While there is an accountable difference in lens quality, there is not a direct 1:1 relationship between image quality and lens quality. A $200 P&S has a drastically smaller sensor than a dslr, the difference isn't entirely in the lens.. the sensor size plays a large role.
Yes, there are other pieces to in the "image quality chain" but since the lens is step one then it's arguable the most important aspect. You could have the best sensor, the best analog-to-digital processing, and the best codec in the world, but if the lens isn't good enough then everything behind it is just wasted potential.
And, again, making a video or film lens is more expensive than making a still camera lens so a manufacture like Canon could put better glass in their still cameras than their video cameras because the still cameras don't need the higher quality housings/mechanics.
No video camera sensor is getting the full resolving power of the lens anyway(
EDIT: I should have said no sensor resolves at it's full native rez anyway so a 1920x1080 sensor will not resolve a 1920x1080 image, for example.). There are optical filtering systems that are used help reduce artifacting and to separate the light into red, green, and blue (in the case of single CMOS sensor cameras such as the HV20) and these reduce the quality of the signal that hits the imager. For example, even though the Red One has a 4k imager it's measured resolution is about 3.2k due to the pre-processing filtering. Still cameras don't have to worry as much about motion artifacting so they don't need to use the same kinds of resolution depleting, pre-proccesing filters that video cameras do.
What does the fact that they make more expensive glass have to do with their consumer glass?
The same thing that it means for any company that has tiered products. The low-end, cheaper product will not perform as well as the high-end, expensive product.
Does the fact that BMW makes an awesome M7 mean that their 1 series must suck?
No, it means that the series 1 doesn't perform as well as the M7. Whether or not you describe the series 1 as sucking or not depends on your specific needs and expectations.
I don't even follow your point here... but I would expect a $50 or $60 piece of glass in the HV20. As good as canon is, I would think that that they could produce a quality piece of glass for that price.
The point is Canon, Sony, JVC, Panasonic, etc., aren't going to put a balls-to-the-wall, killer piece of glass on a consumer camera. Even the Sony EX1, which in many opinions has the best glass on it of any current sub-$10k camera, gets dinged in reviews because you can't replace the built in lens w/a higher quality one.
I will agree that the glass in a consumer video camera is not top of the line, it's not even close... but the idea that it's so riddled with imperfections that the sensor behind it can't see through it, seems overstated to me.
The only thing overstated is the hyperbole in your arguments.
What separates low-end glass from high-end glass? It's ability to accurately reproduce what's being shot, right? And what would effect that ability? Imperfections in the glass, right? So one would assume that a $30,000 lens designed to work w/a 1920x1080 HD camera would produce a better image than the lens on a $1000 1920x1080 HD camera, right? So in what meaningful way would the $30k lens be better than the $1k camera if they both resolved exactly the same amount of detail?
I dunno.. you're the pro here, but what you're saying seems WAY exaggerated for someone who is just shooting their kid's soccer game.
When did I say the HV20 wasn't a good camera? The HV20 (and now the HV30) is probably the best consumer HD camera out there. It's so good that it became a huge hit w/the 35mm adapter crowd who typically used cameras costing 3-4 times as much as the HV20/30.
Lethal
