Smooth at DVinfo.net

Jim Giberti · September 4th, 2004, 12:49 AM

16:9, 24p, 1/48, the nicest dv image I've seen straight out of the camera....really smooth and clean images. Before I say what I really like so far, what I don't like: for 5K Canon didn't need to cheap out on the buttons and knobs. I'm sure every buyer would opt to spend the extra buck to have better/tighter feeling controls on the iris, gain, aspect ratio etc.

Other than that it's built really nicely, and more redesigned than I expected. It's kind of a futuristic Italian racecar thing going. The lens is really solid and FAST, I mean incredible in low light and very sharp and accurate. The manual focus and zoom servos are very nice, and I haven't shot anything but manual primes and cine zooms for a long time. I had absoltely no trouble pulling focus in really low light...even at 860mm.

New vf is cool, bigger and more resolute...nice 16:9.

Just got a little chance to program a preset with cine gamma, cine color and some little knee, pedestal adjustments, nice results in the little time I've had. Absolutely beauiful images...camera and glass.

Don Palomaki · September 4th, 2004, 05:59 AM

Is the improved auto focus perforamnce a lens thing, or the result of improved focus assessment/processing in the body, in which cast the focus performance with the older 16x should be improved as well. Or maybe some of both. Anyone know?

Don Berube · September 4th, 2004, 06:20 AM

In short, it is both.

Will you see "better focusing" with the older 16X XL IS II lens on the new XL2 due to the newer focusing assessment/ processing in the body of the XL2? Good question. I have not done such a test yet. (Yet...) Possibly, but probably not as significant as with the newer 20X XL IS lens.

Jim, do you have the older 16X IS II lens in your arsenal at all?

- don

Jim Giberti · September 4th, 2004, 10:07 AM

<<Jim, do you have the older 16X IS II lens in your arsenal at all?>>

No, only the the 14x manual, but I could definitely see using the AF (which I haven't ever used on a camera) to accurately track moving shots...that's something I'll play with when I get a chance.

Joel Guy · September 4th, 2004, 10:24 AM

Jim,

How does the 14x manual hold up?

Thanks.

Barry Goyette · September 4th, 2004, 10:50 AM

Jim

to add to what you said about the "cheaping out". While the camera does maintain its overall high build quality, I was surprised that the connector covers are made out of a harder, seemingly easy-to-break, plastic, rather than a more rubberized material...I just checked my dvx and gl2 and the material is similar on both, but the xl2 seems a little more plastic-ey.

Have you noticed that the viewfinder vertical swivel seems a little loose...it won't fall on its own, but it in an hour's shooting on a tripod I probably had to adjust it 4 or 5 times because it would move downward as I put my eye up to it. Also is there a rattle in your viewfinder?

Glad to hear your summation of the image quality pretty much jibes with what I'm seeing.

Barry

Jim Giberti · September 4th, 2004, 11:06 PM

<<Have you noticed that the viewfinder vertical swivel seems a little loose...it won't fall on its own, but it in an hour's shooting on a tripod I probably had to adjust it 4 or 5 times because it would move downward as I put my eye up to it. Also is there a rattle in your viewfinde>>

Haven't noticed the swivel Barry or the rattle. Doing a bunch of hand held and tripod natural light stuff, got some very nice footage today in a few locations.

Richard Alvarez · September 5th, 2004, 08:04 AM

I heard from a rep once, that the viewfinder swivel is intentionally designed to be a little "loose"... so that the viewfinder is not left UP, and exposed to sunlight. ????

September 4th, 2004, 12:49 AM	#1
Jim Giberti Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Bethel, VT Posts: 824	Smooth 16:9, 24p, 1/48, the nicest dv image I've seen straight out of the camera....really smooth and clean images. Before I say what I really like so far, what I don't like: for 5K Canon didn't need to cheap out on the buttons and knobs. I'm sure every buyer would opt to spend the extra buck to have better/tighter feeling controls on the iris, gain, aspect ratio etc. Other than that it's built really nicely, and more redesigned than I expected. It's kind of a futuristic Italian racecar thing going. The lens is really solid and FAST, I mean incredible in low light and very sharp and accurate. The manual focus and zoom servos are very nice, and I haven't shot anything but manual primes and cine zooms for a long time. I had absoltely no trouble pulling focus in really low light...even at 860mm. New vf is cool, bigger and more resolute...nice 16:9. Just got a little chance to program a preset with cine gamma, cine color and some little knee, pedestal adjustments, nice results in the little time I've had. Absolutely beauiful images...camera and glass.

September 4th, 2004, 05:59 AM	#2
Don Palomaki Wrangler Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Northern VA Posts: 4,487	Is the improved auto focus perforamnce a lens thing, or the result of improved focus assessment/processing in the body, in which cast the focus performance with the older 16x should be improved as well. Or maybe some of both. Anyone know? __________________ dpalomaki@dspalomaki.com

September 4th, 2004, 06:20 AM	#3
Don Berube Moderator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Boston, MA (travel frequently) Posts: 837	In short, it is both. Will you see "better focusing" with the older 16X XL IS II lens on the new XL2 due to the newer focusing assessment/ processing in the body of the XL2? Good question. I have not done such a test yet. (Yet...) Possibly, but probably not as significant as with the newer 20X XL IS lens. Jim, do you have the older 16X IS II lens in your arsenal at all? - don __________________ DONALD BERUBE - noisybrain. Productions, LLC Director Of Photography/ Producer/ Consultant http://noisybrain.com/donbio.html CREATE and NETWORK with http://www.bosfcpug.org and also http://fcpugnetwork.org

September 4th, 2004, 10:07 AM	#4
Jim Giberti Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Bethel, VT Posts: 824	<<Jim, do you have the older 16X IS II lens in your arsenal at all?>> No, only the the 14x manual, but I could definitely see using the AF (which I haven't ever used on a camera) to accurately track moving shots...that's something I'll play with when I get a chance.

September 4th, 2004, 10:24 AM	#5
Joel Guy Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: NYC, NY Posts: 151	Jim, How does the 14x manual hold up? Thanks.

September 4th, 2004, 10:50 AM	#6
Barry Goyette Trustee Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: San Luis Obispo CA Posts: 1,195	Jim to add to what you said about the "cheaping out". While the camera does maintain its overall high build quality, I was surprised that the connector covers are made out of a harder, seemingly easy-to-break, plastic, rather than a more rubberized material...I just checked my dvx and gl2 and the material is similar on both, but the xl2 seems a little more plastic-ey. Have you noticed that the viewfinder vertical swivel seems a little loose...it won't fall on its own, but it in an hour's shooting on a tripod I probably had to adjust it 4 or 5 times because it would move downward as I put my eye up to it. Also is there a rattle in your viewfinder? Glad to hear your summation of the image quality pretty much jibes with what I'm seeing. Barry

September 4th, 2004, 11:06 PM	#7
Jim Giberti Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Bethel, VT Posts: 824	<<Have you noticed that the viewfinder vertical swivel seems a little loose...it won't fall on its own, but it in an hour's shooting on a tripod I probably had to adjust it 4 or 5 times because it would move downward as I put my eye up to it. Also is there a rattle in your viewfinde>> Haven't noticed the swivel Barry or the rattle. Doing a bunch of hand held and tripod natural light stuff, got some very nice footage today in a few locations.

September 5th, 2004, 08:04 AM	#8
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	I heard from a rep once, that the viewfinder swivel is intentionally designed to be a little "loose"... so that the viewfinder is not left UP, and exposed to sunlight. ????