The crop or magnification factor is related to the size differences of the chips vs. 35mm film. Some dSLR's (Canon 10D, 20D) have a 1.6x factor and some (Nikon D100, D70) have a 1.5x factor. The Canon 1Ds and new 1DsMkII are 1:1, meaning the chip is the same size as 35mm film.

Now they just need to do that for video, (use 35mm size CCD's). Not for the added resolution, but for 35mm depth of field. Even a downsampled 35mm CCD image at 720x480 resolution would make me happy - currently I'm using the mini35 to optically reduce images from 35mm lenses to 1/3" CCD's.

Can somebody tell me why the new conversion factor for the XL2 is 7.8 when the chip is the same size? The top and bottom have been deactivated, so it's like shooting in 16:9 mode on the XL1s because the width of the ccd is the same. I don't know why people use diagonals to calculate the angle of view if what they are really concerned with is the horizontal axis. If you put the same lens on the XL1s and the XL2 you'll get the same image in the XL2's viewfinder as you do between the 16:9 guides on the XL1s.

Also, like I pointed out a few weeks ago, Canon has removed any mention of a 7.8x conversion factor from their website. When the camera first came out they said it was 7.8 and told what the equivalent focal length of the new lens was, but that has all been removed for some reason. Perhaps they are reconsidering that.

XL2 + EF Adapter + Macro Lens
 

Has anybody tried the EF Adapter for Canon XL's? I wonder how it works if we attached a Canon Macro EF Lens onto the XL2 via this adapter. I know the focal length will be x7.2 or something but will it still perform to shoot macro?

Thanks.

On our PAL 4:3 aspect ratio the crop factor is 9.6.
I have tried the 100mm f2.8 USM Macro lens today with the XL Adapter on the XL2. Focus is very, very critical, very, very short, but I did not try actual macro focussing, I'll do that tomorrow and I'll report back.

XL2 EF Adapter
 

I have played around with EF adapter on my XL2.
Attached Canon 100-400mm F4 IS/USM and 600mm.
More of my work was with telephoto side. Concur
that focus is very short and critical. Sorry, have not
tried any sort of macro shot on this end.

-Terry

Surf Shooter Hawaii
Kapolei, Hawaii
http://www.surfshooterhawaii.com

Thank You guys. Just want to make it clear. What you mean by focus is very short and critical, are you saying that the depth of field is very very shallow?

Nico, that's exactly the macro lens I have in mind 100mm f2.8 USM Macro. I'll be very excited waiting for your test result.

Thanks again.

Hi Desmond,

As it looked as if it was going to rain I conducted some tests in my study.

I mounted the XL2 on a sturdy Manfrotto tripod 055NAT2 equipped with a Manfrotto 516 head and I also attached the NebTek Panasonic 7” LCD monitor on the XL2 to facilitate manual focussing.

The camera lens and the target, a clock, were on a level plane.

As I did not know exactly where the focal plane is situated in the XL2, I measured the distance from the beginning of the lens housing on the body of the XL2 to the object when I obtained the sharpest and nearest focus. That was exactly 29cm at 1/6th of a second at f/8.00. The focus ring of lens was on the 1:1 mark. I have florescent lighting in my study.

Do not even try do use this lens on a XL2 without a tripod for macro work. It is almost impossible to focus it and holding it still.

The depth of field on that distance and exposure is less than the width of a hair! I could see the individual drops of paint on the clock with a number in focus but if you move the camcorder a fraction of a millimetre it is out of focus.

XL2 EF Adapter
 

Desmond,

I've noticed focusing was fairly hard using my 100-400mm.
Not the greatest lens to be using with XL2 and shooting
surf. A very very stable platform is required. I noticed
a great deal of shake when zooming out on surfers.

Again, I was just playing around. I usually use standard
20X lens for shooting surf. It works fairly well for me.

If you didn't catch it on the board, I connected
my 600mm EF on my XL2. Shot the full moon
Chirstmas Day evening.

You can find clip on my video clip page:

http://www.surfshooterhawaii.com/video.html

Sorry I can't help you more. Sounds like Nico provided
you some great information.

Aloha,

-Terry

Nico. Thanks a bunch for your info. I really appreciate it. That was really helpful.

Terence, when you attached your 600mm EF on your XL2 to shoot that moon, were you having problem with focusing as well or you put the camera on a tripod?

Thanks again guys.

