I want the EX1 very badly, but there are some doubts I have. Please help!

I

Iudex

Well-known member
Hey guys, I'm sorry for my typical newbie-no-contribution thread but I just feel I must post this. I'm deciding if I'm going to spend 2 years of savings or not.

First of all, regarding general issues, how is the camera being delivered right now? Because I've been reading the old pages of this and other forums and there were many problems, like vignetting, some chromatic aberration, back focus, ir and so on. I also read (even on a recent thread) that some cameras are delivered with particles inside the lens! How could this be? About firmware: are the new cameras being delivered with 1.11?

About lens protection / filters. Link to another thread:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=131009&highlight=filter

I want the polarizing to experiment (I'm completely NEW to photography) and the UV for lens protection. I tried to find some info and seemingly there isn't any difference in the image when using an UV filter, but on the other hand on another thread (http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=137702&highlight=filter) the 77E CLEAR MRC (007M) from Schneider Optics has been recommended. But it's quite more expensive. Yet another option recommended by my dealer: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/132978-REG/B_W_66026942_77mm_UV_Haze_010.html

I'm completely lost. Mainly I want to protect my lens, if I can get a polarizing to experiment then great. I don't ask about the anti-IR issue because from what I have read the only option is a Schneider Optics 77mm Tru-Cut IR 750 that costs 250...

I'm tight on budget because I still have to get a tripod, a case, and spend some dollars on the Kensington + SDHC trick.

I'll probably have more questions! I'm sorry if I ask for too much but I'm about to spend all of my savings and I really really want this very badly, film is my life, the moment I get my hands on this camera I will make 1001 tests and I will certainly return to the forums to share what I have learned.

Thank you very very much.

I. from Argentina.
 
1. I've had my camera for a couple/few months now and there is no vignetting or back focus issues. I find some CA when shooting something against a bright, high contrast background (usually manfested as some purple fringing) but I think this is pretty common on all cameras and it is not significant.

2. The lens will probably be shipped with a substantial amount of debris inside the lens... I found a few guitar pics, a couple paperclips and a handful of sand in my lens. <--- keeding. I don't think this is an issue at all, if it was you'd obviously send the camera back.

3. Some say you should always have some sort of filter on the lens, even if it's just UV to protect the lens, but I usually shoot bare lens. If I'm on the beach I'll make sure I have a protective lens (salt and sand), and sometimes I use a circular polarizer.

I think you'll love the camera... I can't get used to how freakin' unbelievably incredible the images are with this thing. It's nice to know you can create your own HD footage that looks as good or better than what I see on HD broadcast channels. But I don't shoot for the "film" look... some film guys think the EX1 looks too real, too sharp, too clear. But this puppy can be adjusted and tweaked to get most any look you desire if you learn it.
 
Thank you Buck... made me laugh with the debris joke :P. Reminded me of an argentine prank caller that said that he bought a freezer and received it with a frozen cat inside.

Any particular UV / protective / polarizer recommendations?

Thanks!!!
 
I have a couple different circular polarizers from my still camera... I have a Hoya brand and a B+W brand. As you may know you have to be careful shooting wide angle with a circular polarizer because it will often make the sky darker in some areas. I don't see a huge difference using a polarizer in situations I would expect it to... at least not to the degree of my still camera. Also a polarizers' effect is in relation to the angle of the sun (polarization is max at 90 degree angle from the sun), so when you're panning substantially you may get inconsistent results in the effect as you pan. I have found a bare lens does much better keeping skies blue than I would have expected. The colors of nature seem to come out very good with this camera. I'm new to videography (coming from still photography) so this was a welcome surprise in my footage.

I have a couple UV filters too that I don't use much (if you're shooting into the sun these filters can be quite noticeable, especially if there's any dust or spots on the filter/glass. I think my UV filters are also B+W. It's probably a good idea to always have some sort of lens protection but I hate to put something over that sweet lens unless there's a good reason.

I also have some nice Galen Rowell/Singh-Ray GND filters that I use all the time with still photography, but I don't use them nearly as often with my EX1, not as much as I thought I would. This camera really does surprisingly well on its own.
 
Thanks again buck, your help inclines me to buy just a protection. I hear so much that this camera is so good on it's own that I guess I'll spend my time learning how to use it before trying crazy filters on it.

I still can't see the difference between these three guys:

http://www.schneideroptics.com/ecommerce/CatalogItemDetail.aspx?CID=681&IID=5714

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/132978-REG/B_W_66026942_77mm_UV_Haze_010.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/72729-REG/Tiffen_77PTP_77mm_Photo_Twin_Pack.html

The first one should just be a piece of glass designed not to interfere with the lens.

The second one should be what the first one is PLUS the UV protection, am I right? Then how is it possible that it's less costly than the first one? Furthermore, the third option is even cheaper and it comes with an extra polarizer filter... if you show me three PC motherboards I could explain the price differences, but I'm completely lost here.
 
