No Autofocus on HD100?

[razamalik]

Hi Guys,
I have heard that there is no Autofocus on Hd100 with the supplied lens :( is it true? it still makes no sense to me - manual focus is great but autofocus is a must have for event videography among other applications. I do not see why is it not included. Its 2005 JVC we are not in the 1900's so make it both auto and manual focus not just one. With the nature of HDV the focus has to be spot on so i think a faster and more accurate focusing system is more important in the case of any HD format than SD.
Raza Malik

[mmm]

No image stabiliser either! :(

I know they aren't professional but they are bloody handy!

[Zim]

Your right no auto focus. It should be on there,,,,not sure why they didn't want it

[Sirius_Doggy]

You guys need to get a grip... NO professional camera lens has auto focus. AF sucks.

[videoteque73]

"AF sucks"

I didn't want to say it first! In a Ferrari you can't nearly choose the color (red), the shift/gear is manual and the sittings are hard...

[Sirius_Doggy]

Good analogy 73 -

Yeh - auto focus on a pro lens would be like buying a Ferrari with an automatic transmission. What a waste....

[mmm]

But including it gives you more options. I like "press button" auto focus and it is more accurate than a tired eye after a day of running and gunning.

I would also like to see a stabiliser, as I love to shoot handheld. You can achieve really nice moving shots with an XL2 and a monopod because of the stabiliser! I can't see why OIS isn't a standard pro feature. Am I overlooking something?

If you don't like these options, you can switch them off, but I think that they can be quite handy.

On the bright side, at least it means that they will HAVE to include a decent manual focus system and professional viewfinder! :laugh: To be honest, I would prefer this over dodgy autofocus system (like the XL1) anyday.

[Michael_Bott]

Autofocus can ruin your footage. It's a percentage thing. The risk is too high. Train yourself to be BETTER than autofocus.

Would have to agree on the stabiliser thing though. I think that historically this kind of camera was much larger and stability was less of an issue. Now there is a kind of transition in the form factor to smaller and lighter, stability without help may be a slight problem at longer focal lengths.

However, this is still a shoulder mount cam, unlike the XL1/2 which could never really feel 'locked off' against your body. I bet stability will be a a lot better in reality than we may think.

[Barry_Green]

Autofocus is a handy thing to have, but the JVC won't have it. Nor will it have image stabilization, nor will it shoot "reality/live" 60p. In short, I think there will be better choices for event videography than the HD100.

[thisiswells]

Some of the Fujinon TV "box" lenses have TTL tracking focus/autofocus. I'm not sure which.
A megachurch here in town is looking at buying like six of them!

[Barry_Green]

If someone were to adapt a lens with its own autofocus system, or image stabilizer, then that would work on the JVC. But the JVC camera body has no provision for supporting autofocus; it would have to be something that worked entirely self-contained within the lens (and, of course, that won't apply to either of JVC's announced lenses, the included 16x or the optional wide-angle lens, as neither of them are AF).

So as a practical matter, you'll never see AF or OIS on an HD100.

[mmm]

Like I said, I'd happily sacrifice AF for decent MF.

Its the OIS I want... :cry:

[thisiswells]

OIS would be nice and it is a professional feature that professionals do in fact use.
Canon's super pricey EOS telephoto lenses have optical image stabilization after all.

P.S. - I'm agreeable that autofocus, even if on a lens, would be incompatible on
HD100 as there is no provision for it built into the camera. Strong point, Barry Green.

[mezelf27]

AF does indeed suck. You can't expect to have AF on a PROFESSIONAL lens. It doesn't mix with true MF (with distance settings....).

You just need to learn how to operate a camcorder. If the angle is wide, everything will be almost certain in focus. You can't miss. Otherwise you have the ancient technique for closes and mediums: go full tele and focus - then go back to the desired angle and don't touch the focus! (try that on a XL1 and you're out of focus!!! very , very depressing - trust me, I had it (back focus isn't adjustable on a XL1/2) and I have been sick about it from day one.

On top of that there is "focus assist" and peaking. focussing is no prob.

By the way: tell me what's the worst footage? Slightly out of focus, but steady focus (MF) or focus that's constant shifting and searching for a focus point (AF)?

[mmm]

AF does indeed suck. You can't expect to have AF on a PROFESSIONAL lens. It doesn't mix with true MF (with distance settings....).

You just need to learn how to operate a camcorder. If the angle is wide, everything will be almost certain in focus. You can't miss. Otherwise you have the ancient technique for closes and mediums: go full tele and focus - then go back to the desired angle and don't touch the focus! (try that on a XL1 and you're out of focus!!! very , very depressing - trust me, I had it (back focus isn't adjustable on a XL1/2) and I have been sick about it from day one.