XL2 EF Adapter
 

I had a little problem finding the moon... ha ha...
zoomed out that far into the dark space... Lined up the
setup and finally found the moon. It wasn't too hard
focusing the moon since it was fairly large and not
moving as fast as some surfers I shoot. I had my
600mm mounted on my Wimberly Gimbal mount which
is attached to my GITZO tripod. I then attached
XL2 with EF adapter to my 600mm lens. Pretty much
turned it into some sort of telescope. I just had a wild
hair and wanted to see what it will do. I've read
someone attaching 1200mm lens to the XL1s awhile
back ago. I did remember playing around with
my 100-400mm lens with the XL2. I zoomed in
on a table lamp in the house. It zoomed in pretty good.
When I have the time, I have to try out other lenses.
So far, I am happy with the stock 20X lens shooting
surf. I have yet to find any of my EF lenses that
will do better at this time.

-Terry

Canon EF Adapter XL
 

Is there any reason to have this tool if you are not thinkg in shooting wild nature documentaries?

Usually you ask this the other way around. You have an imaging
problem and need a solution. Sports / wildlife shooting seem to
be the prime candidates indeed.

The applications best suited for the EF adapter are situations reguiring extreme telephoto fields of view, such as wildlife videography and surveillance. Those are the two big uses for the EF adapter.

Well, i was wondering if it could be used in short films or things like that, because any lense attached at would be a telephoto. Even a 24 mm canon lense will convert to a 160 mm, wich is not a very angular lense. ;-P

Re: Canon EF Adapter XL
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Miguel Lopez : Is there any reason to have this tool if you are not thinkg in shooting wild nature documentaries? -->>>

I use the EF-adapter for wildlife filming, but another special use comes in mind: Take Xl2, EF-adapter, and Canon EF macro lens such as the 100 or 200mm one. The result is like having a microscope. I once tested that it is possible to enlarge one half of the Times Roman 12pt "l" character to the whole screen from bottom to top. Using a "tube" (what do you call that thing which is like a conventer, but there are no lenses, just the tube/frame) between the lens and adapter, one can go even beyond that.

The EF lens adaptor
 

Just out of curiosity how do the EF lenses function with the XL body?

Can you change their aperture or are they left wide open, and how about focusing (manual I suppose)?

As the camera magnifies the focal length by 7.8 times (or whatever) is there any type of wide angle lens that would not be transformed into a massive 200mm size?

What does a fish eye lens look like when magnified to this degree?

Thank you, Chris

Have you seen my fields of view comparison at http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxl2/articles/article10.php?

Focus is always manual. Exposure can be auto. Image stabilization is preserved.

For more info, see an older article from the XL1 Watchdog:
http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/articles/article21.php.

See also http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxl2/artic...cle04.php#ceos.

Thanks for the info.

Are there any downloadable clips to show what the picture quality is like?

Just how do the prime lenses (Canon brand) compare to the 20X lens?

There is also an FD lens convertor. This seems to me an even more sensible purchase because without the AF function on the EF lenses you are essentially paying more for a function on a lens you cannot take advantage of (unless using it for stills).

FD lenses are better built (well, in my opinion any way) and have a really smooth focusing action. Because they are getting on in their age you can snip up some real bargains all over the placel. Has anyone tried the FD convertor?

Chris:

<< Are there any downloadable clips to show what the picture quality is like? >>

What will video clips show you, that still images won't? The quality will be as good as the lens. If you're using inexpensive Sigma lenses like I did for my field-of-view comparison, then the quality is not so great. If you are using high-end Canon "L" series lenses, then the quality is superb. As a general rule, the more expensive the lens is, the higher the image quality.

<< Just how do the prime lenses (Canon brand) compare to the 20X lens? >>

The 20x lens uses fluorite elements, just like any "L" series Canon lens. There really is no point in making such a comparison though, since I can't imagine why you would want to use a photo lens instead of a video lens. There is no motorized zoom on a photo lens, so you will not be able to smoothly change focal length during a shot. The photo lenses are best suited only for situations where you need extreme telephoto, beyond what the 20x can provide.

<< There is also an FD lens convertor. >>

It is not a Canon product, it's a third-party solution. Therefore it will not communicate with the camera and you lose all electrical compatibility. In addition to not having auto focus, you'll lose auto exposure as well. FD lenses were discontinued nearly twenty years ago, so you are right, there are some bargains to be found on Ebay and similar sites.

I'm not trying to hijack this thread, but have a questions about the EF adapter and it sounds like Chris Hurd has experience with it.

I have several EF lenses that I use with a Canon digital camera. I am looking at the XL2 and the possibility of using these lenses with the XL2 and the EF adapter. Here are the questions:

1. The EF lenses have a focus motor built into them. Why don't they keep their auto focus ability when used with the EF adapter?

2. Does the EF adapter have a lens inside or is it just a tranfers of the different mounts?

3. Do you loose any light (f stop) when you use the EF adapter?

4. If there is no lens inside and it doesn't transfer the focus information, why is the cost over $600? You can buy an extender (teleconverter) for the EF lenses for about $350.

