AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Why not interchangeable lens?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why not interchangeable lens?

post #1 of 20
2/19/07 at 11:49pm
Thread Starter 
I often wonder about how much attention is paid to the optics. Are cheaper PJs optics plastic or glass? I don't know any thing about anamorphic lens/constant 2:35 stuff. Photography is my other hobby and I sometimes wonder if Nikon, Canon, Leica, Contax, and such, could makes lens for PJ manufacturers as another avenue for upgrade. Good glass is expensive, though. Sharpness, color fidelity, light loss, brightness, contrast, etc are affected by the optics as well as it's path, but the question is, how much is it relative to the electronics side of the equation? Maybe the electonics side is still the weaker link.

Maybe too much focus (sorry for the pun) is on 720p vs 1080p when more should be placed on optics. What good is 1080p if it's passing thru low grade plastic lens with crappy coatings?

I just think having some Nikon ED glass in my BenQ 8720 would be a cool thing.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #2 of 20
2/20/07 at 5:05am
marantz use minolta. not sure what other companies use. would be cool to know
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 20
2/20/07 at 5:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buttabean View Post

marantz use minolta. not sure what other companies use. would be cool to know

The JVC HD1/RS1 lens is by Fujinon and of all glass construction.

Dazzer
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 20
2/20/07 at 5:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dazzerxxx View Post

The JVC HD1/RS1 lens is by Fujinon and of all glass construction.

Dazzer

some how this will turn into a RS1/HD1 thread haha . good to know none the least
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 20
2/20/07 at 5:45am
What about Sony? What do they use? It's likely not Carl Zeiss as they use on their cameras, otherwise it would have been written on it.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 20
2/20/07 at 5:49am
well when i purchased my marantz vp8600 it had a minolta lens but they werent allowed to put the name on it or they would have had to pay royalties from what i understand
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 20
2/20/07 at 6:14am
The Qualia uses interchangable lenses. They are purchased separately from the projector at $3,000.00. Available for short, medium, and long throw applications.

They appear to be made in Japan, but I don't know who makes them. They deliver a beutiful image with no CA and full 1080x1920 resolving power over the entire screen.

Vern
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 20
2/20/07 at 6:59am
Absolutely. Better lenses make better projectors. It is cheaper to make a projector with a non interchangeable lens. No lens mount is needed and since there is only one lens economies of scale are better. Also with a large zoom range and a cheap lens, the optics suffer compared to a shorter zoom range lens. The best solution would be a high quality ED glass type of non zoom lens or more realistically a short zoom range interchangeable. The Qualia and Marantz solutions.

What will come? A believe a more expensive version of the JVC-RS1 with shorter zoom range intechangeable lenses with a zenon higher wattage bulb and a newer Gennum chip with perhaps an external VP box. At that point, it will be goodby to my CRT. Until then, much closer but no cigar.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 20
2/20/07 at 10:10am
The Action! Model 3 / dVision 1080p projectors have interchangable lenses that mount with bayonet mounts, so some projectors do!!
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 20
2/20/07 at 2:41pm
So we have Marantz, Sony Qualia, and Projection Design.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 20
2/21/07 at 10:22am
Sure having an interchangable lens would add something to the cost - though I can't imagine that much if its nothing more than a lens that screws in and out. And having a projector that could be upgraded in terms of PQ (not to mention aspect or throw) would be a great feature. Between being able to upgrade the optics and the processing (with an outboard scaler) and even connectivity modules a projector could become a platform that has a much longer useful life.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 20
2/21/07 at 1:35pm
Quote:


though I can't imagine that much if its nothing more than a lens that screws in and out

But they don't just do this. If you look at the Qualia lens, you'll see it uses an bayonet mount with a group of electrical contacts to provide power to the iris mechanism.

Far far away from a simple screw mount... (Think Canon EOS Rebel or other Digital SLR interchangable lens mount).

Vern
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 20
2/21/07 at 3:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bing View Post

I don't know any thing about anamorphic lens/constant 2:35 stuff. Photography is my other hobby and I sometimes wonder if Nikon, Canon, Leica, Contax, and such, could makes lens for PJ manufacturers as another avenue for upgrade.

Since you mentioned anamorphic lens I thought you'd be interested in what Schneider Optics response was to fitting their anamorphic lens onto the RS1.

"Feb 7, 2007: Yes. But we are waiting for JVC to deliver one to us for measurement and testing. This should be completed in a week or so according to
JVC."

Your correct, these higher quality lenses are expensive. In the $6k range.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 20
2/21/07 at 4:03pm
The ultimate would be a series of fixed lens for different throws. but considering we cannot get the manufactures to move away from cheap short throw with deep offset presentation lens I doubt we will see any new offerings from the manufactures any time soon.
Runco is the only one offering a choice of high end optics on many of their 1 chip and Lcos projectors.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 20
2/21/07 at 4:28pm
It figures that the optional wide angle lens I need for my dVision1080p is what's holding up my projector. On the other hand, having a choice of lenses means being able to use the projector you want to use, not the projector that happens to fit the parameters of your home theater. And, it's the same lens on the prototype machine Greg Rogers had for review!!
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 20
2/21/07 at 4:47pm
Just ordered the ISCO III for anamorphic setup but sure would be nice if manufacturers offered a pj capable of being paired with a "1 lens does all" option (i.e.
Take the weaker link out of the chain to improve MTF.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 20
2/21/07 at 4:50pm
This question came up a few years ago when JVC dropped support for interchangeable lenses on their higher end line. The JVC rep (speaking only for himself ) said at the time it added about $2000 to the price of a PJ. Which is fine when a PJ costs $20,000 - $30,000+, but for mainstream PJ's it's cost prohibitive.

