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?

If it helps, at the major U.S. trade shows Canon has displayed the B&W CRT on an AC-powered XL2 many times. Don't know if that means it's official, but it can be done.

Thanks Chris. Glad to hear it's doable. I wouldn't imagine it would be possible to mess the viewfinder up by doing this even if it was not an official solution (but then again, I'm not an engineer).

How would the Canon's native 16:9 image appear in the B&W viewfinder?

The image appear properlly letterboxed in the CRT B&W viewfinder.

Right lets get this thread back to the top of the forum!

I have now had a PAL XL2 for around 3 weeks, and have the final verdict on how much of the image the LCD screen displays

I don't have much time, so it will be a quick summary.

It is much, much better than the XL1s, I mean much much better - and here i'm talking about the amount of image displayed, not the obvious quality of the viewfinder (which is also much much better - but it still does suffer slightly from that shifting contrast issue when you look at it from different angles like on the xl1s, but not as much as on the xl1s)

Ok I have simultaneously viewed the image on the viewfinder, and on a monitor/TV, and it shows pretty much the same as whats on the TV! Very good Canon! I would say there is a very slight slither that creeps into the edge of the frame on the TV that the viewfinder doesn't show. I would have guess that the viewfinder shows 98%-99% of what the TV shows, which is great news, and much much better than the 88% of the xl1s!

I really think this is a very important issue, basically with the xl1s you couldn't frame up accurately! Now you can perfectly with the XL2 - you can trust and judge the frame with the XL2 viewfinder!

Regards
Lawrence

Are you talking about what your monitor shows in underscan or just normal TV crop?

Just plain old normal tv crop

Which at the end of the day is what you should be looking at, as you will be watching the finished footage on a tv 99% of the time, unless you are going to film print

The issue for me isn't what you watch on TV but being able to see the full frame while shooting. It's not a big huge thing in most cases, but numerous times over the years I've saved an interview shot by being able to see the mic creeping into the top of the frame and being able to tilt down before it got out of underscan.

I agree with Bill. Being able to see what's coming before it comes is a big deal to me as well. I'm doing fictional stuff, so imagine getting at the end of a long complicated sequence with camera movement that you finally got right and oops... the tip of that freakin gobo has shown in the frame at the end position. Had you had underscan, you'd have been able to see it and stop just before ruining the shot. Same applies for mics on boom poles.

But more than that, not all of us are thinking only about what will be shown on TV. Even if you plan for digital projection and not film transfer (either on a big screen or on a computer), you want 100% of the image to show when you frame and nothing less. I'm used to having an underscan portion, frame delimitation and TV safe delimitation in a viewfinder, and anything less than that is a problem to me for framing. I can live with no frame and TV lines like with the FU-1000 (might be able to draw those lines yourself on a clear sheet and put it in front of the viewfinder's mirror) but not having 100% coverage is a serious limitation to me.

All that and I haven't mentioned the resolution issue yet, which I found to be problematic as well with the LCD viewfinder. Mind you I've never seen the XL1 viewfinder, so I cannot get impressed by the big leap forward. All I can do is realize it's not quite good enough for me and I will therefore need to shell the extra $1500 to get the CRT viewfinder.

But, to be clear, underscan shows you what is in the frame, not what's outside it. It just shows the whole frame, inclusive of the overscan area.

So if you were to see the gobo or mic boom pole creeping into your shot, it's too late -- it's aready IN your shot, and will show up on a film transfer, on a full-screen computer display, during transitions in editing, etc.

Film cameras have larger-than-recorded-area viewfinders, and let you see more than what's actually in the frame. But with video cameras, if you can see it, it's in the frame. It may be outside the "TV Safe" portion, but it's in there.

Really? My reference is with film viewfinders. But having read the FU-1000 review I was under the impression it showed a bit more than the actual frame. I must have misread.

I'm fairly new to video and sometimes my assumptions come from the fact I transpose film concepts and/or gear to video and assume it works in a similar manner.

Well it's pretty bad if I cannot see more than the actual frame even with the FU-1000. Is this the same for all video cameras? I mean, if there's a use in film for seeing more than the actual frame, there must be a use for it in the video world too no?

I'm guessing only cameras intended for screening might have that function (like HDTV maybe). What a bummer...

An underscan monitor shows the entire video frame, with a standard TV crop area marked. Assuming your program is for TV, ie., released in video, then underscan helps in keeping mics out of your viewable area. But as noted above, if you are going to CD, DVD or film, you get the full frame in all its glory. However, if the DVD is played on a TV, then the crop takes care of the issue. It's only when it's played on a computer monitor would you see the entire thing. Lots of the stuff I shoot does end up that way, so I have to be extra careful these days.

