David...

yeah, I'm also using a 16x manual lens on my XL1s. The comparison tests I made show the EOS lenses and the 16x to have about the same resolution. Sorry, I don't have the equipment for a more technical qualitative comparison between the two other than to say they look about equal. The biggest difference I noted was the reduced depth of field with the EOS lenses. This is due to the larger max aperture these lenses are designed for that more closely approximate a film camera DOF.

You can now download a sample avi file of the XL1 (PAL interlaced) images from

www.koillismaa.fi/~lkettune

The sample file has images filmed with the following lenses

EF 100mm macro
EF 70-200mm/2.8 zoom
EF 400mm/2.8
EF 600mm/4.0 (OIS)
Standard XL1 16x lens
Wide angle XL series 3x lens

As far as I can say, in my eyes the EF series lenses produce a much more pleasant image. But these things seem to be in the eye of the beholder.

The file is 128Mb for it is as raw material as possible. I just picked from my harddisk several files which I had earlier captured directly from the tape. There is no filtering.

The file may require you to have the Canopus codec, and if you don't have that, it can be downloaded for free from Canopus web pages.

As soon as I get the XL2, I'll set up a similar sample.

<<<-- It would be greatif you could include comparisons that show the two lens systems at the same focal lengths -->>>

Barry, good idea, I'll do this with the XL2.

<<<-- Originally posted by Lauri Kettunen : You can now download a sample avi file of the XL1 (PAL interlaced) images from

www.koillismaa.fi/~lkettune

The sample file has images filmed with the following lenses

EF 100mm macro
EF 70-200mm/2.8 zoom
EF 400mm/2.8
EF 600mm/4.0 (OIS)
Standard XL1 16x lens
Wide angle XL series 3x lens

As far as I can say, in my eyes the EF series lenses produce a much more pleasant image. But these things seem to be in the eye of the beholder.

The file is 128Mb for it is as raw material as possible. I just picked from my harddisk several files which I had earlier captured directly from the tape. There is no filtering.

The file may require you to have the Canopus codec, and if you don't have that, it can be downloaded for free from Canopus web pages.

As soon as I get the XL2, I'll set up a similar sample. -->>>


the download for the codec at the site doesn't work, thanks for wasting my time.

thanks for trying though!

I had to go find the codec through a Google search, but I did find it and it works fine. If I remembered where I got it I'd post a link, but really, it was just a simple search.

Thanks for the footage, Lauri. It's very helpful. I can't really tell much of a difference in quality between the lenses, but I haven't had a chance to view it on a good monitor yet. I will be doing that soon. But even so, it does give me one good answer immediately, which is that the XL1 is capable of really good footage with any of those lenses.

I haven't bought a camera at all yet. I'm still trying to work out a bunch of details, including what I really need for what I want to do. But since I plan to use it for a bunch of projects over a period of time, I really want a total system (including everything, not just the camera) that's really flexible and allows me to add or upgrade components at my own discretion without having to throw away all my previous investments. The XL series cameras, especially with the EOS adapter and/or the availability of the Min35, seems like the perfect camera for this because I can reuse those 35mm lenses with future upgraded cameras and with a still camera, which means a substantial reusability factor. Your footage has helped convince me that I'm thinking along the right lines for what I need, and that's reassuring.

Another question: this footage is labeled "XL1". Just for the sake of perfect clarification, was this an XL1 or an XL1s? I've been trying to decide whether to go ahead and bite the bullet on an XL2 or just get a used (and therefore much cheaper) XL1 or XL1s, and if that was really done on an XL1 then I think the answer is that that's all the camera I need right now, and I can save myself a bundle of money and upgrade when I'm ready to.

Thanks again for your help, and I'm extremely interested in seeing the comparable focus length tests after you run them.

Rabi, I'm sorry to hear you were not able to open the file. There's now another file which is in the standard Microsoft avi format available at www.koillismaa.fi/~lkettune

Hope this resolves the problem you had. (I can't guarantee that.) The mutually incompatible systems is a sad fact of life.

Is anybody able to create a quick time file from the canopus codec avi file?

Russell, it's indeed XL1 not XL1s.

ftp://www.canopus.com/pub/drivers/misc/dvcodec.exe

http://dvd.box.sk/index.php?pid=soft&prj=info&pol=4&rid=7725

theres a link. to lauri. those werent shot wide open? do you have any more footage also. i am going to be using these lenses and want as much footage as possible.

thank you

<<<-- those werent shot wide open? do you have any more footage also -->>>

Typically with the EF lenses the iris is almost closed -the f value is big-- for the 2.8 lenses have a lot of "light power". Basically, I have hunderds of hours of material, but the 30s footage takes already 128Mb of disk space.

do you have any material of human atcivity or wide shots. what i saw was great but i want to see the raw footage so i visulise what it might look for my movie. i was stunned to see the insects so upclose and then made the distiction that you must of had pretty big lenses.

Dumb Question
 

Can somebody explain the meaning of the descriptors "EF" and "EOS" when describing Canon 35 mm SLR lenses that can be used with the XL adapter?

Hugh, l don't recall reading or hearing ever an explanation to acronyms EOS and EF Canon employes. EOS refers to the camera body and the system and EF is an acronym Canon uses to describe their professional lenses designed mainly to the EOS system. If needed, look at

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=111

Rabi, sorry, my material is not about human activities. When filming, that's what I very carefully try to avoid! Besides, the EF lenses are not that practical in filming human activities for the magnification is huge. If the lens is longer than 400mm, there is another problem to use them on warm days as the moving air causes interesting optical distortion. For example, I have some footages in which pines tree looks like piece of rubber wiggling in the wing.

http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/general.html
 

What does “EOS” mean?

Canon’s line of autofocus-capable SLR cameras is sold under the name EOS. This stands for “electro-optical system”......etc


What does “EF” mean?

Lenses built by Canon for use with their EOS series of cameras are technically known as EF-series lenses. This acronym stands for “electrofocus.” Older Canon lenses which are not marked EF, such as FD and FL series lenses, are not compatible with EOS cameras.....etc...

Yes and EF series lenses aren't necessairly pro lenses---They would have to have the "L" affixed to them. L series Ef lenses are the best.