On top of that there is "focus assist" and peaking. focussing is no prob.

By the way: tell me what's the worst footage? Slightly out of focus, but steady focus (MF) or focus that's constant shifting and searching for a focus point (AF)?

Fair enough... it does have uses sometimes though... when running and gunning, sometimes you can't use manual focus... you know, trying to get that angle under the bride's wedding dress :laugh:

[xray]

Autofocus and imagestabilization divides the boys from the man...

You will NOT find an autofocus lens in the film industry, or in professional BROADCAST WORK. It´s strictly consumer oriented. Even so with image stabilization. You can find that on all the homerecorders together with digital zoom... Canon did a good job there but all the rest is just playground.

If you shoot with a real mechanical lens with hard stops you don't want AF. Its a question professionals never ask: is this camera doing IS and AF?

[xray]

Autofocus is a handy thing to have, but the JVC won't have it. Nor will it have image stabilization, nor will it shoot "reality/live" 60p. In short, I think there will be better choices for event videography than the HD100.

Well infact the HD100 will shoot 480/60p and 480/60i. So for reality/live you are there. SD it is, thats 2005 reality too!

For autofocus and image stabilization, read above. The JVC has good indicators to shoot sharp images. Like the rest of the professional community you need to hold steady, luckily you do not need to hold it in your hand. You can rest it on the shoulder. You know what? It is more stable than loose in the hand!

[mmm]

I know OIS isn't common in professional lenses, but I can't see why not. It is very useful, and have often seen times, particularly on live TV when it would have been an advantage. If you don't want it you can then switch it off. I miss it when I am using a pro camera, even shoulder mounted.

I was wondering if there is a technical reason why it isn't used? Does it degrade the lens quality? I know that some pros wouldn't like it just because it is mainly used on consumer cameras, but that is a stupid, irrational reason.

[mezelf27]

Fair enough... it does have uses sometimes though... when running and gunning, sometimes you can't use manual focus... you know, trying to get that angle under the bride's wedding dress :laugh:

:thumbsup: I thought so too, untill I started to wirk with the JVC GY-DV500 (no AF). In those cases: jest set the angle as wide as it goes, and the images will be in focus.... (There's not enough light under the skirt of the bride's dress :embarasse )

Besides: I thought it would be handy like on the xl1/2, but from my own experience: I never filmed anything in AF....

[mezelf27]

OIS would be nice indeed.... But Canon-Profeccional has a gyroscopic element to slap onto broadcast lenses. Dunno wether this supports HD, but it exists. Very pricey probably...

[mmm]

:thumbsup: I thought so too, untill I started to wirk with the JVC GY-DV500 (no AF). In those cases: jest set the angle as wide as it goes, and the images will be in focus.... (There's not enough light under the skirt of the bride's dress :embarasse )

Maybe they should put "Nightshot" on pro cameras too! LOL :laugh:

...not to mention 800x digital zoom and digital effects :thumbsup:

[mezelf27]

Now, There's an idea!!! :grin:

[Flintstone]

Ouch! :shocked:

[Shaw]

Actually I've always wondered why most professional cameras don't have a near infrared system implemented... Of course this could be due to the filter over the CCDs. Still I imagine it would be useful for those doing run n' gun stuff. There's nothing quite like seeing in the absolute dark without gain.

[Barry_Green]

Autofocus is a *very* handy option to have, especially when shooting HD. Those who are saying "no pro would ever use autofocus" should consider if they've ever shot HD, and most especially if they've ever shot HD while using a 200,000-pixel viewfinder. This isn't a standard-def camera with a CRT viewfinder we're talking about!

Nobody's saying you'd leave the camera in autofocus. But the ability to zoom in, swap to AF, let the camera lock in, and then turn back to manual, is a handy option to have, and given the low-res LCD finders on these cameras, AF is likely to pinpoint focus more accurately than manual focus would. The camera's internal electronics have a lot more information to make a decision on, vs. the low-res LCD viewfinder the manual-focuser gets his/her info from. Of course, it's possible that the expanded-focus and 1-for-1 pixel mapping will help get more accurate focus, but why turn down the option if you don't have to? You can always choose to use it or not use it. Beats getting out-of-focus footage...

Obviously if you're in a tracking environment, lots of motion etc., autofocus isn't going to work. But pro SLR still cameras are using autofocus all the time now. Autofocus itself isn't "bad", it's a great invention, the only thing "bad" about it is when someone uses it improperly.

