According to www.xl2.co.uk the XL2's EVF has a resolution of 200,000 pixels. If I remember correctly, the XL1 colour EVF has a resolution of 180,000.

Is this improvement likely to make those critical focus problems a thing of the past, or is the B&W viewfinder still worth buying?

Anybody who has actually peered down the thing like to comment?

it looks like from the images on the web that i came across

vu meter was added
exposure bar was removed

zoom and focus values not added (ala dvx)?
the letters REC are still in green?

can anyone educate me on this...

You may need to wait until Chris, or someone at the show today, posts later tonight.

The details on the Canon specification page seem to be confused about the viewfinder/viewscreen. It lists the viewfinder as being 2.0 inches in size and having 200,000 pixels. Just below, it seems to show a duplicate of the CCD specs, opposite where it has the word, "viewscreen".

I'm not sure, does the XL2 have two separate screens on the viewfinder assembly, with a viewscreen underneath the viewfinder, or does one screen serve both purposes, with the eyepiece flipped up for viewscreen mode?

Steve McDonald

Robert

Zoom and focus values, ala DVX, are not added. To me this is a disappointment, as these are great features on the DVX.

Steve

It is one single LCD display. With the diopter in place, it's a traditional eyecup EVF. Flip it up and it's an LCD display. A pretty small display. I wish they'd gone for 2.5" and a native widescreen panel instead of letterboxed.

Some folks like one, some like the other. I'm sure we'll have reports from DV Expo shortly.

Chris, as an open viewscreen, 2 inches may be on the smaller side, but as an eyepiece viewfinder, it's huge. I thought the 1.5-inch EVF on my full-size Beta was quite a luxury, but this one on the XL2 would be great. With the exception of fireworks, I've never used anything but the closed viewfinders for shooting, anyway. Besides, the power consumption is notably less on a 2-incher, compared to one just 1/2-inch larger.

Old folks who can't focus their eyes closeup, can't get much use from a viewscreen that doesn't have a diopter.
I have done daily eye exercises for 3 years and have brought my ability to focus closeup, back to what it was at age 18. Before I embarked on that workout program, I had to wear 3.25X diopter eyeglasses to see anything on the open viewscreens, unless they were 2 feet away. I can now focus my eyes on a fingertip touching my nose (I always tell the truth, so my nose is very short).

For those who have a close-focusing problem and can't correct it as I did, the cheap, non-prescription diopter glasses from a grocery or drugstore can help solve this problem with viewscreen use. They come in powers of 1.5X to 3.25X, for a choice of how close you need to bring in a sharp focus. However, longterm and extensive use of them might weaken your lens muscles and make things worse when you are without them.

Steve McDonald

Hi dudes

Of you people that have used the new XL2, how is the viewfinder

I have 2 questions

1. Is it better to focus with than the XL1s? - How does it compare to shooting with say a flipout screen?

2. The XL1s had an annoying viewfinder that only displayed about 80% or so of what you were actually shooting, so when you replayed you footage back on a monitor, you shot was wider than you thought! - Very annoying. Has the XL2 corrected this? Does the viewfindar display 100% or near 100% of what the actual camera is recording?

Regards
Lawrence

1. you know you can also flip open the viewfinder on the XL2?

2. no, the XL2 viewfinder is still overscan. If that is important to you I suggest you get a custom XL2 with the black & white viewfinder, or get an underscanning TFT screen/monitor, or use DV Rack on a laptop

I don't know of any con-/pro-sumer camera that does underscanning
in either the viewfinder or a flipout screen.

Hi

thanks for the reply

OK it is still overscan, but is it as much overscan as the XL1s was?

How does it compare to the PD150/PD170

regards
Lawrence

I had my first gander into the XL2 viewfinder yesterday and it is easily the best viewfinder I have ever seen.

With the eyepiece down the image is huge and sharp. The lens used in the eyepiece is excellent and it works as well or better than Betacam designs of this sort.

With the eyepiece flipped up it works very well for standing back and composing within the frame.

