Posted by mv on 09/26/06 10:49

>
>Thanks too for you long post John. Don't get me wrong, the rate of dropouts
>on DV streams is really negligible compared to even the best analog
>equipment, and the cameras and decks are much cheaper due to the fact that
>heads and transports can be built to much looser tolerances. As far as I am
>concerned digital video formats--all of them--are light years better than
>the best analog formats of yesteryear in just about ever way imaginable.
>
>I am very interested in your impressions of the JVC vs the Sony Z1. Some of
>my news colleagues have said that the JVC has reliability issues, but I am
>very interested in it for the lens. Much as I liked the Sony Z1, I have a
>real problem with the electronic focus and iris of the lens. Never mind the
>quality of the camera itself, as an operator who always uses manual iris and
>relies on the precise and crisp mechanical focus ring of your standard-issue
>2/3" camera lens, I find the Z1 maddeningly difficult to operate when I have
>to follow focus and adjust iris at the same time, or even follow focus in
>the tele end of things. The JVC looks to have a pretty standard lens (It's a
>Fujinon 16x I believe). How do your operators find this camera? If the
>picture quality is anything like the Sony it is certainly a camera I would
>consider.
>
>Best,
>
>Toby
>
>
Ironically, the Z1's lens is optically better than the erzats pro
Fujinon one that comes with the JVC. But what does one expect at the
price? It's a repeat of the JVC DV500 toy town camera, it looked like a
pro camera but didn't perform like a pro camera, ergo no serious pro
used them, just low budget corporate and wedding video producers who
wanted to look good on location. It seems to me that the 101 is
repeating this pattern. The lens given away with the DV500 was horrible,
even though it provided a direct mechanical linkage to iris and focus,
just like a proper lens, optically however it was worse than the fixed
lens on the PD150. The Fujinon lens provided with the 101 is better than
that given away with the DV500, but it's still a cheap lens. It's only
when fitting the adapter and decent 2/3rd" lenses that the 101 starts to
provide some quality, but then the cost differentials kick in and even
then the quality is to a large extent academic because of the limits of
the 720p HDV format.

For those of us raised on Betacam types with proper lenses, adapting to
the fly by wire controls of these compacts can be a jolt to the system.
I've often described the need to engage a Zen like mind shuffle when
changing between the two types. However with practise, one can adapt
very well to them, there are differing techniques required to get the
best out of them, some of them of the kind that in the old days would
have one struck off the professional register. Think in terms of the
only apparently oxymoronic concept of 'manually controlling the auto
functions'. I contend that the skills required with a Z1 type are
actually greater than with a conventional type. Operational errors with
a compact tend to be a lot less forgiving than with a Betacam,
particularly down to the narrower latitudes.

The only significant draw back I find with Z1's is that the lens is
neither long enough nor wide enough, particularly for those shallow
depth of field shots, but even then it's still possible to get them.
Making sure one has got genuinely top quality wide angle and telephoto
adapters can pretty much solve the issue

With regard to the OP's question though, SD is dead in the water, or
soon will be. The Panasonic DVX100 is an excellent camera in it's class,
possible the best though the BBC chose the PD170 after a close contest.
But that's all a moot consideration now. Anyone who buys a SD 4x3 only
camera (yes I know the DVX100 claims 16x9 but it's of no use for
professional purposes as it's only around 400 lines) is not serious. So
whilst in many ways the DVX100 is a better camera than the A1, the A1
will still be useful long after the DVX100 has become a doorstop or
paper weight
--
john

[Back to original message]