Why does having interchangable lenses add so much to the cost of a cameras?

[Davide B.]

This is something I've never quite understood so if someone had an explanation it'd be greatly appreciated. Many people have noted that adding interchangable lenses to the scarlet cam would greatly increase the price. I believe this considering that that feature has always made prosumer cameras more expensive. The XLH1s and the XHA1 are pretty much the same exact camera (same codec, same lens, same 3ccd block) but the XLH1s has interchangable lenses and costs almost $3000 more. The JVCHD100/200 series has also been more expensive than other prosumer HD cameras, I'm guessing this is because of it's interchangable lenses. Or look at how the interchanable lens EX-3 is over $10,000 compared to its 6,000 stock lens equiped cousin the EX-1.

Why is this such an expensive feature? There are dslrs with interchanagble lenses that retail for $400. Is it really that expensive to create a bayonet mount that can withstand the wear-and-tear of everyday use? Or am I forgetting about some other costs that would make interchangable lenses expensive?

 

[Ed Blythe]

I can't enlighten you re: structural costs of building cameras. I expect Canon's price difference has to do with the fact that the price tag includes an actual lens.

In relation to Scarlet, the reason the price would bump up is because they can't just make one interchangeable lens mount - they would need mod's for Nikon, Canon, PL (?), Leica etc and so forth ad nauseum. So instead of one factory making one product, they need to have several factories making all sorts of mod's on the same basic body.

Plus the uptake of the camera will drop dramatically - how many soccer mom's you know have a set of Nikon primes sitting in the cupboard next to the good china?

DSLR's can commit to one type of lens i.e. Nikon cam's have Nikon mounts. There'd be much dissent if Nikon was supported but Canon wasn't. And again, they wouldn't sell nearly as many so the price tag would have to go up because they'd just narrowed their market.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Why not make a modular mount that you order together with a wither a Nikon, Canon or PL mount?

The mini35 adapters are all built the same but the allignment lies in the mounts. You choose what mount you want and it ships with that mount.
There shouldn't really be that more expensive, but there's such a large cropping on a 2/3 sensor that I don't know if it's usable to go with Canon or Nikon lenses designed for 35mm.

And I really think that a fixed lens is the way to go (as long as it is wide enough). How many cameras will be able to be run and gun in this quality?
It's like a major step into the future of moving images.

So, even if I think it's possible to make it interchangable, there are too many problems with interchangable lenses in my point of view.

 

[Mitch Gross]

It means a dramatically different lens design, as it can no longer have multiple floating elements and allow a servo driven focus/zoom system keep everything functioning together. Belive it or not, that makes it a lot cheaper to manufacture as the electronics keep it working instead of precision mechanicals. That's why most camcorders use fixed mount lenses and focus wheels that are just servo actuators.

 

[Davide B.]

I can't enlighten you re: structural costs of building cameras. I expect Canon's price difference has to do with the fact that the price tag includes an actual lens.

In relation to Scarlet, the reason the price would bump up is because they can't just make one interchangeable lens mount - they would need mod's for Nikon, Canon, PL (?), Leica etc and so forth ad nauseum. So instead of one factory making one product, they need to have several factories making all sorts of mod's on the same basic body.

Plus the uptake of the camera will drop dramatically - how many soccer mom's you know have a set of Nikon primes sitting in the cupboard next to the good china?

DSLR's can commit to one type of lens i.e. Nikon cam's have Nikon mounts. There'd be much dissent if Nikon was supported but Canon wasn't. And again, they wouldn't sell nearly as many so the price tag would have to go up because they'd just narrowed their market.

I'm not sure what you mean in your first point about the Canon having an actual lens. The Xlh1s has a 20x servo zoom, just like the xha1. Maybe they are marking up the XH1s because it looks more professional?

I don't think Red would need to include mounts for nikon glass as with the red. It's a 2/3 sensor so it could have either a c-mount, b4 mount or pl mount. I'd be happy with any of the three. If someone wants to use 35mm lenses they could use a 35mm adapter. Heck I'd be happy with a fixed lens.

 

[Ed Blythe]

Yes I have no idea about Canon cam's (although I did learn on the first gen XL1 back in the day...)

Point is, different market. Lens mount = necessity for lenses, which bumps the price and takes the camera out of contention for the average consumer (and a lot of prosumer's too). It's not that kind of camera - and for this price it never will be. If you want to pay a different price...well, either go Red One or pray for something intermediate.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

But it's not a consumer camera, never been. It's a professional tool.
That statement about soccer moms is just to show how wide it can be used.

But still, it is another type of camera then Red One and I for one really like the idea of having remote control.


Will it be possible to remote the focus with wi-fi? I'm not so used to having a focus puller so it would be nice if that is the whole idea of the wi-fi control (and of course the ability to control zoom)?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

It's more expensive to build a mechanical manual zoom than a fixed electronic zoom w/ floating elements.

 

[Davide B.]