I would like to see long throw options make a comeback as well, but I also remember those lenses carrying a premium (like an additional $4,500 just for the long throw lens). Given what PJ's are going for these days, people may appreciate the option, but be willing to work around the throw limitations to save the money. i.e. is it really worth 2x the price of your PJ for the long throw option? If people don't use the option and just stick with the cheapest option, then the PJ ends up costing more just to provide an option that 99% of the people don't use... in which case, it's better to just leaving the option off and lower the cost of the PJ... And here we are.

One of the things I would really like to see is built in anamorphic lenses. I don't know if it's feasible or not, but it would be nice to have an internal lens could automatically slip into place to stretch/squeeze the image. Most enthusiast rigs are small monstrosities and after market bolt ons by the manufactures aren't much better. Things are improving, don't get me wrong. I just look forward to the day that 2.35:1 CH is an option supported entirely within a PJ (both scaling & lens options).
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 20
4/28/08 at 8:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rabident View Post

This question came up a few years ago when JVC dropped support for interchangeable lenses on their higher end line. The JVC rep (speaking only for himself ) said at the time it added about $2000 to the price of a PJ. Which is fine when a PJ costs $20,000 - $30,000+, but for mainstream PJ's it's cost prohibitive.

I would like to see long throw options make a comeback as well, but I also remember those lenses carrying a premium (like an additional $4,500 just for the long throw lens). Given what PJ's are going for these days, people may appreciate the option, but be willing to work around the throw limitations to save the money. i.e. is it really worth 2x the price of your PJ for the long throw option? If people don't use the option and just stick with the cheapest option, then the PJ ends up costing more just to provide an option that 99% of the people don't use... in which case, it's better to just leaving the option off and lower the cost of the PJ... And here we are.

One of the things I would really like to see is built in anamorphic lenses. I don't know if it's feasible or not, but it would be nice to have an internal lens could automatically slip into place to stretch/squeeze the image. Most enthusiast rigs are small monstrosities and after market bolt ons by the manufactures aren't much better. Things are improving, don't get me wrong. I just look forward to the day that 2.35:1 CH is an option supported entirely within a PJ (both scaling & lens options).

I'm not disputing anything here, but 2x the price? Seriously? Wow!

It would be great if the different companies at least had their own standard of interchangeable lenses...I don't expect to use a Canon lens on Nikon, etc. How difficult can it be? Use the same lens mount on all of your projectors right? Maybe I'm missing something here, but they've figured it out with digital SLRs and those have varying sensor sizes as well.

It would be nice to put a long throw, short throw whatever on your projector and know that it's an investment to that line. Camera makers use lenses as a mean of maintaining a customer base...if you've spent 5K on lenses over the last few years, do you really want a body from a different manufacturer?

You ship the standard medium throw lens and let people buy different focal lengths, aperature, etc. Outsource the lenses to the glass makers and let that be something you don't waste your R&D on. It just takes some standards right?

Yeah, I know I probably over simplified that whole process, and to anyone offended by it...my apologies.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 20
4/29/08 at 9:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by rabident View Post

This question came up a few years ago when JVC dropped support for interchangeable lenses on their higher end line. The JVC rep (speaking only for himself ) said at the time it added about $2000 to the price of a PJ. Which is fine when a PJ costs $20,000 - $30,000+, but for mainstream PJ's it's cost prohibitive.

I would like to see long throw options make a comeback as well, but I also remember those lenses carrying a premium (like an additional $4,500 just for the long throw lens).

It's inconsistent from manufacturer to manufacturer. The Marantz DLPs carry a $3,000 premium for the long throw option, but the Sim2's carry only a $1,000 premium. I found it telling though that Bob Williams just mentioned in the Planar thread that all things being equal, a longer throw lens is less expensive.

Anybody know what the technical barriers to putting an actual 35mm camera lens on a projector would be? Is it the back focal length? A film negative is 24mmx36mm, so focusing light from a 12mmx21mm 1080p DMD should be no problem for a still camera lens. I don't know exactly how big the LCoS devices are, but I thought they were even smaller.

You can certainly buy very good film camera lenses for less than $3,000. You'd think if it were possible, a smart projector manufacturer would just design a projector with say a Canon bayonet mount, then provide off the shelf lenses. Seems like the economies of scale of using such a high volume lens would more than outweigh the extra cost of the bayonet mount. The $2,000 number seems a little dubious, a Canon EOS 5D body is only ~$2,500 and it's a whole lot more than a lens mount.


Quote:



One of the things I would really like to see is built in anamorphic lenses. I don't know if it's feasible or not, but it would be nice to have an internal lens could automatically slip into place to stretch/squeeze the image. Most enthusiast rigs are small monstrosities and after market bolt ons by the manufactures aren't much better. Things are improving, don't get me wrong. I just look forward to the day that 2.35:1 CH is an option supported entirely within a PJ (both scaling & lens options).

I think we'll see native 2.35:1 projectors before integrated anamorphic lenses, at least on the LCoS side. A 2560x1080 panel should be within fairly easy reach if they've already got 4k panels working. I'd prefer this solution any way. (I know it's "really" 2538x1080, but 2560 is close enough and already a common computer resolution)
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 20
5/1/08 at 8:29am
<< Crickets >>
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Why not interchangeable lens?