On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:30:30 +0100, Richard C. Ferryman wrote:

>I wonder if anyone has done any tests on camcorder lenses. In my
>experience many lower cost camcorders have horrid plastic lenses which
>are prone to flare and aberrations. In one camcorder the colour
>balance varies over the zoom range but in general auto colour balance
>corrects for colour errors. Canon boasts a fluorite lens but is it
>any better than others? How do the Sony VX1000/2000 lenses compare?
>Are there any that really stand out as especially good or bad?
>It seems that discussions on the camcorder lens seem to stop at zoom
>range and whether or not there is manual focus.
>Any comments?

There are comparative frame-grabs from several 3-chip and
some 1-chip Mini-DV camcorders in a camcorder review article
on my web page (look under the "I babble" index...). Since
the CCDs, electronics, and lens are an integrated package,
it is hard to separate out lens performance from other
considerations (except for flare, distortion, and other
lens-unique elements), but some indication of lens quality
can be gleaned from corner performance (particularly at the
zoom short end) at wide stops. In one notable case (GL-1),
an excellent lens is spoiled by an image that shows
excessive camera artifacts like excess edge effect, more
than usual moire patterns and vertical-line stairstepping,
orange color bias, and ultimate resolution short of the
best one-chip camcorders. The VX-2000 does stand out
overall, though, with a good lens, and good CCD and
electronics to back it up (the picture is sharp, with
minimal negative artifacting for a Mini-DV camcorder...).
Check out also John Beale's site, which has some lens
tests on it, or referrals to them, at: www.bealecorner.com