Looks like I will need to re-thing my shooting habits in order to be extra careful not to get anything too close to the frame (like rehearsing a few times with the sound guy, getting those flags and light stands out of the way, etc.).

I still need the FU-1000 though, since I'm planing to shoot for digital screening, DVDs and Web release, so the full frame is a must.

Well to confirm the answer to my own stupid question, in the event somebody else would want to know, yes, it's possible to use the XL2 without a viewfinder attached, I just did.

BTW, I finally bought my crane on eBay for $300. It was a big risk, but I'm not disapointed. I didn't like some of those jib arms with a cable pulley system. Seemed too flimsy to me, with a risk of cable slippage. This crane has a solid aluminum tilt control handle.

Also, don't know if this is present on all cranes, but the one I got has an auto-tilt feature, meaning if you want your camera to remain level during the crane movement, the arm has a pin that, when attached, will automatically keep the camera level, without having to control the handle. All you then have to do is move the arm up and down and the camera will remain level throughout the movement.

Here's the link for people who might be shopping for one. I mounted the XL2 on it with the 20x lens and it works like a charm.

I did a slight modification on it (not that big, just made a bigger hole where the tripod attaches) to be able to use a heavy duty industrial handle with a 3/8" screw to lock it in place on my tripod. That way, I could hammer the thing to no avail, it will not move by one hair. Not that it was necessary mind you, but I'm the kind of guy that likes to customize and adapt all the gear I buy based on my very own requirements.

David

Looks like a pretty nice rig...the only point that looks a little suspect is the mount itself...the L- shaped brack seems a little wimpy for a camera like the xl2...did you have any problems with it (tilting, or wiggling)/

Barry

The L-shaped brack on which the camera mounts is 1/4" thick. I guess it could be better as it does tilt slightly to the right, but I did not have any problems mounting the XL2 on it. I used the nearest hole from the arm itself (there's 3) to minimize the weight put on and avoid being oddly balanced and it seems to work rather well. Maybe making an other hole even nearer the arm would be a good thing (there's still some room left). It might be a bit wobbly when you play with it by hand but it does not shake during movement.

The success you have with this crane will also greatly depend on the tripod you put underneat. For example, having a head that can do smooth pans and can lock the pan and tilt features independently, to compensate for the slight tilt the camera has when mounted, will go a long way in acheiving nice results.

I do however recommend a bit of adjustment on the rig itself.

I recommend changing all the plastic washers for big metal ones, something I did right away without even trying it once. They looked too flimsy for me.

I also put some tool grease between all the major washers used for rotation and the arm in order to be able to thighten everything a bit more without affecting smoothness of operation.

Like I said in a post above, an other thing I really did not feel comfortable with was that it used the standard 1/4" camera screw to mount on the tripod, which I felt was a bit too risky for my taste considering it needs to hold in place the weight of the camera, the weight of the rig and the weight of the counter-weight. So I made a bigger hole to fit a big 3/8" screw with a large industrial metal handle I bought in a work shop for about $5 and now I don't have any worries regarding operation. The screw fits in my quick release plate and the handle squeezes the whole thing thight from above.

I'm really paranoid about seeing my $5000 camera going up and down without touching it so I might be overdoing it, but only good can come out of that.

I did not use other inexpensive cranes like this so I cannot really compare, but I find this one to be adequate for the XL2, and the auto-tilt function I must say will quickly become a must for me. Very handy, especially when you need to pan and tilt at the same time.

That being said, bare in mind it is a $290 crane, so I'm also being realistic in regards to my expectations. The bigger mounting screw and changing the plastic washers for metal ones is something I felt I needed to do to feel more comfortable with the rig, but without any kind of practice with it, I acheived some nice results. I will also try it in combinaison with a dolly to see if it's useable in those situations too. I might post a small video some other time to show it in operation, although that might not be the forum to do so.

so THAT'S what a jib is! thx for clearing that up guys!

How are you supposed to fix a chamois eyepiece to the XL2's viewfinder?
 

This might sound like a dumb question, and maybe it is, wouldn't be the first time that happened to me, but how in the world are you supposed to get a standard foam & chamois eyepiece (got mine from B&H) to stick to the viewfinder's eyepiece?

I swear I've tried every man-made tape available out there, including some very sticky duct and gaffer tape, and some double sided tape. It will just not hold. Same goes for velcro. The glue used under the velcro pieces is just not strong enough.

It seems the material used to make the LCD viewfinder's rubber eyepiece has some sort of anti-adhesive treatment. I've tried washing it clean with alcohol, but that's not solving anything.

