Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Is T2.0 lens worth it?

Is T2.0 lens worth it?

  • Yes, and this would satisfy my desire for interchangeable lenses

    Votes: 31 26.5%

  • Yes, but I still want interchangeable lenses

    Votes: 36 30.8%

  • Yes, and I never wanted interchangeable lenses

    Votes: 26 22.2%

  • No, because I want it to be as small and light as possible

    Votes: 10 8.5%

  • No, because I want it to be a cheap as possible

    Votes: 14 12.0%
  • Total voters
    117
chuck colburn said:
...you would need additional glass between it and a single chip sensor.
Click to expand...
I am not suggesting that this these specific lenses be used on Scarlet. I am just showing them as examples of what should be possible for Scarlet's lens designers.

Peter Majtan said:
I don't know of any pro 2/3" zoom lens that will keep f/1.8 through out its zoom range.
Click to expand...

The lens that I linked to is constant f1.8 for the first 12x, and then ramps for the last 4x. If you don't like the ramping, you don't have to zoom past 12x. Scarlet only needs to use the first 8x.

Peter, it sounds like you are starting to see that it is physically possible, but the only question left is cost. It may cost more than $300, but I think Red has shown that they can do some pretty amazing things with pricing, and when you consider the quantities of Scarlet they will sell...
 
Having a bigger physical size of lens as a result of a larger aperture and thus lens elements might be attractive to the professionals here but if it means a big cam, then it could pose a problem to the crossover users which the Scarlett is also aimed at. Comnsumers / Prosumers / Semi Pros are not going to want something that isn't small and easily portable / bagged. In fact the 1st 2 categories are likely to want a camera that can be carried all day in a belt mounted case or small back pack type bag.

Personally I'd rather see a greater zoom length than a larger aperture simply because 8x restricts the type of application to which the camera can be put far too much.

8x is good for studio work and film sets no doubt, but amateurs / prosumers / semi pros shooting sports or even that other mentioned target, mums at school sports days are not going to be impressed when their subject looks like a distant ant in the final footage.
 
I'm curious: Of the people who still want interchangeable lenses, what lenses would you want to interchange to?
 
Chris Newman said:
Peter, it sounds like you are starting to see that it is physically possible, but the only question left is cost. It may cost more than $300, but I think Red has shown that they can do some pretty amazing things with pricing, and when you consider the quantities of Scarlet they will sell...
Click to expand...

I hate to disappoint You Chris, but that is not what I see. The second lens You linked to can only resolve HD (and we don't know how well) with price-tag rising two-folds over the SD model. If You wanted the lens to resolve 3K it will have two problems:

A) The lens alone will cost as much (or more) as Red One body...
B) It will be way to big to fit into the "pocket" size form factor of Scarlet...

therefore...

I still believe for this to be impossible.

To fit 2/3" lens that would resolve 3K while holding f/2.0 trough-out its entire 8x zoom range into the planed form-factor of "pocket-sized" Scarlet and allow the whole camera to stay bellow $ 3000,- USD - no fricking way!!!

I would gladly burn in HELL if that was possible...

:devil:
 
With the current temperatures shooting over 40˚C (100+ Fahrenheit) over here I actually believe I could cool off a bit in a hell... :biggrin:

Mind You the world we live in is as far from Heaven as Hell would ever be...

Anyway I am not religious - it was just my way of saying that for me - no way no how... No matter how mass-produced Scarlet is going to be - unless Jim is the largest philanthropist in our industry - You could not bring the cost of the glass alone bellow the price of Scarlet. Just the SD lens chris linked to earlier was originally selling for $3000 (dropping now to below $2000) and the HD version is $8000+. 3K quality will be "au-pair" with the $30-50000 2/3" lenses... Sure Jim could make one (with his Okley background) way cheaper - but bellow $3000? Once again - no way no how...
 
Olympus offers a 14-35mm f2.0 lens and a 35-100mm f2.0 lens (both constant over entire range) for the Four-Thirds package, meaning a sensor LARGER than the 2/3" in the Scarlet. These lenses equate to a 28-70mm lens and a 70-200mm lens when comparing field-of-view. The issue there is price (between $2000 and $3000 for each lens). This means that a constant F2.0 lens is possible, if not practical. While I'm definitely ecstatic at a 3K camera under $3000 with F2.8, etc., an F2.0 lens would be nice, not necessary.
 
Ok, I'm too tired to calculate this correct but...

