Steve Phillipps

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying - you are aware that the HPX300 and the new 370 are 1920x1080 full raster 2.2million pixels no up-rezizng? Steve

These aberrations are lens-related for sure. You'll almost certainly find the same effects on different cameras with the same lenses. A lot of the modern cameras now are incorporating chromatic aberration correction systems which work on an individual basis with each lens (the lens has to be compatible, with its data input into the camera so it knows what to do to correct that particular lens). This seems definitely to be in response to the "cheap" lenses coming onto the market now, to go with the "cheap" cameras. I think the manufacturers realised when releasing the likes of the Sony EX3 and Panasonic HPX300 and 500 that the body was to be around £4-5000 and the lenses available for them at the time would be much more than double the price of the camera! Steve

Whether or not that's theoretically correct I don't know, but it's pedantic for sure. We all accept 1080/25P or 30P as full HD. I take your point about downscaling 1080 to 720 though, I know engineers would point out that theoretically it's not ideal - they will always point to the best 720 being from dedicated 720 chips. Like David says though, I don't think there has been much if any complaint about 720 from the EX cams. I'd still go for the JVC though due to the lack of CMOS issues (I shoot wildlife). Steve

Just came across this thread. This statement is simply not true - the EX3 does not letterbox in 720 mode, it downconverts from the full 1/2" chip. If it letterboxed then the effective magnification of the lenses would change and they don't. Steve

Just out of interest, why was it recommended over a 750? Steve

Much more than full hd! But it's a whole different beast, and way beyond your stated budget - even just the body which is only a small part of the kit. I'd also go EX1 without any question, unless there's a lot of fast movement involved in which case I'd be concerned about rolling shutter problems. Steve

I found my brief time with the HPX500 very disappointing, quite soft pictures, nowhere near the Varicam. One of the best cams I've used for low light was the Sony PDW700, very noise-free. Steve

Sony PDW700 is very good in low light, ultra quiet image. Steve

What do think to the Miros Mitch? I used one (see some shots here http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/nature/sites/sp...ed_kites.shtml) and didn't think it looked that great, very pixelated, colours not great. Maybe I was doing something wrong. Good effect at 600fps though! Steve

A lot of them won't mount as the rear element would hit the prism. Also because they're designed for a single plane rather than a 3 CCD prism they likely won't be as good as you might think. Steve

Imagine you have a print 6x4" of a bird filling about 1/4 of the frame, if you then cut 2" from each side and 1" from top and bottom the bird would fill the frame, that's what's happening when you use a smaller sensor, it's cropping the image. Steve

Just do a search for the Letus etc I mentioned, either on this site eg http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?sh...02&hl=letus or Google or other forums - dvinfo, dvxuser, dvdoctor. You'll get loads and loads of info and opinions. Steve

Yes it does mean it'll be the equivalent of 350mm, that's why these adapters have been well-liked by wildlife cameramen wanting long telephoto reach. If you want your 50mm to behave like a 50mm you'll need one of the relay adapters that use a ground glass - search for Letus, Brevis, pro35 etc. Pricey options though. Steve

Without a doubt, you'll get the best quality from 2/3" HD lenses on that camera, that's what they were designed for. Don't forget that S16 and Nikon lenses are designed for a single plane (ie film) rather than the 3 CCDs on the HDX900 and that causes issues, meaning that a lens that looks great on S16 won't neccessarily look good on video. Steve

Old thread I know, but for anyone who's interested I just tried a Fuji HA18x7.6 with the CAC function on my HPX2700 and the difference was minute re CA, virtually imperceptible, and it does exhibit a fair bit of it. Steve