I'm that close to make a permanent kind of surgery, but if I can avoid it, I'd prefer.

Any input will be appreciated.

David:

The chamois is meant to wrap around the rubber part of the eyepiece, sort of like a shower cap. No adhesive is needed.

Thanks Charles, didn't even notice the opening inside the foam part of the eyepiece. I had never used that before.

I knew it was a dumb question. Well maybe this will help out the other dumb souls out there looking for the same answer ;)

Does the XL2 have safety zone markers in viewfinder?
 

Hi there,

I want to know if the XL2 has safety zone marker outlines displayed in the colour viewfinder for 16:9 and 4:3 areas.

I will need to shoot in 16:9 but need to be able to frame the shot so 4:3 viewers can see talent in the 16:9 shot.

Bit hard to do in 16:9 mode without a 4:3 outline showing on the vf.

David

To the best of my knowledge it does not have this feature. The
previous XL1S model had optional 16:9 guidelines in 4:3 mode,
I wouldn't be surprised to find those on the XL2 as well. I couldn't
find anything in the manual though (the previous model didn't
have 4:3 guides in 16:9 mode!)

That's a pretty bad omission when you think about it, but I guess that is where the camera shows that it is truly a "prosumer" and not a "professional" camcorder.

I am yet to shoot in 16:9 and get paid for it but one of the tv stations I wil be working for requires 16:9 and now I will just have to continuously make sure I leave enough space (how much exactly, I wonder) to each side of the action so it doesn't get lost when viewers are watching in 4:3.

Is there a way around this omission?

Thanks

David

David, if you plan on shooting 16:9 with the EVF and want a 4:3 safety zone, just flip open the eyepiece and put a clear piece of acetate on the LCD screen with the 4:3 frame marked. Nothing fancy, but it will work just like a regular on-camera safety zone, and you will be able to remove it when shooting 4:3.

Thanks David, pardon my ignorance, how do you know exactly what the 4:3 framing is to begin with? I guess you just switch between 4:3 and 16:9 and mark the difference?

When you say acetate - what is that exactly - obviously it can be removed easily enough. Is that "sticky tape"?

I guess you could also put a small pencil line top and bottom above and below the TFT screen on the plastic of the viewfinder that shows a guide.

...starting to answer my own questions in a forum now....uh oh! :-)

David

Yes, you can determine the limit of the 4:3 frame but putting the XL2 in that mode (heard the 4:3 frame on the XL2 covered about 98% of a regular TV frame so it's accurate enough). You then switch to 16:9 and mark lines to reproduce that 4:3 frame.

Or you can also calculate it. Knowing the height of the screen becomes extactly 23.5 mm when cropped in 16:9 mode (i just checked on mine), you know that your width will be 31.33 mm to get a 4:3 ratio.

Sorry, about the acetate, this is the french appellation, don't know extactly what this is in english, but it's just a clear sheet of plastic that you use for projector presentations of text documents. Any clear and thin sheet of plastic will do. Try to find something that will hold in place using static only. I think this would be the cleanest and most practical way to get it on/off in a matter of seconds.

G'day guys, Just to let you know that even high end cameras sometimes don't have 4:3 safe in the viewfinder. I use a Sony DXC D30 camera head with SP,SX and DVCam backs and it doesn't have safe marks. The next model the D35 had them though. Being a freelancer I get used to a whole different range of cameras and you just adapt. Marked Plastic sounds like a good idea though.
George
Red Rock

Viewfinder too heavy for itself?
 

I just purchased the XL2 Body Kit today and I noticed that the viewfinder does not seem to stay still past 90 degrees by itself.

For example: If I were to be in the middle of normal shooting (with the viewfinder closed and not flipped open) and my eye left the eyecup, the viewfinder starts to sag under its own weight until it's pointing towards the floor. As of now, it's not completely loose as there is still some tension in it, but I could see it getting much worse as time went on. I called B&H about the problem but they had never heard of that before. I'm going to exchange it tomorrow, but I wonder if anybody else has had that problem. Just by feeling how heavy the viewfinder is on the swivel joint, I can't imagine that another one will be much different or that over time, the joint will become loose again.

Anybody else experience this?

Thanks.

Been using it for 3 months and never had a problem. If anything the darn thing is very snug and tight. Sorry to hear it happened to you but take a little comfort that in the 3 XL2's I have physically handled they all have been tight so you should be getting a good one when you replace it.

I noted when I got my xl2 that it had a lighter tension than I was used to with the xl1s. Mine doesn't fall on its own but just the pressure of putting my eye to the cup with gradually send it lower. Sounds like your's needs an adjustment. I'd call canon and send it in.

Barry