I've decided to buy the PAL lensless version of the XL2 since I want a fully manual lens and do not care for the new 20X automatic lens (those fake focus rings drive me crazy).

So for the low budget feature I want to shoot with the XL2, I've decided to buy the body only version of the cam and rent the Optex B4 to XL adapter (more info here (http://www.zgc.com/zgc.nsf/c7a682995edb4e7585256b4d001ebd57/200471117190ab9e85256b81000cb326?OpenDocument)) combined with a 2/3" broadcast zoom lens or Zeiss' Digiprimes for the increased resolution I should be able to get out of it (and the full manual controls as well of course).

So I was wondering if anybody else was planing on going with a similar setup, or maybe some XL1 users have already tried it and can comment on the results. Is this worth the hastle and extra money? Or should I just buy the full manual 14x Canon XL lens and maybe add a wide angle converter (I'm not sold on the idea of using a converter of any kind with this camcorder, but I guess this is still a valid plan B nonetheless).

Any comment would be appreciated


PS: If Canon ever decided to develop a true manual zoom lens for the XL1/2 with a high resolving power and a more usable focal range (starting at 30mm or less in 35mm equivalent), I'm guessing it would sell like hot cakes, given the number of comments I've read/heard regarding the lack of solutions presently available.

David

I for one would love to try out a fujinon 13x4.5 lens on the xl2, who rents the b4 adapter? I think the digiprimes will work out great though they're really freakin heavy for an xl2 and I'm not sure how much more resolution the xl2 would pick up past a pl mount lens and a P+S technik but I think it would be awesome if you can post some images.

Nick

I do not even know yet if I'll be able to find someone who rents the B4 adapter, but I've anticipated the cost of it in my budget if I have to buy one (although if I did, I would need to find first if the increased resolution and sharpness is really worth the increased price, hence my question on this site).

I've thought about using the PL to XL converter too with some film lenses but I'm not sure I'd be able to get a decent wide angle with it because of the magnification factor. On the ZGC site it says there's a focal lenght increase of 7 times, although that might just be for the 35mm lenses. Maybe it isn't the case for 16mm lenses.

I've seen the footage of a resolution chart somewhere on the net (I cannot find the link anymore) shot with an XL1S and various lenses, one of which was a broadcast 2/3" lens and the difference between this one and even the 14X servo zoom lens was night and day. That's why I got interested in this solution when I learned there was a B4 adapter for the XL1/2.

As for the mini35 setup, it's rather bulky and I do not know if I like the way the image is converted. Seems to me it could introduce some distortion and loss of sharpness, but I guess it's still a viable solution.

David,
The mini35 will add another dimension, the DOF and FOV of a 35mm motion picture, but at a loss of about 2 stops. If your project doesn't require vast amounts of light and you are shooting mainly exteriors, this would be a good option.

Thanks Valeriu for the input. The thing is, my project is indoor only and what I do not like about the mini35 is it's bulky. Not quite sure how much it weights, but since lots of shots will involve the use of a stabilizer (glidecam), this might be an inconvenient. Also at that kind of price, I could not afford it, so I'd have to rent, which is less than ideal for me since the shooting will likely extend over several weekends. Of course the reduced DOF advantage could weigth a lot in the balance as it's a definite plus and a big one. In the end if I can find a good deal in a rental place in Montreal I might go for it, I've not decided yet.

In fact, I have even more options than I had before now after speaking with the tech at ZGC regarding the PL to XL adapter for the XL1/XL2. It's reasonably priced ($600) and would allow me to use 16mm lenses (which I'm used to) with a magnification factor of 2.17x (meaning a 8mm would become a 17mm in FOV, while preserving the original focal length of the lens and therefore the optical characteristics of the glass). This would be an even less expensive solution than the B4 adapter which is more than double the price of the Arriflex PL adapter.

I'm still juggling with all my options, I still have quite some time before pre-prod is completed and we're ready to shoot so I'm taking my time to research extensively and maybe try different solutions. All other inputs are more than welcomed.

David,

I am really intersted to get your comments about these differents solutions. I am, like you I suppose, an independant filmmaker. I am using an XL1 for now but plan to take the XL2 path in a near future. Since we are not so far away from each other (I'm in Saguenay, 5 driving hours from montreal) I will be very interested to know where you rent the lenses and adapters, price, and your overall experience using it.

Good luck with your projects,

Jean-Philippe,

I actually plan to buy either the B4 or PL adapter if I choose either one (so far I've only seen them available at ZGC) but could not afford to buy the mini35 so I'd have to rent it. This will also depend on my final budget which isn't complete yet.

I'm still in research mode since I have to phone pretty much all the rental places in Montreal to check the availability and price rates for the mini35 and/or 35mm lenses, 16mm lenses and 2/3" broadcast lenses, and probably won't get my XL2 until Octobre anyway. I'll post my findings for you here if you like.

