: << With : video, one can get away with far worse optics without
: : seeing differences... >>
: ?????????????????????????????????????????
:
: I DO SEE A BIG DIFFERENCE WHEN I USE A ENG FUJINON LENS AND A CHEAP Fujinon industrial lens. That statement is definitely wrong. Glass matters and most experienced videographers try to put in their cameras the best glass they can afford. In film and video, the quality of the lens is extremely important. (TED)
Yes, of course! You took the above out of context. I was
referring to lens systems - comparing one lens with, and
the same lens without, a filter... In this case, the video
system is less critical for showing differences in optics
(lens + filter vs. lens alone) than is a good still-photography
system, since the resolutions involved in the video systems
are so much less. A good example is the WA converter that
looks just fine on a camcorder lens, but looks terrible
on a still camera lens - the still system requires better
optics for satisfactory performance (which is not to say that
replacing a given video lens with a better one will not show,
since it probably will...). My point was that if putting a
good filter on a still camera with a good fast long lens
(a very critical test) does not show a problem with using
filters, puting the same quality filter on a less sensitive
system (a video lens) will almost certainly not show a problem...