The information displayed in the viewfinder now includes L & R peak meters for the audio. I

The whole camera is really exceptional. I've watched Canon's cameras evolve from the L1, XL1, XL1s and now to the XL2. Each edition has seen intelligent, professional user oriented improvements and ergonomic improvements that speak volumes about the intelligence of the people who designed and built these cameras. I feel a little silly writing this, but I have to say it: Thanks, Canon!

Hi there

I am sure you are correct in claiming the quality of the XL2 viewfinder. However I am not questioning the quality, I am asking how much of the 720 x 576 resolution image the viewfinder displays

With the origianl XL1s it was quite poor, with only around 80% of what the camera was recording being displayed on the viewfinder - a large amount of overscan. This is very frustrating as what you think you are framing is not actually what you are framing.

I am asking how the XL2 viewfinder compares to this. I hope it doesn't overscan as much as the XL1s. Let's hope it is closer to say the PD170, and does something like 90 - 95% of the actual recorded image.

Can anyone who actually has an XL2 let me know how much the viewfinder displays?

regards

Lawrence,

I own the XL2 I posted about previously.

I have not had time to compare the cropping in the viewfinder to the image as it appears on a monitor or as a file later on in the computer. In all my years shooting with the XL1 I never encountered an issue and ultimately affected the project due to any overscan issues.

I have much more trouble with this when I shoot film. I shoot a lot of film with an Aaton XTR and I typically see all kinds of things on the edge of the negative that I didn't see through the camera's viewfinder. Typically that stuff falls outside the broadcasted image, or we get rid of it in the transfer or crop it in post.

I think the only way to satisfy your overscan concern and the XL2 is to eyeball the thing yourself.

Steve

<<<-- Originally posted by Lawrence Stevens :With the origianl XL1s it was quite poor, with only around 80% of what the camera was recording being displayed on the viewfinder -->>>

Well I have no experience with either the XL-1s or XL-2, but somehow I think you're exaggerating just a bit here :-) There's no way that any viewfinder only shows 80% of the frame. I have a VX-2000, and just sent an overscan chart to it as a test. It overscans by 3% (eg: 97% of the image is shown). The test chart indicates that the action safe area is 5% overscan and the title safe area is 10%. The chart only goes so far as 15% overscan and that is quite extreme. 20% overscan would be absurd.

If you have a mac you can download a free program called "test pattern maker" which will generate this chart and some other useful ones. Unfortunately the program is for MacOS 9 and only creates NTSC charts, so it may not be appropriate for you. When you run the program it creates jpg files, so you could resize them however. See http://www.synthetic-ap.com/downloads/index.html Drop the jpg of the chart into your NLE and send via firewire to your camera. You can read out the overscan percentage directly from the calibration marks on the chart.

Maybe someone with an XL1-s and/or XL-2 can try this experiment and post the actual percentages, then you can compare these to the 3% figure I get on the VX-2000 (which should be the same as the PD-150).

Ok, i surrender, I made a slight mistake in quoting tht it was 80%, however I was not far off. I found a spec for the XL1s and it is

XL1-S Viewfinder 0.7" colour LCD/180,000 pixels
Viewfinder coverage Approx. 88%

So that is quite a lot more of an overscan than the PD170/VX2000

Unfortunatley I have a PC, and a PAL XL1s! so can't try you idea of putting the pattern on it :(

It would be great if someone who has both the XL1s and the new XL2 could do a side-by-side comparison

regards
Lawrence

I've not used an XL2 yet. But my review of the FU-1000 monochrome viewfinder (http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/articles/article83.php) provides an accurate portrayal of the 1000's and 500's (XL1 color lcd) relative areas of frame coverage. I would expect the XL2's coverage to be somewhere in-between.

I agree that the XL1 color viewfinder overscanned terribly. That, combined with the shifting contrast it presented depending on the exact angle of your head/eyeball (not to mention limited resolution) prompted me to buy the FU-1000 early on and I never used the color finder again.

