Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-10-2015, 04:10 PM   #1
New Member




Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Michigan
Posts: 17
JVC Fujinon HZ-510U = standard B4-2/3 FFD?

Hi:

Cart before horse...I have a JVC HZ-510U lens also marked Fujinon TV-Z and A10x10BRM-9U., removed from a JVC KY-210 broadcast type of camera. 10-100 mm zoom.

Someone suggested to me that Pentax Q was a good economical camera series to experiment with other lenses.

What I seem to be finding is that that this type of lens has a 'standard' B4-2/3 bayonet mount, and the FFD is possibly 35.74 mm.

However, there is also a Sony version of B4-2/3 at 36 mm.

I see modestly priced B4-Pentax Q adapters but would like to find out if anyone else has done this. That would probably confirm whether the JVC lenses conformed to a standard rather than the alternate Sony FFD dimension.

Thank you

Murray
Holland MI

06-10-2015, 09:33 PM   #2
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Pekin, IL
Posts: 237
I don't know much about video or video lenses, but I wouldn't spend a lot of money on this either way. Remember that for video cameras at that time, they only needed a lens that would resolve about 1/3 of a megapixel, whereas the lenses for the Q from Pentax would be capable of (most of) its 12 MP. They worried about other things you need for video lenses -- relatively free of distortion on a 10x zoom, no breathing, parfocal, etc. Those all cost money, too.


Regardless of flange focal distance or image circle coverage, I would expect dim, fuzzy images. That doesn't mean they wouldn't be interesting, just nowhere near perfect.
06-11-2015, 08:58 AM   #3
Pentaxian
dcshooter's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Washington DC
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,603
Strongly disagree.

Pretty much all of the Fujinon broadcast and CCTV lenses I've used on the Q have worked out beautifully and outresolve the sensor at still resolution, let alone doing HD video. I can't speak for the specs of this particular lens, but these broadcast lenses also tended to have quite fast maximum apertures (made possible by the small sensor size), so I'm not sure where you are getting "dim" from, either. Judging by the Tamron equivalent, this probably an f/1.6 or so.

In my experience, 2/3" sensor lens might show some falloff/vignetting in the corners taking stills on the Q7/Q-S1, but I've found them quite workable using them for video on the Q7 or stills and video on the earlier generation/smaller sensored Q.

QuoteOriginally posted by fredralphfred Quote
I don't know much about video or video lenses, but I wouldn't spend a lot of money on this either way. Remember that for video cameras at that time, they only needed a lens that would resolve about 1/3 of a megapixel, whereas the lenses for the Q from Pentax would be capable of (most of) its 12 MP. They worried about other things you need for video lenses -- relatively free of distortion on a 10x zoom, no breathing, parfocal, etc. Those all cost money, too.


Regardless of flange focal distance or image circle coverage, I would expect dim, fuzzy images. That doesn't mean they wouldn't be interesting, just nowhere near perfect.
06-11-2015, 03:29 PM   #4
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Pekin, IL
Posts: 237
How old are these lenses? Or did the OP somehow acquire a new broadcast lens for HD video?

From his description, it sounded to me like these were salvaged from a 25-year-old studio camera. I guess I never tried them on a modern digital sensor, but considering what they were designed to do and the price point they hit, I'd be very surprised by that kind of performance from an older SD TV broadcast lens.

06-11-2015, 10:31 PM   #5
New Member




Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Michigan
Posts: 17
Original Poster
Thanks for the replies

1984, $1220 then for the lens, specs said 750 line resolution, and HD didn't exist...
06-11-2015, 10:34 PM   #6
New Member




Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Michigan
Posts: 17
Original Poster
f/1.6 wide open.

I couldn't tell if the macro ring did anything handheld looking through it
06-12-2015, 01:19 AM   #7
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Pekin, IL
Posts: 237
QuoteOriginally posted by murrayatuptown Quote
Thanks for the replies

1984, $1220 then for the lens, specs said 750 line resolution, and HD didn't exist...
Well, dcshooter said he'd had great luck with lenses like that. But with 750 line resolution, I would expect fuzzy pictures. But on the other hand, at that time, they didn't care about "more" because no one could use it. (Incidentally, video, even HD video, typically requires far less resolution than photos.) An MTF graph might be beneficial if you can find one before you go spending $400 or $500 just to see what pictures from the lens look like.
06-12-2015, 10:04 AM   #8
Pentaxian
dcshooter's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Washington DC
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,603
In my experience, the TV lenses from the big manufacturers (Fuji, Canon, etc.) tend to be way over-engineered from a sharpness standpoint, since despite only being for a low res sensor, they intentionally overshoot the target by a wide margin in order to ensure maximum performance. These are, after all formerly very expensive pro-level lenses intended to create broadcasts for mass consumption, so the former customers desired top-end performance. With such a small sensor, it's a lot easier to err on the side of caution and make the tolerances as tight as possible and overshoot the sensor res than it is to try to match it exactly, and risk poorer performance due to sample variation.

