in photography to get the shallowest DOF possible, what you do is use the largest possible zoom lens, zoom in as far as you can, and use the largest aperture possible. that's how it is for still cameras.

i know that for my ag-dvx1000a however you can only get a shallow DOF effect if you have the aperture set ? 2.8. you still need it zoomed in as far as possible though.

www.maketradefair.com
www.thehungersite.com
www.oxfam.ca

I read somewhere that to combat the problem of the wide DOF on a miniDV camera (HD110U with interchangeable lenses), you can get a 35mm adapter and attach a prime lens in place of the zoom to get a more narrow DOF. Is this true? Has anyone actually tried this? The last thing I want is to pay $6000 for a camera and get that ugly 'everything-in-focus' camcorder look.

'In the life that man creates for himself, he too, creates his demise... and his legacy.'

You can, but I don't know how well it would work with the JVC camera.

Hmm... have I any other options? I realize that I can zoom in and keep the iris open, but... that's not something I want to do.

'In the life that man creates for himself, he too, creates his demise... and his legacy.'

You must find a way to use an external lens on your mini-DV camera to achieve selective focus, whether that's through a proper interchangeable lens system or through an adaptor like the PS Teknics mount or the Movie Tube. Otherwise you will always be battling that "everything in focus" look of consumer and many prosumer video cameras.

Then you put a long lens on the camera, either a long prime or a zoom lens at a long focal length, and get yourself in a low-light situation. That'll give you very shallow depth of field.

Best of luck.

Okay. I had heard about the PS Teknics lens adapter, but I wasn't sure if it was really an issue with the camera lens, or with the medium it was being recorded to.

'In the life that man creates for himself, he too, creates his demise... and his legacy.'

Definitely the LENS, not the record medium.

I wonder what makes a company think it's okay to sell a $6000 camera with a lens that won't do the job that most people will want it to do. Argh.

'In the life that man creates for himself, he too, creates his demise... and his legacy.'

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wordslinger

I wonder what makes a company think it's okay to sell a $6000 camera with a lens that won't do the job that most people will want it to do. Argh.

---

Because a really good lens costs $6,000 and above and prime lenses are better than a zoom lens. That's why interchangeable lenses are so important. No professional 16mm or 35mm camera comes with lenses so it follows that no professional DV camera would come with lenses.

I rent pro lenses when I shoot a feature usually the "Super Cine Style" prime lenses from Fujinon, but occasionally the DigiPrime lenses from Zeiss. I own 2 16mm cameras and always rented lenses, so this is nothing unusual or unexpected for me.

Though I understand why someone with no film experience would find this frustrating. You expect a top quality lens to go with your top quality camera. The stock lens on the HD100 and 110 is a fine lens - much better than any other stock lens available on other DV cameras. But most DV camera owners want an all purpose zoom lens attached to the camera so that's what the makers offer.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

Well it's good to know that the stock lenses are decent. I'm still going to buy the camera, so I'll see if that lens works for me. If not, I'll just save for a better lens, and make do with the stock lens in the mean time. I didn't expect a top of the line lens, just something that wouldn't make the video, right out of the box, look like useless trash lol. But in case anyone of importance is in here who has anything to do with making video cameras... I don't care about zoom! What kind of aperture or iris size should I be looking for when buying a prime lens? I know that it's always the larger maximum size the better, but is there a standard to look for?

'In the life that man creates for himself, he too, creates his demise... and his legacy.'

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wordslinger

I didn't expect a top of the line lens, just something that wouldn't make the video, right out of the box, look like useless trash

---

Even the best lens won't give you a great image right out of the box. Good photography/videography is a learned skill. It's not the equipment, it's how you learn to use it.

I think it's hard to argue that an experienced photographer using light and composition well with a $500 camera will get get a better looking image than an inexperienced photographer who doesn't understand good lighting will get using a $300,000 camera.

If you are buying only one prime lens then I suggest a 50mm. But even better would be to rent a full set for a weekend, use them all and make an informed choice based on your personal taste.

Oh, I certainly know what you mean. I'm a bit of a photographer, and I know that when I use a typical $200 digital camera, and then switch to a $1000 SLR, there's a huge difference in how the image looks (regardless of experience). There is lighting, there is framing, angles, etc etc. But what I'm looking for is a nice narrow DOF, which will allow me to get more interesting shots and the ability to bring the viewer's attention to a particular person/object in the frame.
I will certainly take renting a set of lenses into consideration. But just out of curiosity (because I know different price ranges give different results), what is a typical aperture size on a good prime lens?
I know that, with photography, you are limited in low light conditions by the maximum aperture size. If it's not large enough, you are force to use long shutter speeds, which then forces you to carry around a tripod or use high ISO film. Of course, it also helps with the DOF, which again is my main concern.

'In the life that man creates for himself, he too, creates his demise... and his legacy.'

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wordslinger

Oh, I certainly know what you mean. I'm a bit of a photographer, and I know that when I use a typical $200 digital camera, and then switch to a $1000 SLR, there's a huge difference in how the image looks (regardless of experience).

---

A good point. So that's a good reason to rent better lenses for your video camera.

Hopefully I haven't sounded like I've been trying to argue any of the points made in this post. I'm very grateful for all of the advice, actually.

The reason I'm curious about all this is because since I decided that this is what I wanted to do, I've been walking around with an ever-present 16x9 frame in my vision lol. I don't know if it's strange, or just the norm for people who make films. Anyway, I just wanted to make sure that what I saw in my own head was something that I could put onto video or film, and not something that would be restricted by the technical limitations of the equipment.

'In the life that man creates for himself, he too, creates his demise... and his legacy.'