I'll let you know my conclusion/decision when I have made up my mind and eventually probably post results. Also if I find those adapters for renting in Montreal I'll let you know.

But right now I'm still in the fog. For all I know I could end up buying the lensless version of the XL2 and buy the 16x manual servo zoom (not my 1st choice though, I'd rather get more resolution from a film lens).

And who knows, maybe Canon will finally release a wider full manual lens that kicks butt. In any case, I'll be updating you and everybody else if I find something worth mentioning.

There's also this site (http://www.xl1solutions.com/) that lists XL2 - PL adaptors for $495 (as well as selling them on eBay.) The website looks a bit sketchy but they do say that Du-All here in New York and LA Camera sell and rent them as well as lenses.

<<what I do not like about the mini35 is it's bulky. Not quite sure how much it weights, but since lots of shots will involve steadicam use, this might be an inconvenient.>>

My Mini35 with a DVX100a, Zeiss prime, Chrosziel mattebox and follow focus clocks in around 15 lbs. Figure 2 more for an XL2 (but subtract for lighter weight lens/m.box/f.focus if applicable). It was just about workable on a Tiffen Flyer that I tested it with. Any Steadicam capable of flying an SR3/zoom setup should manage it just fine. Which rig would you be using it with?

Interesting thought about 16mm primes...certainly cheaper than 35mm lenses. As long as the conversion factor doesn't kill you. And of course, if you ended up using the Mini35 down the road, the 16mm format lenses wouldn't provide enough coverage.

<<,The mini35 will add another dimension, the DOF and FOV of a 35mm motion picture, but at a loss of about 2 stops. If your project doesn't require vast amounts of light and you are shooting mainly exteriors, this would be a good option.>>

I've shot quite a few interior projects with the Mini35, and while it does take more light than a standard DV setup, it's still quite doable assuming you have access to units bigger than 650's. I was recently able to create a pretty convincing daylight interior (shot at night) using two 1200 PAR HMI's and a 4x4 Kino; had this been a night for night interior, I could have gotten by with a 1K open face for bounce, a couple of 650's and 300's. (Here's that film (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31037)).

Charles, I really don't have a whole lot of room as far as weight is concerned. I'm using a Glidecam V8 stabilizer which is listed at 10lbs max, although I've in the past pushed it up to 12 lbs without too much trouble. Depends on the balance of the cam (which could be a problem here since this one's front heavy). I won't be using a matte box nor a follow focus rig with the Glidecam. The XL2 body is listed at 5.7lbs on Canon USA. So that's why I would rather go with a simple and light weight mechanical adapter like the Arriflex PL to XL so that I can keep the weight to a minimum (at least when I'm using the stabilizer, which will obviously not be used with heavy telephotos or zoom lenses).

As for the conversion factor, it was actually the selling point for me. 2.17x FOV reduction for 16mm lenses, but much worse for 35mm of course. So 35mm as far as I'm concerned are certainly not an option, at least without the mini35. Of course the mini35 would certainly be nice for tripod shots.

I really don't think anybody took this one on in detail, but what about using 16 or S16 primes on the XL-2. You can pick up a decent set of Zeiss Superspeeds far cheaper than their 35mm cousins and at more or less twice the price of the 3X wide and 14/16X manual including the adaptor. The magnification factor is much less than the 7x of the 35's, only 2.2x I think, although bit more in 4:3.

If anyone used them on the XL-1(s), feel free to share your thoughts. Otherwise, would the increased resolution of the native 16:9 XL-2 bring out more of what the S16 glass has to offer, at least in theory? Furthermore, are we leaving something on the table with the 3X and 14/16X given the bump up in rez throughout the 16:9 image?

Thanks in advance for your replies.

I saw a while ago a post about using B4 lenses with XL1. Someone showed side by side images of various lenses with impressive results delivered by the 2/3
The adaptor wasn't Optex, but one that was custom made and its price was ~$400. I have few broadcast 2/3 lenses sitting idle and wouldn't mind to use them as an option to the 14x or 16x manual lenses.

I would love to know more about people using 16 or S16 primes. Is there any supporting material for this route?

I wonder if Canon will ever recognize the demand for prime style manual lenses for the xl2. With all this hype about HDV and what it could do to XL2 sales you'd think that Canon would be all over this unique oportunity to relegate every other fixed lens "prosumer" camera to the toy department by offering a line up- OK 2 maybe 3- of well placed focal lengths. Does anyone out there have any clout with Canon? Get on it!

After some weeks of shooting with the XL2 (and loving it) with Canon's 14x manual zoom (and missing shorter focal lengths), I wonder:

Has anybody from this thread, or on these boards generally, learned more about mounting 16mm lenses on the XL2?