And it's always better to have the option, and choose not to use it, than to never have the option and need it.

[mezelf27]

I get your point Barry, but I disagree. With auto-focus (i.e. servo) also comes the inability to have accurate distance markings end mechanical feel of the ring. That's what doesn't make it real manual when an AF-lens is on MF....

[razamalik]

Autofocus is a *very* handy option to have, especially when shooting HD. Those who are saying "no pro would ever use autofocus" should consider if they've ever shot HD, and most especially if they've ever shot HD while using a 200,000-pixel viewfinder. This isn't a standard-def camera with a CRT viewfinder we're talking about!

Great words....


And it's always better to have the option, and choose not to use it, than to never have the option and need it

more options = more freedom = more creativity.... thanks Barry that is exactly where i was coming from... you explained it real well in a way i could never have.

[Barry_Green]

I get your point Barry, but I disagree. With auto-focus (i.e. servo) also comes the inability to have accurate distance markings end mechanical feel of the ring. That's what doesn't make it real manual when an AF-lens is on MF....
In the past that has been true, but it doesn't need to be. You can get 100% control over the ring, and 100% accurate distance readouts in the viewfinder. You may not have markings on the lens barrel, but you'll have distance markings in feet and in meters in the viewfinder (which is different from the "old way", but better too, as you don't have to pull the camera away from your eye to look at the lens barrel).

[mmm]

Sorry, me being silly, but why does having a servo affect the lens markings etc.? Surely you could design the lens so this didn't happen, ie NOTHING LIKE THE XL1!

It must be possible to have the best of both worlds...

[Barry_Green]

It is possible to have the best of both worlds -- that's what you'll get on the HVX.

Using servos means that there's not a direct mechanical linkage between the lens ring and the inner elements of the lens. On servos like the PD150 and XL1, the ring is actually a motor switch that triggers the lens' internal motors to start moving. How much you move the ring, and how fast you move the ring, are not directly related to how the lens elements move. Same is true of the zoom ring on the FX1 and Z1 -- you can move the zoom ring very quickly, and the lens won't be able to keep up.

And, unless the ring moves when the autofocus moves, the position of the ring changes relative to the position of the lens elements when you go into autofocus mode. For example, let's look at the Z1's zoom ring. You can manually zoom all the way out, so the zoom ring says 4.5mm. Then when you switch to motorized/servo zoom, you can zoom all the way in -- but the zoom ring doesn't move, it still says 4.5mm! So the markings don't reflect what's actually going on in the lens. (switch back to manual and the lens elements will quickly do a power-zoom out all the way, so they re-align with the markings).

Now contrast that with the DVX and HVX -- the zoom rings are mechanically linked to the inner workings. The zoom ring will always match exactly with what the inner elements are set to.

As for focus, the servo cameras are using the focus ring as a sort of on/off switch for the focus motor. It's not unlike the zoom toggle, except it's a circular ring instead of a toggle switch, but the basic principle is the same. The DVX and HVX are a little different. Because they have autofocus, they don't use the same mechanical linkage that they do for zoom. But they're not just motorized servo switches either. Their rings are position-dependent, and moving the ring at a certain speed or certain distance will result in 100% repeatable movement of the inner lens elements. They're not completely mechanically linked to the inner workings like the zoom ring is, but they're still precise, repeatable, and position-dependent -- something you can't say about PD150 or XL1 zoom rings or focus rings.

Furthermore, the DVX gives a readout of where the lens element is -- i.e., at what point through its focus range it's set at (the familiar MF00-MF99 scale). Not quite the same thing as lens barrel markings in feet or meters, but just about as functional, if in a different way. The HVX improves on that by giving you the distance scale, as well as giving you actual feet measurements, and actual meters. So you get a precision manual focus ring, with repeatable focus marks, that tells you exactly what feet or meters it's set to.

Plus autofocus.

The best of both worlds.

[mezelf27]

Well, the problem is just it is speed-dependend...
If it wasn't it was easier repeatable. Anyhow: I get your point that AF should be sharper than what you could see in a low-res viewfinder, but if the AF isn't 100% spot-on, and you lock the focus point anyway, you won't see it either.
You have the new focus assist stuff for this. I don't know. Perhaps it's a matter of taste. But before I bought my XL1 I thought: well AF, that could come in handy.... But at the end of the day I just have to admit I never used it (well, I cursed it quite a few more times, due to the weird manual control on that lens)...

[Barry_Green]

I definitely agree about the XL1 lenses. On that camera, the tradeoff wasn't worth it. The manual lenses were sweet, the auto lenses were infuriating.

The HVX is supposed to be the best of both worlds.