If we have a lens that is 12mm at it's widest. With 8x zoom, that would mean 12 - 96mm at 2.0? So what's that on a 2/3 sensor? To get a good wide range we need at least 20mm in the actual image = 20 - 160mm lens (based on the recorded image).

I have a feeling my numbers are totally wrong here, so I expect someone to correct me :)
 
NoahFuLing said:
Olympus offers a 14-35mm f2.0 lens and a 35-100mm f2.0 lens (both constant over entire range) for the Four-Thirds package, meaning a sensor LARGER than the 2/3" in the Scarlet. These lenses equate to a 28-70mm lens and a 70-200mm lens when comparing field-of-view. The issue there is price (between $2000 and $3000 for each lens). This means that a constant F2.0 lens is possible, if not practical. While I'm definitely ecstatic at a 3K camera under $3000 with F2.8, etc., an F2.0 lens would be nice, not necessary.
Click to expand...

From Olympus web-site:

Dimensions Diameter 86 x123mm
Weight 900g
RRP $ 3,499.00

Three reasons why if will not fit in Scarlet - size-wise, weight-wise and price-wise...

PS: I have never said such a lens is impossible - I've said it is impossible inside Scarlet for given form-factor and price...
 
I suggest that we express what we want, why we want it, and how much we are willing to spend, and let the Red's engineers determine if it is possible. I think we have done that pretty well, but I still don't know why people would still want interchangeable lenses. Ultra-wide could be one reason. Fisheye and telephoto work pretty well as attachments I think. A T1.4 prime might be another reason. I can't think of anything else.
 
One way to achieve fast aperture and long focale length range is to make the lens quazi zoom or variable focale length. I'd rather have a very sharp variable focale length then a so so zoom.
 
Glazarus said:
Ok, I'm too tired to calculate this correct but...

If we have a lens that is 12mm at it's widest. With 8x zoom, that would mean 12 - 96mm at 2.0?
Click to expand...

Which really confirms my point. 90mm is useless to the majority of non studio customers which means Red are really shooting themselves in the foot if they hope to market this as mass market camera.

At 90mm its going to be studio professionals only.

Canon realised this with the XH-A1 camera and gave it a 32.5-650mm (35mm equivalent focal length) lens: http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Camcorders/High_Definition_HD/XH_A1/index.asp

Something of far more use to most users although a small drop off in favour of wide angle - maybe 28-600mm would be more universally useful.

The Red might be a step up in resolution but all of that is useless if the focal range is insufficient for the mass market.
 
Peter Majtan said:
With the current temperatures shooting over 40˚C (100+ Fahrenheit) over here I actually believe I could cool off a bit in a hell... :biggrin:
Click to expand...

I thought Hell froze over when Jim started shipping the RED One... :biggrin:
 
Alsone said:
Which really confirms my point. 90mm is useless to the majority of non studio customers which means Red are really shooting themselves in the foot if they hope to market this as mass market camera.

At 90mm its going to be studio professionals only.

Canon realised this with the XH-A1 camera and gave it a 32.5-650mm (35mm equivalent focal length) lens: http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Camcorders/High_Definition_HD/XH_A1/index.asp

Something of far more use to most users although a small drop off in favour of wide angle - maybe 28-600mm would be more universally useful.

The Red might be a step up in resolution but all of that is useless if the focal range is insufficient for the mass market.
Click to expand...


If 12mm equals 25mm on a 2/3 sensor, then 7mm should equal about 15mm.
I believe that 15mm is as much wide you need for a regular production (to be sure in any small situation). I don't know what the distortion becomes when having 7mm that equals 15mm on the final image, but better to have as wide as possible without distrortion, then a fish eye that distorts even the final image.

I believe that if the lens is 8x, the final image (the recorded image) should be able to have 15 - 120mm. In actual lens calculations that would mean
7 - 56mm.

It's really close to impossible to discuss focal lengths when we don't know more then T2.0 and 8x. But I do know that it's rare with 2.0 at 7mm.

When can we expect any news about the lens? Anyone from Red that can answer?
 
There still seems to be confusion about equivalent focal lengths. I would expect Scarlet's lens to be about 7-56mm, which would be about the same field of view as 27-216mm on a full-frame 35mm still camera. I think a 216mm telephoto is a enough for most things, and if you need more than that, an after-market 2x adapter will get you to 432mm.

While I am writing about equivalents, a T2.0 on 2/3" would be equivalent depth of field of about f6.3 on a full-frame 35mm still camera, or about f4 on a Red One or DSLR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top