I'm pretty sure any of these would be fine, especially either of the first two. Since I'm new to videography maybe someone else can provide a more qualified answer, my experience is from still photography. As for cost differences, not all glass is equal. I think mine might be the second link you provided. I think modern lenses do a better job at UV filtration so screw on filters are typically used for protection against your lens more than anything (unless you're going for an effect, like polarization or warming, etc.) I almost always shoot with the hood on my lens so it's protected from direct impact. I've found with UV filters you have people who swear by them and people who swear against them. I don't swear against them but I rarely use them. But I do make sure I have one in my kit when the need arises.
 
Iudex
(and Buck - hi!)

Chris here. I've been doing this since 1975, off and on. I own an EX1 and yes I had to save up for it too.
Yes, it's worth every penny. No, there were none of the problems listed here. No vignetting, no backfocus issues, no battery drain, no paint peeling.
I own a few SxS cards for Slow and Quick shots, two Kensington 7 in 1 adaptors and a bunch of Sandisk SDHC cards and have been shooting up a storm.

The glass filters on the lens cause internal reflextions and additional abberations. Like Buck, I own a 77mm UVa or similar left from my stills days and woulld definitely use it when outside in a situation where the lens could get dirty. Otherwise, no, I don't use one. I had one for each of my previous cameras but started to notice the reflections when I switched over to HDV cameras around a year ago, stopped using the filters since that time.

BTW, FYI my first guvnor (what we called the people we apprenticed for way back when in the UK) was one of the original Magnum agency photographers. Shot nothing but Leicas and Leicaflexes (in 35mm). Never had any filters on any of his lenses. Internal reflections, he said. I didn't notice them then. But do now.

Anyway, I have the camera itself in body armor and various soft and hard cases for it, so there isn't a scratch or a rub on it so far.

Here's ths thing. I learnt from my Leica days that there is such a thing as a golden elephant. Mine was literally a gold plated M6. It was my pride and joy and sat in my equipment cabinet, in its original wrapped up box, pristine and unmolested.

And I was taking photos, meantime, with my beaten up old M4.

So which was the better camera?

I got the hint eventually - still have my beat up old M4, by the way.

An EX1 as an investment? Bad deal. Jim Jannard's on the warpath again. His stuff will be out soon. All this electronics stuff lasts for three years max.

What are you going to shoot in the next three years? Does it justify having a pristine 1900x1200 image? Will it bring its money back in? Or will it give you images that you will value (monetarily or otherwise) to make the cost of a camera such as this worthwhile?

The opposite also holds true. Can you afford not to have this camera?

I learnt that the hard way too, when I bought, on a whim, apparently, my knock-around HDV camera, an HDR-HC1.

Bought it, shot a lot with it, moved on. Sold it.

Needed it again, bought another one. Shot a lot with it, sold it to upgrade.

Needed it yet again.

Still own the third one. (and fourth one-my producer partner bought one too).

Of course I don't need it now that I have it, but just wait until I sell it...
LOL!!!

(no, actually out of all the high def cameras I own, it's the one that still gets the most use.)

HTH
JM2c, YMMV etc.
Chris
 
Last edited:
More.
If you're down in Argentina, try for older OConnor movie tripods. They're not too expensive and work better than the newer (and originally cheaper) Bogen/Manfrottos.

The IR issue is maybe an issue if you're into finding issues. Me, I work in drama and in story, where people really don't much care if the black is warm or not. For me, if my audience notices that the blacks are warm then that tells me my story's in dead trouble. I'd then bring out a pencil to fix the proiblem, not an IR filter...

However, I'm just a storyteller. It may well be a big deal to you.

Oh, and I shoot with a 35mm adaptor and Nikon lenses. Definitely the film look for me.
 
Thanks emotepix!

Investment: it's not my idea to buy the camera as an investment. I mainly wanted to have a good weapon to be a storyteller, nothing else. I don't want to keep renting equipment! And renting EX1 here is quite expensive (for us), about 500 pesos (150 US Dollars... for now). When I rented I always found myself in a hurry and couldn't really sit down with the camera and learn. BUT anyway, I will try to rent it myself (with me of course).

I wanted to leave film school and make movies on my own. I was about to, I said to myself "well, I'll just finish this year". Then I read "Rebel Without a Crew". And I left film school. And I started to see what camera to buy :D (our education year goes from march to december).

So what am I going to do in the next three years? Shoot movies, that's it. And it's a good idea to have them registered in a nice format to get nice film prints!

I can't afford not to have this camera. Emotionally I can't.

You're totally right about the IR issue. I thought the same thing, but well, everything sums. Photography weights... that's why I'm buying this camera and not deciding to shot with my cellphone!

I'll check if I can find used tripods here, of course.

I guess I'll just resolve the lens protection thing here, buy something to have just in case.

Thanks guys, I'll be trying to gather my money and make the call this monday, if anyone has anything else to say, please do!

I.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top