I can see using the XL2 color finder in more situations, but I like having the FU-1000 as well (and being able to plug it directly into the camera body is a neat trick!)

Steve, I'm surprised to hear about your framing issues with the XTR. Are you supplying framing leader to the transfer house with your footage?

Charles,

I honestly think it's operator error rather than a camera/lens issue, which is sort of the point of bringing it up in a discussion of viewfinders.

The Aaton viewfinder is brighter and better than most, but I've found film cameras viewfinders to be, on the whole, darker and a little easier to misjudge than electronic viewfinders. But that's probably just me. My best vision is also in my left eye, so I've often found myself pressing my head practically into the camera body in order to try to get square with the viewfinder.

Anyhow, I was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the XL2 viewfinder and I think Canon's done a great job on it.

Steve

Gotcha.

I grew up on video cameras and then moved into film, so having a color (optical) viewfinder was a big change, let alone having to pay attention to the framelines. Now I'm used to seeing more than the image itself, which is nice to be able to judge when the boom is about to dip in or when a pan has to stop just before a c-stand would enter the frame. Having that tiny bit of underscan in a B&W viewfinder is nice, although I wish that the "broadcast safe" lines were superimposed (I have often imagined that those unused to the FU-1000 have made precise compositions, only to find tops of heads chopped off etc. when they watch the footage on a monitor later).

I'm looking forward to evaluating the XL2 viewfinder. I think it's a nifty design.

<<I'm looking forward to evaluating the XL2 viewfinder. I think it's a nifty design.>>

I'm interseted on your thoughts on it Charles. I've been looking through the
FU-100 for so long that I was afraid I'd be bummed, but I've been pretty impressed so far in less than optimum conditions.

We did a 3 camera (XL1s) shoot a while ago getting action footage for this documentary, and two of the cameras had the stock XL1 VF. I forgot how horrible it was, and wondered how I ever used it (in the very brief time I did). This VF is certainly in a different league from that.

A bit off topic, but I'd be interested to hear what happens when you use 16:9 aspect ratio on the XL2 with the FU-1000. Does the image appear compressed horizontally? Or is it properly cropped and displayed in widescreen format like with the new EVF?

It is properly letterboxed.

Thanks for the info Jean-Philippe.

To me, not having underscan on the "prosumer" camera viewfinders is a serious limitation, especially when so much of our stuff ends up being shown on computers via CD or DVD where the full frame is shown with no monitor crop. Also, I've saved lots of shots over the years by tilting down just a fraction as the soundman let the mic sag into the underscan portion of the frame a little. Without underscan, you can't see it coming.

I agree Bill, it sucks having to worry about it all the time during a shoot. Would have been a nice addition..

Aaron

Yeah, it's one of those things that is almost a deal-killer but not quite if all else is wonderful. But then I found out that the XLRs are only mic in, no line level. So that's two big strikes. I can understand Sony dumbing down their "prosumer" cameras so people like me who sorta want one won't rush out and abandon their $20,000 models...but you'd think Canon would want to suck people like us out from under the Sony/Panasonic canopy. I think the line level thing must be a mistake

Yes I've been following that thread, re the mic/line level too. I really hope it's not true, or that there will be some upgrade made.

I also agree that there are a few little things that Canon could have done to, as you said, "suck people like us out from under the Sony/Panasonic canopy" that they seemed to have not been concerned about. This possible mic/line issue is just another one of those.

Aaron

Yep--they come out with the first 1/3" chip camera that shoots real 16:9, and then they don't finish out the little details that make it something to lust after rather than simply sort of want until something better comes along.

Well I finally ordered the body only XL2, but now I still need to buy a couple of extra accessories, one of which is a crane/jib arm to mount on a tripod.

My rather simple but important question is: will the XL2 still record without a viewfinder attached to it?