[mmm]

...and given the low-res LCD finders on these cameras, AF is likely to pinpoint focus more accurately than manual focus would

Has the HD100 got a low res viewfinder??? :undecided

I don't mind LCD because colour is very handy to have, but I do mind lack of resolution! Are there specs out for the HVX too?

[Barry_Green]

The HD100 has about 230,000 pixels on its viewfinder, 250,000 on its LCD. That's pretty good for a DV camera (even though the DV frame is about 350,000 pixels), but considering the HDV 720p frame has almost 1 million pixels, that definitely qualifies as "low res". The viewfinder/LCD is having to scale the image down by a factor of 4. The HD100 has a superb "peaking" feature which will definitely help with focus, but it's not nearly like having a full-res display. The viewfinder is removable, and presumably you could susbstitute in a real HD viewfinder, but considering those start at around $4,000 I don't think it's a likely option for too many people.

Specs on the HVX's LCD are not available yet, but they should be similar (230k-250k). The HVX allows a "focus assist" mode that shows a pixel-accurate 1:1 extraction, so you can see the center of the frame at full resolution, for pinpoint focus accuracy.

[Rosestar]

The HD100 has about 230,000 pixels on its viewfinder, 250,000 on its LCD. That's pretty good for a DV camera (even though the DV frame is about 350,000 pixels), but considering the HDV 720p frame has almost 1 million pixels, that definitely qualifies as "low res". The viewfinder/LCD is having to scale the image down by a factor of 4. The HD100 has a superb "peaking" feature which will definitely help with focus, but it's not nearly like having a full-res display. The viewfinder is removable, and presumably you could susbstitute in a real HD viewfinder, but considering those start at around $4,000 I don't think it's a likely option for too many people.

Specs on the HVX's LCD are not available yet, but they should be similar (230k-250k). The HVX allows a "focus assist" mode that shows a pixel-accurate 1:1 extraction, so you can see the center of the frame at full resolution, for pinpoint focus accuracy.


I thought that the JVC also had a variation of focus assist. Are you saying that it doesn't?

[Barry_Green]

I'm saying that the focus assist function on the JVC works very, very differently. It doesn't magnify anything. Instead it does a wild color solarization effect. I only played with it for about five seconds so I don't know exactly what it was supposed to do, but it seems like it's posterized peaking on steroids.

But no, as I observed, no pixel-for-pixel magnification like the HVX (and the FX1/Z1) do.

[videoteque73]

It's true that focus with just an LCD preview is a bad thing. But I don't think autofocus solves anything, how can the camera know WHERE do you want to focus??

The JVC assist focus works very well. I played with it for more than five seconds :thumbsup: and I can tell that it gives you information about where the focus is. It works, at least to prepara the focus. I don't know if it works while recording...

[mezelf27]

Indeed, I asked myself the same question. Would it work while recording?

[mezelf27]

I was wondering. A long time ago (on the JVC full size S-VHS camcorders, ...) it was possible te have a REAL MANUAL lens with the option of AF. If it could be done then, it should be possible now....

[mmm]

...Yeah, just looked at my first ever Sony Handycam (going way back to when I was 12) and that had AF and a real fixed manual focus too...

It had (well still has) an amazing macro: it can focus on things touching the lens!?! Didn't know that was possible... arrrr the good old days!

[ericcosh]

I think some of you so-called "purest" need to get a life. Sorry. This crap about "auto-focus" not being professional is just plain stupid. I've probably been shooting longer than some of you have been alive. To say that because something has auto focus that it isn't professional is like saying that unless your audio system has tubes, it's just not pure or real. Get over it.

I started shooting photography back in the 50's. We didn't have auto focus and I can tell you there were many times when I wish it had it. Now, how many PROFESSIONAL digital cameras today don't have or use "auto focus" with pin point accuracy????

Like Barry said, it's a handy thing to have. Of course if you have a set-up shot, you're much safer taking a measurement to be completly accurate, but that's your choice.

If you don't like auto focus like the gentleman said, well, turn it off. Just don't go saying crap like anyone who uses autofocus isn't professional.

[mezelf27]

Now, how many PROFESSIONAL digital cameras today don't have or use "auto focus" with pin point accuracy????

The answer to that is simple: none.

[mezelf27]

I hope this came across right: none of them has autofocus (just to be clear.....)

(Dutch <-> English translation, huh)

[mmm]

Loads of pro stills cameras have autofocus!

My Canon Eos and USM lenses do. I think it is pretty rare in video though. Still that doesn't mean that it isn't a useful option.

