|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
September 14th, 2005, 11:35 AM
|
#1 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: US & THEM
Posts: 827
|
no body only = big mistake
imo
a body only version would attract a lot of interest (me included) and expand the cam's market through a cheaper initial purchase. I hope Canon reconsider.
__________________
John Jay Beware ***PLUGGER-BYTES*** |
|
|
|
September 14th, 2005, 11:41 AM
|
#2 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Saguenay, Québec, Canada
Posts: 1,051
|
The obvious reason for that is that the other XL Lenses are not suitable for this cam (too low res). Therefore, if you don't take the mini 35 type of adapters in consideration, there is no other lenses available for this camera for the moment. So buying the body only is not an option.
__________________
Jean-Philippe Archibald http://www.jparchibald.com - http://www.vimeo.com/jparchib |
|
|
|
|
September 14th, 2005, 11:46 AM
|
#3 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: US & THEM
Posts: 827
|
EF adapter?
__________________
John Jay Beware ***PLUGGER-BYTES*** |
|
|
|
|
September 14th, 2005, 11:52 AM
|
#4 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Saguenay, Québec, Canada
Posts: 1,051
|
With the 7.8X manification, this solution have a very limited use... I am sure canon will offer a body only solution when new lenses will be available.
__________________
Jean-Philippe Archibald http://www.jparchibald.com - http://www.vimeo.com/jparchib |
|
|
|
|
September 14th, 2005, 11:59 AM
|
#6 | |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: US & THEM
Posts: 827
|
Quote:
perhaps , but my prime interest is focusing on the 35mm aeriel image without the 7.8x malarchy. but I do hope the body only option is sooner than later
__________________
John Jay Beware ***PLUGGER-BYTES*** |
|
|
|
|
|
September 14th, 2005, 01:21 PM
|
#7 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 1,689
|
With no other lens options, what would you do with just the body? HD glass is a different animal, like 35MM, those HD lenses can get crazy... more than cars....
ash =o) |
|
|
|
|
September 14th, 2005, 02:13 PM
|
#8 |
|
MPS Digital Studios
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Palm Beach County, Florida
Posts: 8,531
|
I just hope this lens is better than the XL1, 1s and 2's lens.
Also, maybe we can use canon's pro HD lenses on it... heath
__________________
My Final Cut Pro X blog |
|
|
|
|
September 14th, 2005, 02:25 PM
|
#9 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 1,689
|
Why do people bash the XL lenses... they are GREAT glass for a 1/3"CCD camera. I know the servo can frustrate some but with practice I have no issues at all with it and I use the lenses in full manual mode.
ash =o) |
|
|
|
|
September 14th, 2005, 02:32 PM
|
#10 | |
|
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,244
|
Quote:
That lens is just another instrument. Learn how to use it. Jay |
|
|
|
|
|
September 14th, 2005, 02:35 PM
|
#11 |
|
MPS Digital Studios
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Palm Beach County, Florida
Posts: 8,531
|
I had an XL-1 for 4 years and really wasn't pleased with the lens. Constant problems with the back focus, the steadi-shot and when I compared it to the DVX100A, the FX1 and others, the lens didn't really, in my opinion, stand up to the others.
BUT, the XLH1 has a back focus adjuster on there. Nice. heath
__________________
My Final Cut Pro X blog |
|
|
|
|
September 14th, 2005, 03:21 PM
|
#12 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 1,689
|
I have never had any of the issues you describe and I have owned an XL cam from the day they were released. The only issue for me with the 20x is that it is not wide enough in the 4:3 mode making the 3X lens a must... steady-shot is AMAZING on the 20X...
ash =o) |
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