The reason I'm asking is the Crane arm I'm planing to buy has a max load capacity of 8lbs. Since the weight of the camera fully loaded (battery + 20x lens) is listed at 7.8lbs on Canon's Web Site, and since I'll be using the 16x manual lens, which I believe is a tad heavier than the 20x (correct me if I'm wrong), if I could take off some weight by removing the viewfinder, which is useless on a crane shot, I would gladly do so. I would assume it would still record, but want to be 100% sure before buying the crane arm.

Also, while we're at it, if anybody has used a particular crane rig with the XL2 or XL1 in the past and has had good results with it, let me know which one it was.

Thanks

<<<-- Originally posted by David Lach : Well I finally ordered the body only XL2, but now I still need to buy a couple of extra accessories, one of which is a crane/jib arm to mount on a tripod.


I wouldn't worry about the weight of the viewfinder. The jib arms are able to carry a little more(in some cases alot more) than you think.

Jib arms can cost next to nothing($300) to thousands. I use the Promax jib, which is fine.

DBK

I own and have used the jib by Glidecam quite a bit and its proved to be a great tool. Not sure which one your getting but I can't imagine the viewfinder having any impact whatsoever.

- Ray

The thing is, I've planed to buy the CRT B&W viewfinder as well, and chances are I'll only be carrying this one on the set, since I've no use for the LCD viewfinder. And since it weights over 2 pounds alone, it'll quickly put my camcorder close to the 10lbs range.

I might be able to push the limits of the jib a bit, but I'm not sure I want to test it. There's something awfully disturbing about the image of a brand new XL2 crashing like a ton of bricks 10' down on a concrete floor ;)

David,

My recommendation would be to find a jib that is a little over-engineered. The problem with putting a heavy camera on an aluminum pole designed for 7 pounds is not the camera falling off. That most likely will not happen. What will happen is the jib will begin to flex during movements, (limiting your control) and thus the camera might wobble a bit, and won't stop smoothly when you want it to.

Barry

That's a good point Barry. I'll make sure to find something really sturdy to avoid wobbly looking images.

Although, even though I'm no engineer myself, I can't imagine it'd be very hard to re-inforce any simply designed jib arm with a few heavy duty screws & bolts and metal plates/rods. Of course, might as well go for something well built in the first place.

Consider the SkyCrane (http://www.dvinfo.net/articles/camsupport/skycrane.php). It was designed specifically for the XL1 and will be a good match for the XL2. Do yourself a favor and don't bother mounting an EVF on the camera when you're flying it on a jib. I can't think of any reason why you'd need the EVF on there. If you need to take audio from that position, get a Canon DM-50 mic for the hot shoe.

Some of our shooters complain about the XL1 viewfinder for focus vs the black & white ones on our higher end cameras. Is the new viewfinder in the XL2 better.

Thanks,

Richard
2K-Plus
Atlanta

i don't know whether it's the lens or the viewfinder... but focusing is definately a lot more easier than the xl1s...

The black and white ones are most likely CRT, not LCD which are by nature less " sharp ". Thats why the optional CRT costs as much as it does and why its so worth it IMHO. The new viewfinder is by far better than the old one, but it aint a CRT.

- Ray

The black and white ones are not most likely CRT. They are most *definitely* CRT.

so black and white viewfinder is REQUIRED not optional! i mean it's such an expensive investment (either xl1s or xl2) and having a viewfinder where you can't even focus? by this logic how come canon doesn't include a viewfinder or at least let the user choose camera body packages with FU 1000? it's not even optional anymore.

Do you know of any camera for $5K or less with a B&W CRT
viewfinder? I'm glad we can at least get one! Personally
I had little to no problems focussing with the XL1S (PAL).

I'm wondering why all the worrying about focus. The XL2 viewfinder
has the same amount of pixels in the viewfinder as the LCD
screen on the DVX for example (both 200K pixels according to
the websites). So what gives? The screen doesn't need to be
as big since your eye is much closer.

Actually, beginning sometime in November, certain authorized U.S. dealers will sell you the XL2 body alone or with *your choice* of viewfinder and/or lens.