True, but having an interchanable mount doesn't preclude the use of servo lenses does it? The Canon XL series cameras don't come equipped with mechanical manual zooms. They are servo lenses. Their zoom and focus rings spin infinitely and don't have any hard stops. It's not like the XLH1s has a full manual lens while the XHA1 has an electronic one. The HVX200 has a manual zoom but is cheaper than the XLH1a and XLH1s which have servo zooms. As another example: the DVX100B has a manual zoom lens but it is about $750 cheaper than the canon xl2 body without a lens.

After looking around I think maybe this is just an issue with Canon. Because the JVC HD200 (which has a fully manual 16x zoom and an interchanable lens mount) is about the same price as it's fixed lens competition.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

It's not professional if you can't control the zoom and focus manually, even if you can do it electronic. I mean, what separates a consumer camera from a professional? One major thing is that every control is manual or have the ability to be manual if needed...

 

[Davide B.]

You do have quasi-manual control of servo lenses. It's just that it doesn't feel like the manual control you have over fully mechanical lenses. In the latter type the zoom ring stops when you're at either the wide-end or the telephoto end of the zoom range. The same goes for the focus ring, once you get to infinity focus it stops turning. In a servo lens spinning the zoom/focus rings merely sends an electroninc signal telling the lens to zoom in or out. They're not mechanically coupled to the lens.

You do have manual control over servo lenses in that they're not just autofocus. It's the same as when you use a canon camera with an EF lens. You don't open or shut the iris by spinning the aperture ring as there isn't one. Instead you electronically control the aperture by hitting buttons on the camera body. It's still a manual control and it's definitely professional, but it's not fully mechanical. The problem I've found with servo lenses is that it can make using a follow focus hard and they usually don't feel as good as mechanically coupled lenses. They're usually a lot looser in their spin.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Though the lens adds to the cost of manufacturing, there are probably some economic factors at work that make a camera with fixed lens more profitable to make and sell than a separate camera and lens -- maybe because you can mass produce and sell more units as a single design and thus decrease costs.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

mass produce

ohhh... that always ring bad in my ears. But still, Scarlet is the mass produced product of Red.

I'm actually not concerned at all about the inner workings of the camera.
I think with the mysterium X and all it will blow away many expensive 2/3 cameras on the market.
The thing I'm really concerned of is the lens. People I've met who did alot of testing with the Red One said that the Red lenses aren't good enough and that it's better to go with other cine-lenses.
So I'm a bit worried that the lens is going to drag the quality down a bit.

To be a true professional tool it must first and foremost give you manual control over focus and zoom.
Then the aparture should be quality shaped and the glass itself should be made at least at a descent quality with minimal distortion, vignetting, aberrations etc.
Some Red lens footage I've seen doesn't have a good bokeh in my opinion.

I'm gladly paying $4000 for the camera to get a fixed quality lens, then a descent one for a cameraprice under $3000. And I'm not talking about aparture under 2.8, I'm talking about the quality of the glass and stuff.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Considering that a high-end 2/3" Canon or Fujinon HD zoom costs $25,000 to $30,000... exactly how "perfect" do you expect the optics to be on a $2000 or $3000 camera that includes the lens? Aren't you being a little unrealistic to expect the highest-quality lens possible on a cheap camera? Even the RED zoom, with some of its problems, is excellent considering its price.

The best lens optics possible come at a high price. You said you'd gladly pay $4000 for a better lens on the camera, but that doesn't really buy you much actually over the $3000 one. Would you gladly pay, let's say, $10,000 for the Scarlet if it came with a great zoom lens?

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Well, no because at $8K it could be interchangable instead.
I was not really asking for more then $1000 worth of a more careful process when making the lens. As we all know even good lenses have differences between them, but when something is "mass produced" the time of each camera produced is less and I was thinking about $1000 for a more carefull process to insure the highest quality of that lens.
I wasn't really thinking that this lens would be like the 18-50 Red zoom or something like that because that lens alone is worth much more then the camera itself.

Or maybe I'm speaking rubbish... anyway, Jim already spoken about the lens now and he ensured "pro quality"; that is more then enough said about it's quality I think.

 

[John Caballero]

It is actually going to be a great lens. Wow you will even be able to use it, if you wanted, as a wide angle, normal, telephoto and many flavors in between! Isn’t a zoom lens a marvelous piece of engineering? Is like having so many lenses in one little package. No…is like magical actually.

 

[Joel Kaye]

I wasn't really thinking that this lens would be like the 18-50 Red zoom or something like that because that lens alone is worth much more then the camera itself.

Or maybe I'm speaking rubbish...

You do seem to be talking in circles. To even mention cine Lenses which cost 10x as much as Scarlet in the same discussion as Scarlet lens quality doesn't make much sense to me.

I'm sure the lens will be fine. There are plenty of little cameras out there with nice lenses. Even though I'm totally guilty myself, sometimes I think we get too focused on the gear and not as much on the craft. If you're good you can make a whole lot of cameras out there produce great stuff.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

From the new news freshly from Jim, it's like I've bashed myself in the head for nothing. I have no worries for the lens anymore...