Samsung cam

[Damien]

Can anyone give me any information on the Samsung VP-D73.
It will be on sale for 699 Euros here in Germany next week.
It has 22x opt Zoom, and built in light.
If any body has any info I would really appreciate it.

Damien.

[Fred H]

http://www.materiel.net/details_SAMVPD73.html

http://www.foto-contact.de/pdf-Archiv/2001/09_September/Seite_34_35.pdf

[Brian Ellis]

Damien

A low-cost camera with a 22 x zoom lens is an extremely suspicious combination. I suspect you may do better with a couple of bottoms of wine bottles

The optics will almost certainly not match up to the CCD/electronics resolution under all conditions.

[wkulecz]

Resolving the ~550 lines of DV or Hi8 is not a particularly big challenge for modern optics.

I had an old Samsung Video8. Image quality was a bit better than VHS (about all you could expect from video8). The camera was not very robust, but while it worked I was very happy with it. SInce it died only a short time after the warrenty ran out, I decided I'd be avoiding Samsung camcorders in the future.

--wally.

[Brian Ellis]

Originally posted by wkulecz
Resolving the ~550 lines of DV or Hi8 is not a particularly big challenge for modern optics.

I'm afraid that I must disagree with you, Wally. The CCD is 1/4" diagonal. Give or take an ounce or two, this means the active width is c. 5.5 mm, so 550 lines requires 100 lines/mm. This is no mean feat for a cheap lens over the whole zoom range and at all distances. In fact, I would say it is damn nigh impossible. This is easily seen, on nearly every cheap camcorder lens. Go to manual focus and focus well on full telephoto at various distances from the closest possible right through to infinity (if you have the control, using the highest shutter speed compatible with the ambient light, so that the diaphragm is as open as possible). Then zoom to full wide angle at each of these distances. I'll guarantee you won't keep your 550 lines/mm over the whole zoom range. In fact, if you go through the clip in MSPro or equivalent, you can see which frames are sharp and which ones aren't, although the visual impression when viewing it on an ordinary TV at the full frame rate pardons a lot of the problems, unless you are looking for them.

Another problem with such lenses is pincushion and/or barrel distortion at diffent lens positions. Again, this would not be noticeable on 90% of shots: only when you notice a building bulging in the middle or the horizon close to the edge of the frame appearing as if the world were really round.

I have a still digital camera (4.3 Mpixel) which cost nearly twice as much as this Samsung. Its zoom range is 6:1. Because you don't zoom when filming with it, the lack of good focus as you zoom is not important and it keeps its resolution reasonably well over all combinations of distance and focal length, provided you focus after framing (on auto, it focuses on the first pressure of the release, so this is the norm). But even this lens is marginally subject to barrel and pincushion distortion under some conditions (I use it for technical work and I have to be careful when using it, for this reason).

When I want a distortion-free photo, I use the fixed-focal length 55mm Super-Takumar on my ancient Pentax SLR at f5.6-f8, but this lens cost nearly as much 30 years ago as the whole of this Samsung camcorder and probably three or four times as much in terms of real money, with compensation for inflation.

There are no miracles in optics.

[Dr Mordrid]

No s**t. IMO "normal" digital cams lenses (still or video) are not much better than those el-cheapo plastic cams

My target is to get a nice, fat digital back for my RB67 just so I can use all those nice ($$) lenses for digital photography. Maybe one day I'll hit the lotto and get a Dicomed or Phase One

Dr. Mordrid

[wkulecz]

Brian, you are forgetting the benefits of how things scale for a small image area. Also the Bayer color mosaic filter reduces the effective resolution to well below your calculated 100 lines.

The Koreans make very good optics. They are good engineers and in the samples I've looked at, things seem well matched for an effective design in terms of image quality.

My experience is the tape transport mechanism didn't hold up well under very light use so I wouldn't recommend buying one.

If you compare image quality of the Samsung to the approximately equivalent bottom of the line Sony's and Canon's I don't think you'd be giving up much if anything. However, my Sony's and Canon's have withstood much heavier use than what killed my first (and last) Samsung.

The fact that one can get custom made asperical lenses for eyeglasses for only a couple of hundred bucks is truely amazing.
Don't poopoo the quality of modern optical plastics.

--wally.

[Damien]

Thanks for the replies.

Does any one know about the picture quality of this camera?
The price is what makes me weary of buying one. I have searched the net for reviews of this cam and i can't find one.

Thanks

Damien.

[Brian Ellis]

Originally posted by wkulecz

Don't poopoo the quality of modern optical plastics.

Wally

I don't, although I do worry about their physical stability over time.

The point I'm making is that a 22:1 zoom range is just WAY too big, even if the optics were made by Zeiss or Leitz. There is no way that you could possibly get full aberration-free resolution at all the combinations of focal length and distance, not even for the low resolution of video purposes. Something has to give. I would much rather pay more money for a camera with a good lens and a 5:1 zoom range.

As for your assertion about eye-correction lenses, this is a non-sequitur. They are single lenses, fixed focal length (even the Varilux ones are fixed focal length, although this varies according to the area being used), with no correction for aberrations. They are not multi-component lenses with good corrections. Even so, a pair of good Varilux lenses with a dioptre range of +1 to +4 should cost the best part of $75 (without frames), which is probably twice as much as the lens on this camcorder is worth.

The difference between today's broadcast quality cameras and cheap camcorders is probably at least 50% in the lens.