On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 03:53:23 -0500 (CDT), MarkEdits@webtv.net (Mark Wagner) wrote:

>I would like to know if those of you who purchase camcorders consider
>the lens to make an overall difference in the way the picture looks.

Yes, of course...
But there are the obvious technical differences, like color
bias, flare tendency, wide-aperture center-to-corner
sharpness differences, contrast differences, etc. (things
that are easy to test for...), and the "hooey" differences,
like "Zeiss/Canon/Whatever" is "better" 'cuz it looks more
"dimensional/sparkling/whatever"... The latter I argue with,
since it is usually more based on bias than reality, and as
such, is worthless in lens evaluation...

>The answer may seem obvious, but a recent response from a certain
>"academic" who frequents this group (you probably know who I mean)
>stated that the lens has no bearing on the end look of the image.

I did not state that; I believe I was trying to point out
that the Canon lens on the GL-1 was not necessarily better
than (or even very different from) the lens on the VX-2000,
and that the inferior imaging device of the GL-1 would cover
minor differences in any case. I think both are excellent
lenses, but the end image depends on both the lens and
the imaging device, barring one lens being noticeably inferior
to the other. You were trying to attribute some magical
"film-like" imaging ability to the Canon lens, to which I
properly objected...;-)

>More specifically, I had stated to him that many pros believe Canon
>lenses are better than the Sony lenses. As a pro user, I can't tell you
>how many times cinematographers, videographers, colorists, etc... refer
>to the "glass" as being of huge importance in gathering light before it
>reaches the electronics. Yet this guy tells me that this is simply
>hogwash and that Canon is popular because of their advertising.

True...;-) Though in the video world, Canon does make
excellent *pro* lenses. But to stretch this to mean that
their consumer-grade optics are necessarily excellent,
or better than Sony optics, is silly. Notice I do NOT
point out the "Zeiss" brand name on many Sony consumer
camcorder lenses, because to do so would be equally silly.
A good lens is a good lens, regardless of parentage,
and a good lens in front of a so-so imaging device does
not make for great image quality. To argue, as you
appeared to do, that the Canon glass makes for a great
video image on the GL-1 is not supportable... With film
cameras, the variability of the "imaging device" is
(mostly) removed, and one can separate out the imaging
effects of the lens, but given *good* lenses in video, it
is about impossible to separate out the imaging effects
of the lens from the "imaging device", which is the
CCDs, DSPs, etc., when the lenses are permanently
attached. Two video cameras of different manufacturers
that allow lens interchangeability, using the *identical*
lens, would likely show quite different image
characteristics - and the differences would have nothing
to do with the lenses...

>Does the importance of the lens seem as obvious to you as it does to me?
>Yet that certain "academic" who frequents this group continuously gives
>people advice from a theoretical, laboratory approach rather than from a
>real-world practical view.

There are differences in optics, quite visible in
ordinary shooting situations (hence my "SUBJECTIVE
Lens Evaluations" article at:
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html
based quite intentionally NOT on chart-testing, but
on evaluation of image characteristics using the same
real-world subject material). Likewise, the comparative
frame-grabs in the camcorder reviews at:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm
are based on real-world test subjects, and not on chart
testing... To claim what MW claims further indicates how
far he will go to defend his choice of the GL-1. After
requesting advice here a ways back regarding the GL-1
vs. the VX-2000, he chose to reject the advice of most
and take the GL-1 - which is fine, and what he should do
if he prefers the GL-1. Unfortunately, MW appears to now
be on a quest to prove that his selection is somehow the
best, regardless of numerous subjective/objective
indications to the contrary. As I pointed out to him
in email, people are "sold" on gear that is not
necessarily the best for the money, and I also pointed
out that he does not need the approval of me or anyone
else to make a purchase selection. Yet we now see this
post I'm responding to... Heck, MW, use the GL-1 and
produce video with it! ;-) You don't need to question
my credentials/advice/whatever to do that...;-)
Tain't no scum off my teeth, what you choose to use! ;-)

>Aren't we all pros here? And hopefully creative too? Is this a forum
>for professors who masquerade as being in the trenches every day or is
>it a forum for real pros?
>
>I digress, I know. Just bugs me to regularly see such crappy advice
>being handed out to the readers of this forum who have serious questions
>and concerns in their pursuit to be creative and/or earn a living.
>
>Happy shooting/editing.

Kinda bugs me that there are nonsense posts like
yours... Why must you question/denigrate those who
took the time to give you advice when you asked?
You may disagree with that advice, but your post is
uncalled for. (And, BTW, you have jumped to several
conclusions about me that are incorrect - you may
want to check out my web page...;-) Also, next time
you ask for advice, please remind me not to supply
it in response to your posts and emails - my time is
obviously being wasted in doing so...