What is the magnification factor when figuring focal length equivalents for the XL2's 16:9 mode? In this thread, David Lach reports a factor of 2.17 for 16mm lenses.

Others have asked about using Super-16 lenses. I've never shot this format. Would the magnification factor differ, and by how much?

I remember Leitz made a 10mm prime for their Leicina Super-8 camera. Does anybody know enough about that lens to suggest if its image circle would cover the XL2's target area? (I know that the Super-8 frame is somewhat larger than the XL2's target area.)

Last: when calculating the XL2's target area, should I use the surface area of the prism face I see in the XL2 body? Or should I use the old (Vidicon-based) "tube diameter" of 1/3", by which most folks describe the XL2's CCDs?

You should consider the 1/3" as the target.
I wouldn't be too optimistic about using stils/cine lenses for the XL1-2. Most video lenses are calibrated in such a way that the RGB rays are focused through the prism to reach (let's say) the same point. With the lenses designed for film cameras you might get serious chromatic aberations. Exception could be with the tele Canon range but even those are modified to accomodate the presence of a prism in the light path.
C mount lenses have a very short flange distance, so they would be out of question.
I stand to be corected as Canon themselves are making an EF adapter for their EOS lens range. But, probably the adapter does a CA correction...

You have a bunch of options:

Option 1
Canon 16x manual lens with or without the Century .7 Wide Angle adapter. This gets you manual focus and zoom and keeps you close to the weight limit of the Glidecam. You can also use follow focus, matte box and filters and still keep it near the 12 pound mark.

The lenses you are talking about will be too long. 2/3 inch lenses will be twice as long as their stated focal length used on the 1/3" chip camera. So The Digiprime 5mm becomes a 10mm. Same with the 16mm lenses, you get more than 2x magnification. Both the PL and B4 adapters are just mechanical connectors so that you can use the lens on the camera. There aren't any optics to make the image fit and no electrical connections.

You are shooting interiors and unless all the rooms are really huge, you will definitely need wide lenses in the 3mm range. Do yourself a favor and scout your locations and bring the gear that you will be using so you can see if your lenses will fit the room.

Option 2
Renting the Mini35 and Super Speed primes. Using this set up will get you the angles of view you want, shallow DOF and a great look.

Option 3
Sell the glidecam and put the money towards hiring a Steadicam operator and incorporate Option 1 or 2.
Yes, I hate the Glidecam.

Option 4
Something else.
Look at your budget versus costs, can you put the camera on a dolly, sticks and still achieve the results you want? Does everything have to be on a steadicam? Can you use it on one weekend or schedule a long weekend with the talent and crew?

Option 5
Something else further.

Consider:
Do you really need to buy a camera? The money you will spend on buying can be put towards the production. Unless you plan on using it a lot so that it pays for itself, you may be better off in these days of rapidly changing technology renting the necessary equipment.

Whatever you do, have a great shoot. Let us know how it went.

Mark, thanks for your reply. Did you mean to post it to another thread---in the Supporting Your Camera forum, maybe?

Nope, I was addressing a few different things that David had brought up. Want of a manual lens, use of B4 mount or 16mm lenses, but they're meant for larger formats and will magnify the image 2x. He was worried about overloading his glidecam. Having the camera move seemed important, so I tossed out a few options there too.

A lot of things to consider when you plan a shoot.

Absolutely. His post was so long ago, I forgot what he wrote about. All your points are well taken.

Doh!

I didn't even look at the date. He's probably already shot it, sold it and is livin' the phat life in LA.

Damn, and Nick's time machine is busted.

:D

I emailed David off-list earlier today about his original posts in this thread.

Hey, since you're awake & reading this, do you have any responses to the questions I posted earlier ... that is, today, this year? (Couldn't resist.)

Nawww, yer gonna hafta wait six months :~).

Okay here are my answers in order of posting:

yes

No

Only on alternate wednesdays.

usually a Fisher 9, but a Peewee is fine.

A Technocrane with a midget bolted, upside down, to the end, holding a filmo with a 25mm if memory serves. Scorsese used the same technique in The Aviator.

I only got caught once, looking up Miss Hepburn's dress.

Once again, you've left me, uh, speechless.

I actually would be interested in hearing from somebody other than Valeriu (thanks, V!) on the questions I posted, but I know it's late back east ... out here by the Pacific, everybody's grumpy.

John here are my real answers:

<<<-- Originally posted by John Sandel : After some weeks of shooting with the XL2 (and loving it) with Canon's 14x manual zoom (and missing shorter focal lengths), I wonder:

Has anybody from this thread, or on these boards generally, learned more about mounting 16mm lenses on the XL2? -->>>

I don't recall seeing anything, but I'm not the oracle.

