Surprised (Canon EF XL Adapter) at DVinfo.net

Riley Harmon · February 20th, 2005, 09:47 PM

Im surprised there isnt much talk here about the adapter that goes on the XL1s that allows it to use Canon EF lenses. Wouldn't that allow you to get the DOF we're all looking for?

Xiaoli Wang · February 20th, 2005, 10:09 PM

Yes, but since the XL1s CCD is only 1/3", it causes the focal length of the lens to be cropped (thus magnified) 7 or more times. A ultra wide fisheye lens suddenly turns into a telephoto. A normal lens turns into a super telephoto. This makes it not much use.

This is why expensive 35mm adapters like the mini35 exist. They project a 35mm lens image onto a ground glass, and then that projects onto the small 1/3 CCD, so a 50mm lens (say, a cheapie Canon 50mm f/1.8) is still a 50mm lens when it reaches the CCD, and depth of field is kept.

With the EF adapter and no ground glass in between to transfer the image, the same lens would give you the equivalent of a 350mm lens.

Steev Dinkins · February 20th, 2005, 11:50 PM

Ditto. Merely adapting 35mm lenses in front of the CCD is NOT the solution.

Rob Lohman · February 21st, 2005, 04:28 AM

It also would *NOT* give you the DoF everyone is looking for, since
you are projecting directly onto the CCD prism and not a ground
glass at the proper distance (which is also why it magnifies 7.2
times on the XL1, 7.8 times (in 16:9) and 9.6 times (in 4:3) on the XL2).

Ed Baatz · April 23rd, 2005, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob Lohman

It also would *NOT* give you the DoF everyone is looking for, since
you are projecting directly onto the CCD prism and not a ground
glass at the proper distance (which is also why it magnifies 7.2
times on the XL1, 7.8 times (in 16:9) and 9.6 times (in 4:3) on the XL2).

What DoF is everyone looking for? Does using this adapter provide no DoF? Are you saying basically that the EF adapter is not a good idea because there is inadequate or unacceptable DoF?

The standard Canon XL1S 16x IS zoom lens provides from 5.5mm to 88mm --- so, it would seem like being able to mount an EF 70-200 lens zoom lens on the XL1S would yield an equivalent focal length of between 504mm to 1440mm.

I can only imagine how much closer a 1440mm lens would get you than the stock lens at 88mm... Okay, about 16 times more magnification? Wow. Seems like a fantastic deal for nature work? Probably need my Vinten tripod, for sure...

But is the image unuseable? Low quality? Out of focus? How would video shot with the EF adapter compare to say, the 1.6x extender?

I don't think that I would want to spend more than $400 for this adapter if it doesn't give "the DoF everyone is looking for".

Thanks, Ed!

Rob Lohman · April 26th, 2005, 06:37 AM

Sorry, I meant the 35mm (cine) like depth-of-field, or a short DoF so the
background can be out of focus etc. Of course those lenses are great glass
and you will get very nice pictures (at high focal lengths though), but they
won't give you 35mm like DoF.

February 20th, 2005, 09:47 PM	#1
Riley Harmon Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 424	Surprised Im surprised there isnt much talk here about the adapter that goes on the XL1s that allows it to use Canon EF lenses. Wouldn't that allow you to get the DOF we're all looking for?

February 21st, 2005, 04:28 AM	#4
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	It also would NOT give you the DoF everyone is looking for, since you are projecting directly onto the CCD prism and not a ground glass at the proper distance (which is also why it magnifies 7.2 times on the XL1, 7.8 times (in 16:9) and 9.6 times (in 4:3) on the XL2). __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors

April 26th, 2005, 06:37 AM	#6
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	Sorry, I meant the 35mm (cine) like depth-of-field, or a short DoF so the background can be out of focus etc. Of course those lenses are great glass and you will get very nice pictures (at high focal lengths though), but they won't give you 35mm like DoF. __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors

February 20th, 2005, 10:09 PM	#2
Xiaoli Wang Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 94	Yes, but since the XL1s CCD is only 1/3", it causes the focal length of the lens to be cropped (thus magnified) 7 or more times. A ultra wide fisheye lens suddenly turns into a telephoto. A normal lens turns into a super telephoto. This makes it not much use. This is why expensive 35mm adapters like the mini35 exist. They project a 35mm lens image onto a ground glass, and then that projects onto the small 1/3 CCD, so a 50mm lens (say, a cheapie Canon 50mm f/1.8) is still a 50mm lens when it reaches the CCD, and depth of field is kept. With the EF adapter and no ground glass in between to transfer the image, the same lens would give you the equivalent of a 350mm lens.

February 20th, 2005, 11:50 PM	#3
Steev Dinkins Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 613	Ditto. Merely adapting 35mm lenses in front of the CCD is NOT the solution.