[mezelf27]

Indeed, no pro video-cams have it. Anyhow, it would be a usefull option if the lens would be a true manual one, when the AF is turned off. I guess some things need to change to do so. (And I also guess that somehow I would never get to use it anyway...)

But remember. AF would addf more weight (servo-motor) to the front of the lens, so at the very least, it would be a bad thing for balance.....

[Zim]

Loads of pro stills cameras have autofocus!

My Canon Eos and USM lenses do. I think it is pretty rare in video though. Still that doesn't mean that it isn't a useful option.

The new Nikon D2X $5,000 has auto focus. All my Nikon's are auto focus. My XL1's was auto focus. My next video camera, whatever it will be will be auto focus. So it won't be the HD100.

It's good to be able to do both.

[mezelf27]

As Barry agreed with me: The AF/MF-function on the XL1(s)/XL2 is horrible. AF would only be handy if it could overcome just those shortcomings. And I have to admit... I'll only believe that when I saw/used it.

For now, I stay suspicious about camcorder with AF. For now, it is okay for consumers, just not up to snuff for professionals...

[Zim]

They don't always work the way you would like them to but it's still nice to have. Still camera's auto focus is all I use really. They are so good.

My Canon XL1s wasn't to bad in auto focus. I would still rather have the choice to use it if I wanted too.

[Zim]

As Barry agreed with me: The AF/MF-function on the XL1(s)/XL2 is horrible. AF would only be handy if it could overcome just those shortcomings. And I have to admit... I'll only believe that when I saw/used it.

For now, I stay suspicious about camcorder with AF. For now, it is okay for consumers, just not up to snuff for professionals...

I guess you rule out the DVX, the HVX, and a lot of other camcorders just because they have AF! Did you know you can switch to manual focus?

[xray]

If you don't like auto focus like the gentleman said, well, turn it off. Just don't go saying crap like anyone who uses autofocus isn't professional.

Professionals do use consumer cams sometimes and so they use AF and all the other automatic tools. In the high end, the film- and the broadcast industry, they don't . And I can understand why, sure for newsshoots photographer it is handy to have 'Auto everything, they need speed more than quality.

Professional shooters who care about the image don't use the AF, or the auto white, or the need for an IS. Sure, if your eyes are gone the AF is a handy tool to have.

[mezelf27]

Well, Zim, that's my point. If you turn it off, it isn't a REAL MF system.... It'll only be a "servo"-"simulated"-manual focus.... that's why

[Barry_Green]

If you're talking about Sony or Canon or JVC, I'd agree. They have yet to deliver an AF/MF system in the same class (or on the same planet) as the DVX.

Try the Panasonic before declaring it inadequate. The original DVX had the best, most responsive manual focus ring (servo or not) of any prosumer camera. The DVX100A feels twice as good. They may well improve it again for the HVX. They've already improved the feedback, giving distance markings that are far more accurate than any you'd get off of a marked lens barrel.

[xray]

Nothing beats a real lens in terms of resposive manual focus. And in accurate information. JVC takes the lead in prosumer camera´s here for the SD and HDV shootings. In terms of manual focus it is playing a different ballgame in another world.

[mezelf27]

I have to agree to xray.

Barry, I really intend no pun, but you're obviously a big fan. However I used the DVX100A lots of times and in comparison with the manual lens on (say) a JVC DV500, it's nothing alike.

Besides, I really don't get this. No-one in the professional video and broadcast world ever complained there's no AF available... There's a point to saying technology evolves and there's no reason to stay old-school-ed, but and I can't see it any other way then AF is still ultimately an consumer/prosumer feature.

Just the lens on the JVC makes it obvious: it's no "pro-sumer"-camcorder. It's a camcorder sold in the professional line (just ask around in a regular AV-store: they don't know this one. The sony and the DVX are known amongst consumer-stuff.)

I have to admit I don't see the upcoming HVX sold amongst consumers (because of the DVCPro-HD codec), but on some counts you can't miss it has the legacy and heritage of some consumer-camcorders (even if it might be just the form-factor... I always felt the DVX was to heavy and too bulky to hold in 1 hand, and therefor: there is no way you can (say) switch white-balance or something DURING a stable shot)

[ARRIguy]

I have to agree to xray.

Besides, I really don't get this. No-one in the professional video and broadcast world ever complained there's no AF available... There's a point to saying technology evolves and there's no reason to stay old-school-ed, but and I can't see it any other way then AF is still ultimately an consumer/prosumer feature.
Hi folks,

Been absent from participating a long time but felt compelled to comment on this post from mezelf[27].