<<<-- What is the magnification factor when figuring focal length equivalents for the XL2's 16:9 mode? In this thread, David Lach reports a factor of 2.17 for 16mm lenses. -->>>

I'm not sure of the exact magnification, but in 16x9 mode
the magnification is 2.17, in 4:3 it's probably somewhere
around 3x magnification. A 1/3" chip is 4.8 x 3.6mm

Article on XL2 Watchdog about the XL2 CCD Block

http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxl2/articles/article06.php

Here is are film gate sizes for 16mm and Super16 on
an Arriflex camera:
Std 16mm TV 4:3 9.35x7mm
Super 16mm HDTV 16:9 TV Trans 11.95x6.72mm
1/3" CCD 4.8 x 3.6mm


<<<-- Others have asked about using Super-16 lenses. I've never shot this format. Would the magnification factor differ, and by how much? -->>>

+ 2.27 magnification

<<<-- I remember Leitz made a 10mm prime for their Leicina Super-8 camera. Does anybody know enough about that lens to suggest if its image circle would cover the XL2's target area? (I know that the Super-8 frame is somewhat larger than the XL2's target area.) -->>>

Super 8 is close, but a 10mm lens is a shade longer that
a normal focal length. To get wide on the XL2 you want
5mm focal length or shorter.

<<<-- Last: when calculating the XL2's target area, should I use the surface area of the prism face I see in the XL2 body? Or should I use the old (Vidicon-based) "tube diameter" of 1/3", by which most folks describe the XL2's CCDs? -->>>

A 1/3" chip is 4.8 x 3.6mm, but Canon doesn't use the full chip. The XL2 link above shows how it's used, but I don't know exact measurments.

Audrey or Katherine?

Measurements are listed in the brochure, but they're incorrect.

Yeah, I read that thread; it's one of the reasons I posted here. Thanks to both.

(I hope like H*LL it was Audrey, in about 1964.)

I don't peep and tell :~)

<<<-- Originally posted by Mark Sasahara : Doh!

I didn't even look at the date. He's probably already shot it, sold it and is livin' the phat life in LA.

Damn, and Nick's time machine is busted. -->>>

Thanks for all the advices Mark, and yes this was a while ago when I was driving myself crazy juggling with all my options. Lots of things changed after that post. Only thing that stayed the same was me buying the XL2. In the end, I decided I wanted to try the mechanical adaptors before buying, since there was lots of negative factors to consider, especially magnification. The only real positive for me was a theoritical resolution boost, but again, without testing it myself, there was no way to know just what kind of gain could be expected over the 20x stock lens, if at all. I searched litterally every single renting facility here in Montreal and couldn't find a single place to rent either a B4, PL or mini35 adaptor (not the most cinema friendly town).

In the end, I decided that since my project was to be shot all interiors in confined spaces, I couldn't afford the magnification factor. I considered renting a mini35 adaptor from somebody on these boards but it never materialized due to Custom problems (me being in Canada and him in the US). So I basically ran out of time and decided to buy a XL manual 14x lens. I like everything about it except for the heavy breathing which renders any back and forth pull focus impossible. I also bought a .6x WA adaptor from someone on these boards which gave sharp results and a much needed increased FOV.

Now as for how it went, I'll say well enough, considering the ridiculous budget, but there was something I thought I could live with and it turned out I couldn't, which is the huge DOF (my first time with video, I did a couple of things on film prior, but now video is the way of the future for indie filmmakers so I'm jumping aboard). This drove me crazy. I was quite the cranky fellow on set at times because I was yearning for any kind of out of focus backgrounds. I did some crazy things to get a bit of it for some key shots like placing the object/actor that was supposed to be in focus far away from the out of focus spot and make it look with a tele focal length they were closer to each other. I also did a bit of post selective blurring. The director thought I was crazy (he's right, I am).

In the end, it somewhat worked, but it's still a very poor man's shallow DOF. When I saw the photos the still photograph had taken during the shoot on 35mm, I saw just how better it could have been with the mini35 adaptor and I almost cried when I saw all those out of focus backgrounds (well you had to be there to understand the DOF madness). Anyway, all this to say that for my next fictional project, I will most definitelly make the renting of a mini35 and some nice cine lenses a top priority. During this shoot, I learned I could live with the lower resolution and lower lattitude, but not the greater DOF. Considering DOF is my main problem, the b4/PL lenses are now out of the picture. If I rent lenses, it will be 35mm primes with a mini35 adaptor.

BTW, no, I'm not living the phat life in LA, if only I could... ;)

Ca va?

Thanks for your reply, David.

Yes, the bane of videographers is the deep depth of field. I try and shoot as close to wide open as possible, but with wide lenses it hard.

I'm surprised that no one in Montreal has the Minin35. I used to live in Vermont and go to Montreal a lot and usually saw at least one production truck when I drove around. Unfortunately it looks like Toronto is the closest place to rent.

Keep up the good work.