The optional B&W CRT viewfinder discussed here is a professional piece of gear, made for Canon by Ikegami. It is no more or less expensive than any other viewfinder of that type -- the price (about $1500) is right on the money, exactly what you'd expect to pay for a B&W CRT viewfinder for any other camera.

The color LCD viewfinder included with the stock XL2 is highly useful, definitely superior to the old one on the XL1/XL1S, and will be perfectly adequate for, I'm guessing, maybe 80% to 90% of all XL2 owners.

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : Actually, beginning sometime in November, certain authorized U.S. dealers will sell you the XL2 body alone or with *your choice* of viewfinder and/or lens. -->>>

What? Since when? I contacted ZGC and Zotz and they both said they could not give me the choice of viewfinder on the body only kit since the LCD viewfinder was bundled and not optional, unlike previously with the XL1.

Darn it! I ordered a body only XL2 here in Montreal thinking I had no choice but to buy ther FU-1000 in extra, and now I learn that I could have saved and bought the body with the FU-1000 only? Arghh! I must be cursed...

Oh well. As long as I get the camera before december I'm happy regardless.

I think it's funny how b/w crt viewfinders are now such a high dollar add on. My vintage Panasonic full size VHS camcorder has a b/w crt viewfinder along with REAL manual focus and zoom rings that are both servo driven. The zoom even has a green button on the lense zoom lever that lets you get into macro mode. I remember when they started marketing 'color v/f' as feature on consumer camcorders.

If I could only get that Pana to spit out an image like the XL-2 has, I would go back to using it (hehe).


=gb=

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Lohman : Do you know of any camera for $5K or less with a B&W CRT
viewfinder? -->>>

AFAIK the Panasonic DVC200 (?) has one and it's around 5k - ish ;)

Aaron

"I'm wondering why all the worrying about focus."

The reason that there is so much worry about focus is obvious to anyone who has to work in the field with the LCD display on the XL1s. The b & w display wasn't an option for me because of weight. I do shoot with a monitor when possible, but usually I have to use the LCD EVF and it is very difficult to be totally confident about the sharpness of my focus when I use it. I find that this is the weakest part of my camcorder. If the resolution has improved on the XL2 that would be one of the main reasons for me to upgrade. I like DV because it is an interactive medium, but the display on my XL1s limits that interaction.

<< If the resolution has improved on the XL2 that would be one of the main reasons for me to upgrade. I like DV because it is an interactive medium, but the display on my XL1s limits that interaction.>>

Well Phil having shot with the Xl1 and XL1s and using the FU-1000 B&W VF, I can tell ou that I have no problem so far pulling focus with the XL2. The previous color VF was horrible IMO. I had forgetten how bad it was until I was running a multicamera shoot this spring and was looking through that viewfinder to check some shots...I couldn't believe how small and not resolute it was, especially after shooting 2 years with the FU.

I had no such surprise when looking through the XL2 the first time. In fact I was surprised to my pleasure.

You don't " need " the CRT to focus, and though someone mentioned that you might be able to pick and choose which lens and/or viewfinder you want with the XL2 in the future, I'm certain that depending on what options you pick they will come at a cost. It's not much different than buying a car, you don't " need " an automatic, you don't " need " air conditioning, you don't " need " a cd player, and some people will be perfectly happy without the options. And the truth is that there are a whole lot of people out there that would want the color screen just because its color ! Keep in mind that this camera is in the " prosumer " range, not "professional ". Though a lot of us may be professionals, there are a whole lot more cameras out there that are tens of thousands more that the big kids use and they do use CRT's. I can understand that it's a big expense for most of us, but a little perspective would serve you well.

Personally I was just thrilled to death that they included a power source in the XL2 and that I could abandon the battery adapter. What a nice friggin touch.

- Ray

I'll have to take a run to the city (Calgary) and have a boo at the XL2 if anyone has one yet. :)

Can the CRT viewfinder now be powered through the AC adapter or does it still need an attached lithium battery to power on? I know the battery adapter isn't needed anymore but does the powered CRT viewfinder connector provides correct voltage regardless of whether the XL2 is powered through battery or adapter?