Incidentally, these broadcast lenses can be bought at auction for much less than $400 at auction if you know where to look. I've seen some people out on the internet who have managed to rig up a 12v. power supply for the zoom motors on similar lenses.

06-13-2015, 01:53 AM   #9
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Pekin, IL
Posts: 237
QuoteOriginally posted by dcshooter Quote
In my experience, the TV lenses from the big manufacturers (Fuji, Canon, etc.) tend to be way over-engineered from a sharpness standpoint, since despite only being for a low res sensor, they intentionally overshoot the target by a wide margin in order to ensure maximum performance. These are, after all formerly very expensive pro-level lenses intended to create broadcasts for mass consumption, so the former customers desired top-end performance. With such a small sensor, it's a lot easier to err on the side of caution and make the tolerances as tight as possible and overshoot the sensor res than it is to try to match it exactly, and risk poorer performance due to sample variation.

Incidentally, these broadcast lenses can be bought at auction for much less than $400 at auction if you know where to look. I've seen some people out on the internet who have managed to rig up a 12v. power supply for the zoom motors on similar lenses.
Well, that's good, because they certainly cost enough at the time. I guess I was thinking the lenses were "dim" because I remembered the amount of light you had to have to illuminate the subject properly. That was probably due to the sensors, though. I must have overlooked the f/1.6 part.

It looks like they would make pretty sweet lenses for shooting video on modern small-sensor cameras, wouldn't they? What would you have to pay to get an equivalent lens for APS-C? Probably as much as a house, right? Of course, you won't get a very shallow depth-of-field on a Q, but that's overrated for video anyway.


Never mind. Just looked at the article -- that's exactly what they're doing.

Last edited by fredralphfred; 06-13-2015 at 01:54 AM. Reason: Looked at the article
06-15-2015, 03:29 PM   #10
New Member




Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Michigan
Posts: 17
Original Poster
Thank you both for add'l responses.

The camera was $45 at a local electronics recycling business. Initially I thought that was too much for something I was going to take apart to see what could be repurposed...typically very little. It didn't have the battery or power supply and I had no use for a triple Saticon tube camera either...

Then I had some conversation with someone who tries every C & D CCTV & cine lens he finds on a Q or u4/3 camera.

Next time I went back it was 50% off due to how long it had been there...$22.50 + tax...I figured I'd get it & ask questions later...

Video is my primary purpose but I'll certainly give it a try for stills...
06-16-2015, 11:04 AM   #11
Pentaxian
dcshooter's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Washington DC
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,603
QuoteOriginally posted by fredralphfred Quote
It looks like they would make pretty sweet lenses for shooting video on modern small-sensor cameras, wouldn't they? What would you have to pay to get an equivalent lens for APS-C? Probably as much as a house, right? Of course, you won't get a very shallow depth-of-field on a Q, but that's overrated for video anyway.
Biggest downside is that on something as small as a Q, you end up having to riig it out with all kinds of handles/attachments/etc. to make it even remotely balanced.
06-17-2015, 07:07 AM   #12
New Member




Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Michigan
Posts: 17
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by dcshooter Quote
Biggest downside is that on something as small as a Q, you end up having to riig it out with all kinds of handles/attachments/etc. to make it even remotely balanced.
The B4-Q adapter I was looking at has a 1/4-20 tripod mount so the camera can hang on like...I can't think of a useful analogy...like a camera.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, fujinon, jvc, jvc fujinon hz-510u, jvc fujinon tv-z b4-2/3/, lenses, mm, pentax help, photography, sony, troubleshooting, type
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: 2 EBC Fujinon Lenses, 50mm f/1.8, 28mm f/3.5 modded to standard m42 mount dcshooter Sold Items 5 11-30-2014 03:20 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax Q plus 2 standard zoom lenses + Q Fever Sold Items 5 06-21-2013 03:04 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:50 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top