I think the reason for the lack of clamour for autofocus from the pro world is that few have used auto focus video cameras and especially a decent one. At least this is true for those in my circle who have shot film professionally.

Though there could be many improvements to auto focus in what's currently available in the prosumer models, at times I have found it to be very helpful. I would definitely prefer having the option of a good auto focus system to switch on or off in any camera I buy. It's evolved successfully from consumer to pro still cameras and only a matter of time before it does in the pro video world too. No reason for the HVX not to have it, especially if it's improved over what's available now.

I gather that Barry - who after all is a pro shooter - and certainly myself would miss it if the HVX didn't have it. There you are: 2 pros who probably *would* complain.

[ARRIguy]

I have to admit I don't see the upcoming HVX sold amongst consumers (because of the DVCPro-HD codec), but on some counts you can't miss it has the legacy and heritage of some consumer-camcorders (even if it might be just the form-factor... I always felt the DVX was to heavy and too bulky to hold in 1 hand, and therefor: there is no way you can (say) switch white-balance or something DURING a stable shot)

I very much agree with you mezelf[27]. I've compared the panny to the upcoming JVC 100 and can only wish Panasonic would still make a switch to the shoulder mount form. People talk about braces of all kinds to make up for the prosumer form but there is nothing like the versatility and working ease of a shoulder mount camera when you're doing hand held. It's the reverse of what I was talking about above. In this case most amateurs haven't experienced it and so aren't clamouring for it. Pity.

[mezelf27]

Say, what would be interesting is some kind of automatick rack-focus system as on the XL2 (not for the zoom, but only for the focus....)

[Monglane]

I too wish Panny would launch a shoulder-mounted model. They are so much more stable than the hand-held models ! I keep dreaming about a super-HVX, shoulder-mounted, 1/2" CCDs, full mechanical lens (*with* AF option), for about 10,000 dollars. I'd buy one right away.

Otherwise, it is true that there is an immense amount of snobism among the so-called "professionals" regarding autofocus. It's exactly the way it was with still cameras, 20 years ago, and it will probably end up the same way, i.e. some day, most broadcast lenses will have the AF option, while retaining all their mechanical qualities. You'd think that, by looking at history and how it repeats itself, some people would learn a lesson... but some never will. :)

My cousin is an award-winning ENG camera operator. He loves his job and has been doing it for the past 10 or 12 years, for the two largest TV networks in France, successively. I asked him what he thought and he looked at me pensively for a moment and said "Yes, that could come in handy sometimes." I could see in his eyes that he was probably recalling some situations when he was sent into war zones and the like (he actually is kind of addicted to dangerous ENG work). So, that's all I need to know.

[razamalik]

I too wish Panny would launch a shoulder-mounted model. They are so much more stable than the hand-held models ! I keep dreaming about a super-HVX, shoulder-mounted, 1/2" CCDs, full mechanical lens (*with* AF option), for about 10,000 dollars. I'd buy one right away.

Hey Monglane that is my dream camera you are talking about lolz :laugh: but have no idea if it will ever be true in my life time & no i am not too old - nah seriously mate when do you see it happening? 5 to 10 years time? HVX200 proves that times have indeed changed so nothing is impossible and the future is bright so lets keep our hopes up.

[monster]

No image stabiliser either! :(

I know they aren't professional but they are bloody handy!

So what, the DVX OIS is not that great anyway.

[athouguia]

Otherwise, it is true that there is an immense amount of snobism among the so-called "professionals" regarding autofocus. It's exactly the way it was with still cameras, 20 years ago, and it will probably end up the same way, i.e. some day, most broadcast lenses will have the AF option, while retaining all their mechanical qualities. You'd think that, by looking at history and how it repeats itself, some people would learn a lesson... but some never will. :)

Still cameras autofocus is very usefull, but you cannot make a comparison with a video camera... it won't unfocus during the shot. I disagree with the need of autofocus in video lenses, the sensibility of the mechanical ring would be compromised because of the servo. Unless it would be like the zoom ring, with a switch that could disconnect the servo from the lens.

I still have my 20 years old prosumer Sony video 8, you can see the ring rolling when focusing, but in manual mode it's to heavy for a quick use. There's no focus like on a pro lens, JVC made the best choice.

[Barry_Green]

I don't think anyone's advocating using autofocus during the shot (unless, maybe in a war zone or tornado or something...)

Primarily I'm saying it's a handy tool for grabbing focus before you start shooting.

Focusing manually on a DSR500 is quite easy -- you have a superb CRT viewfinder, and a high-peaking viewfinder, and it's easy to tell when the shot is crisply in focus.