Thanks for any help you can give.

Hi Lloyd,

1. I don't know. That's a question for Canon.

2. Yes, there are optical elements within the EF adapter.

3. The maximum aperture for an XL lens is f/1.6. With the EF adapter, you're limited to the max. ap. of the EF lens. Only the most expensive lenses are anywhere near that fast... f/2.8 or so if I recall correctly... and the majority of EF lenses in general have a max. ap. of f/4.0 or so. In other words, yes, you'll need more light depending on the lens you're using.

4. If it wasn't expensive, it wouldn't be Canon. Hope this helps,

XL2 and EOS lenses
 

I'm a pro photographer (still) and am looking at the XL2. I'm attracted in large part because it accepts my EOS lenses with an adapter. I have some questions for anyone who has used the XL2 with EOS lenses. I'd really appreciate respones:

1. Is autofocus retained?

2. What's the crop factor?

3. Most important, what's your impression of the camera with EOS lenses? Good? Bad? Not worth it?

4. Which EOS lenses do you prefer using and why?

An unrelated question: As a photographer, I was alarmed to read that Canon's lower-end DVs have selectable focus points, as I'm used to with still cams, but the XL2 apparently does not. Why is this and what am I missing?

Answers to any or all questions much appreciated.

Hi George;
I use an XL1, but the characteristics you aSk about are basiCally the same for both cameras.

1: The EOS lenses are all going to be manual everything. No autofocus, no auto aperture, no auto zoom.

2: The 35mm camera lenses are magnified over 7 times. 300mm = 2200mm (approx.) on the XL2. Reduction in picture size will be relative.

3: I switched from still photography to video and havn't looked back! I have a full Canon 35mm outfit I continue to take for a backup and have never used it as such. My impression of the camera with the 35mm lenses is excellent. I can shoot later and earlier in the day than my friends with 35's , much to their dismay.
The picture quality is excellent.

4: You will be surprised to know that I primarily use FD lenses, with great success. A 50 - 300L and a 600, both 4.5.
I also use an older 300mm 2.8L EOS lens, and a 70 - 200 2.8L. all lenses produce superior results. Don't worry about the focus points!

Hi George;
Sorry, left for lunch. Focus points are of no value IMHO. More concern would be the change in mental attitude toward the DV. Where we are concerned about lack of movement in 35, we are totally concerned about it in DV. Smooth pans and tilts. Picture quality will be dissapointing compared to 35. But the 72 DPI video will not be hung on a wall or printed as a 300 DPI print will. It looks great on TV. The technical aspects of 35 are valuable in DV, but the mechanical requirements are going to be new.
I found my notes on magnification for the XL2 and EOS lenses:
in 16:9, magnification will be 7.8 times and the 4:3 format will be 9.7 times.
My website shows various lenses used on the XL series cameras, and in addition to those shown, I have customers and aquantenances who use Canon and Nikon 400mm 2.8, 100 - 400, 600 EOS, 50 - 350 and others. I have pro 35 shooter friends that also use XL* cameras. People you would know.
You won't be sorry to add DV to your experience.
Check my website.

Best of luck;

Ron

Thanks a lot so far for the responses. Now for the final question before I give my credit card number to the evil photo/video dealer in NY:

Would I be sorry going with a GL2 instead of the XL2? I know you'll have lots of questions as to my use and experience level, but really what you're looking at in me is a 1-series Canon user who wants performance but is not sure if the weight of the XL2 is going to bug me.

Perhaps what I really should be looking at is getting the XL2 and a more pocketable DV recorder.

I'd love to hear anyone's thought process in deciding to go with the XL2 versus, say, another Canon model or even, in this day and age, the latest Sony high-def model. I mean, if someone's going to want me to shoot their wedding in high def, then I'm out of that job, right?

Love to hear your thoughts. Thanks again.

Hi George;
It really depends on what your shooting. If its wildlife or a requirement for interchangable lenses, there's not much choice. However, there are those using the GL2 for wildlife. If its weddings, you may need two cameras. The GL2 would be a good choice there. If Hi Def is what your customers request, then your choice is narrowed. One question to your customers, - how do they play Hi Def?
You won't be sorry with either camera.
Check with ZGC.com for cameras. Talk with Chris.

Best;

Ron

I tried the GL2 today and it really felt and looked like a toy. I understand it takes nice videos, but if Canon is going to put out a really nice cam, why house it in such plasticky junk?

Perhaps I'm too used to the quality feel of the 1-series film and digital bodies. But even in still cameras, the 20D feels like a quality instrument. Not the GL2, IMO.

