder to design a 12x lens than a 10x lens of equal quality, assuming the same wide angle. These cameras offer fantastic bang for the buck but there are very good reasons why the larger more expensive cameras cost what they do.

Bill Turner
Century Division
Schneider Optics