But we're talking about a whole different ballgame here. We're talking about high-def, as viewed on a low-resolution CCD. No high-def CRT viewfinder here, we're talking about a 230,000-pixel LCD. It will be completely impossible to get accurate focus just by relying on the viewfinder -- it's simply not possible. You'll be seeing 1/4 of the pixels in the frame, scaled and resized. There's no way that you will be able to accurately, precisely focus that. Autofocus, however, could. Zoom in, let AF lock in focus for you, then switch to manual and shoot.

The HD1 was impossible to focus accurately, manually. You *had* to use autofocus to have a prayer of the shot being in focus.

JVC's HD100 does have a "focus assist" feature, which may make it more practical to use the viewfinder, depending on how responsive the feature is. With HD you notice out-of-focus footage a lot more than you do with SD. You *have* to get focus right-on. I think the Z1 and HVX have an advantage here in that they offer a pixel-for-pixel magnification so you can know for sure that you've got focus nailed perfectly, but testing will reveal if JVC's "focus assist" function delivers results just as good in practical field conditions. I'm assuming it will.

[Monglane]

You're absolutely right on all counts, Barry... as always. :)

[mmm]

So what, the DVX OIS is not that great anyway.

The DVX OIS may not be great and wouldn't be a great loss, however there are some very good and useful OISs out there. Canon's prosumer range is a good example.

You can get near Steadicam like smoothness from an XL2 by just using a monpod and OIS. I was pretty surprised the first time I saw it.

I suppose the shoulder mounting reduces the need for OIS a little, but it is mainly useful when moving the camera.

[athouguia]

I don't think anyone's advocating using autofocus during the shot (unless, maybe in a war zone or tornado or something...)

Primarily I'm saying it's a handy tool for grabbing focus before you start shooting

I haven't yet used a fast enough AF to do that, specially in low light conditions. The operator can be at least as fast as the AF.

About the viewfinder, you're absolutely right. I don't understand why a camera called professional like the HD100 has a LCD instead of a CRT viewfinder. Even the XL2 has a optional CRT, I don't think it will be possible to fit one from another JVC model. There's no TC in and out also... to bad :(

[Ralph Oshiro]

I think some of you so-called "purest" need to get a life. Sorry. This crap about "auto-focus" not being professional is just plain stupid . . . Just don't go saying crap like anyone who uses autofocus isn't professional.Sorry, but I just HAD to chime in here . . . Sheesh! You guys just don't get it, do you!?!?!?

I shoot for a national broadcast show for a major network (guess which one). If I ever had my camera on auto-iris or auto-focus I would be fired. Broadcast cameras DO NOT have auto-focus and/or image stabilization (except for specialized applications) for these reasons:

1. Cost.
2. Weight.
3. Control.
4. TV and motion picture photography are DIFFERENT diciplines from STILL photography and have differing requirements (e.g., you never need to rack-focus a static, still shot).

An IS or AF system large enough to accomodate a modern Canon or Fujinon 2/3" 20:1 broadcast zoom lens would add thousands of dollars and add several pounds of weight to an already expensive ($25K+), heavy lens. Remember, 2/3" broadcast glass is HEAVY, with lots of elements. The same would go for our little 1/3" Fuji lenses, albeit to a lesser degree.

When shooting, I am constantly pulling snaps and whips with my zoom lens' servo DIS-engaged, followed in rapid succession with a rack-focus to-or-from my subject, and possibly an iris pull with my pinky while I'm at it. An OIS in these situations would be totally confused, and would work against me, trying to "correct" my deliberate framing movement. Focus is also often very deliberately selective--rack focus, pulls, etc. they're all manually controlled by the operator--that's what we do. Whether we're shooting a sit-down multicamera interview with a major celebrity using track dollies and jib arms, or shooting handheld arrivals at the Academy Awards, there hasn't been one time where I WOULDN'T have wanted to be in manual focus. In a news gangbang (where 20 ENG crews are all ambushing the same guy as you try to frame your shot walking backwards with big fat guys pushing you from every direction), I just gauge my subject-to-lens distance by eye, and dial that number in on my manual focus ring according to the barrel markings--that's what we do--we're camera operators. Had I had an AF mechanism engaged in that situation, I may have ended up with a perfectly sharp image of "Inside Edition's" mic flag instead of Paris Hilton going shopping at Kitson (yup--that's what passes for BIG news in Hollywood!).

If you still don't get this, you're missing the whole point of having those cool interchangeable Fuji lenses, and if you're still making the argument that auto-focus for TV and motion picture photography is NOT unprofessional, THEN YOU'VE JUST NEVER OPERATED A TV OR MOTION PICTURE FILM CAMERA IN A BROADCAST/FEATURE/COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENT ON A DAILY BASIS BEFORE and don't fully understand the art and craft of the cinematographer/camera operator! Sheesh!

P.S. Oh, by the way. I own several Nikon DSLRs and 35mm film bodies and a PILE of AUTO-FOCUS NIKKORS. In still photography, auto-focus makes total sense--stills are different--they're STILL.

[J.R. Hudson]

I am not in the industry. Merely an entry-level hack wannabe filmmaker; but Auto-Focus? Never use it. I feel wayt more in control and comfortable using my senses and reflexes than relying on that nonsense.

Anyway; well put NBC. Makes sense to me even if I am not in the business professionally

[Ralph Oshiro]

Oh, to address Barry's point--yeah, I agree, there's nothing wrong with focus ASSIST tools. We NEED those, especially in HD. I was merely trying to point out why . . . oh, nevermind.

[Ralph Oshiro]

Anyway; well put NBC. Makes sense to me even if I am not in the business professionallyHey, thanks! I really didn't mean that entire post as a put down to those of us here who are less-experienced. It's just a little disappointing to see so many here misunderstand your craft. A craft I've spent 22 years honing. I've studied every cinematogaphic, lighting, and operating techique I could lay my hands on (never got a chance to master operating a gearhead, however). At 19, I took a Greyhound bus to take a Steadicam workshop from its inventor, Garrett Brown. And I've been shooting, and shooting, and shooting, since then. I live, eat, breathe this stuff, guys. Sorry, just got a little frustrated for a minute there . . .

[mmm]

I would still like OIS... :)

I do use higher end cameras as well, although I am not an seasoned cameraman like NBCshooter. OIS is still something I always pine for. As well as for handheld use (especially at longer focal lengths), I find OIS just makes your slightly cheap/rushed dolly shot look that bit smoother. Also, remember this camera is lighter than a full-sized pro cam and will be harder to keep steady.

I guess it may just be a cost thing, but I get the feeling that OIS is disregarded as "un-professional." I don't give a crap about its image if it gives better results on screen. I would be happy to pay the extra few % for it... as long as it worked.

I get your point with the focus, but I hope the viewfinder is good enough to allow accurate focusing. I tend to use "push AF' on prosumer models because their LCDs are sooooooooo bad. I would happily sacrifice rubbish AF for good MF any day of the week!

[Ralph Oshiro]

. . . although I am not an seasoned cameraman like NBCshooter.YOU ALL HAVE TO EXCUSE ME FOR SOUNDING OFF LIKE A CONCEITED A-HOLE IN MY EARLIER POST!!! SORRY! I guess I was a bit irritable this afternoon . . . sorry, guys!

Yeah, yeah, yeah . . . after all that, I actually DO use the OIS in my small DV cameras sometimes (my Sony HC1000 especially!). You NEED to, because those damn things are so darn small!

And, yes, it's true, OIS on a full-sized broadcast camera is a welcomed tool in certain circumstances. Those things are just so damned expensive and heavy! Again, sorry for all the ranting. OIS and AF are valuable tools when appropriate!

[athouguia]

Unfortunately, probably HD100's viewfinder won't be better than the prosumer cameras. It should be a CRT and not a LCD. I just hope the focus assistant to be as good as they say. Anyway, I will be missing the B/W CRT viewfinder.

[mezelf27]

Finally! Thanks for the support NBC-shooter.

As far as Optical Image Stabilisation is concerned: only Canon provides it for Pro lenses, and it is an element to attacht to the front of the lens. The balance of the HD100 by this would be so damn bad, you can better go without I guess. A nice, small and very light OIS-system (on/off switchable, of course) would be cool, but for that we need to dream on....

[Flintstone]

Not just Canon. Fujinon has IS products too.

[mmm]

YOU ALL HAVE TO EXCUSE ME FOR SOUNDING OFF LIKE A CONCEITED A-HOLE IN MY EARLIER POST!!! SORRY! I guess I was a bit irritable this afternoon . . . sorry, guys!



That's cool... I wasn't having a dig at you or anything! :laugh:

You reasoned your point completely fairly. I was just saying that there are a few reasons AF and OIS may be more appropriate on the HD100 than on full sized pro cameras. :thumbsup:

[MARIOSCICLUNA]

If only I could have an interchangeable lens with no AF and no Image Stabilizer on my DVX (at the same price) !!!! that would be a dream SDv Camera. I wish I can cover my manual/auto focus switch with some tape sometimes. I am almost ashamed to have AF on my dvx.