Amazes me to read all the glowing reviews about the GL2. Maybe people have just gotten used to feeling plastic in their hands and pushing tiny buttons and scrolling through silly menus to adjust parameters.

Reminded me of the old days when using a Coolpix camera.

I think I'm headed for the XL2. That's a real camera, right?

Hi George;
It's part of the mental thing I talked about. The XL2 is more professional, however is still considered a prosumer camera. We are used to professional 35mm cameras. As you go up in price for DV cameras , the mechanical quality gets better; But the picture quality remains much the same in 3 chip DV.

You would probably feel more professional with the XL2 and have more flexability with the added controls and the available accessories.

Again, it kind of depends on which subject area you are in.

Best;

Ron

<<<-- Originally posted by Ron Armstrong :1: The EOS lenses are all going to be manual everything. No autofocus, no auto aperture, no auto zoom. -->>>

Ron, The EF-adapter does allow auto aperture. Just turn the small switch on the adapter to the other position. Still, I'm not saying it is that useful.

> George: Which EOS lenses do you prefer using and why?

The EF 70-200mm/f2.8 USM produces very sharp images, as well as the 300mm/f.28, 400mm/f2.8, 600mm/4.0. Then zooms with a wide range, such as 35-350mm, 100-400mm etc., are not that good. The difference is noticiable.

> Georger: Canon's lower-end DVs have selectable focus points, as I'm used to with still cams, but the XL2 apparently does not. Why is this and what am I missing?

I suspect that this almost endless discussion with the focusing of the 20x and 3x lenses has to do with two things:

1. The viewfinder is quite not able to give a feeling that the image is in focus although it is. There are simple too small number of pizels. At least, it happens to me all the time and after seven years with the Xl1 and Xl2 I still find myself struggling with the same question: While taking the footage I'm concerned of the focus, but then when I view the footage on a proper monitor everything is just perfect.

2. It's difficult to get used to the idea that setting the focus depends on how quickly one turns the ring. Comibing the effects of the viewfinder and the servo control imply, one has to turn the focus ring slowly back and forth and seek for the best point of the images appearing bit out of focus.

I think such a system is bit poor for human beings. For, when ever our muscles in the hands and the visual perception work together --such as when reaching some object from the shelf-- the visual perception "guides" the mechanical control. When the viewfinder blurs the visual control and this is combined with the sliding focus position, we simply find the situation akward. Conversely, this perhaps explains why the XL12 is easier to focus with the EF lenses. (The focus point does not drift.)

Finaly, I'm not sure selectable focus points in a video camera were such a good idea as in the EOS-bodies. In fact, in my experience, the autofocus is not that useful for serious video production, for the system may loose or change the focus when you did not want that to happen at the first place.

It's difficult to follow moving objects, and the question is, whether you want to have things somewhat in focus all the footage, or to have them precisely in focus and then loose that the next moment. Not so clear, which is better for the audience. But you see my point, in still photography it's all very different. (If you take a sequence of still photos, you may always throw away the frame which is out of focus and still have many good frames. In a footage, one short moment focus point shifting back and forth may ruin the whole thing.)

Thanks Ron and others. I appreciate your patience and responses.

Ron, are you saying that while the XL2 offers much better manual controls and a better overall feel, the picture quality over the GL2 will not be that stunning.

I talked to a Canon rep yesterday who said the XL2's picture was markedly better than that of the GL2; he referred to intangible qualities that made me think kthe XL2 was much more than just better handling and control.

Lauri,

I checked out your web site and am impressed. You and I have similar interests, namely, wildlife and photography. I own the Canon 600mm and 500mm lenses and have been shooting (still) wildlife for the past 10 years.

I *never* considered until recently adding video, mainly because I didn't think the quality would approach what I'm getting with still.

Question: so will the XL2 equipped with a 500mm f/4 IS lens deliver the kind of sharpness I expect from a wildlife photo? I would be amazed.

<<<-- Originally posted by Georg Herbet : Question: so will the XL2 equipped with a 500mm f/4 IS lens deliver the kind of sharpness I expect from a wildlife photo? I would be amazed. -->>>

The Canon 500mm f/4.0 is a wonderful lens. It creates as sharp images as you ever can expect to get with a video camera. Of course, any video frame is not comparable to a still photo, but in the class of video footages the combination of XL2 + 500mm f/4.0 is on the top.

Thanks, Lauri.

I use a Wimberley head for my long lenses. The camera body, of course, dangles from the mounted lens. How does one mount a long lens with a presumably very heavy body such as the XL2? The same way?

Hi Georg;
Lauri has done a good job of explaining the advantages of EOS lenses. Sorry Lauri, forgot the switch.
I have seen the XL1 mounted on a Wimberely head. Seemed a little awkward to me; But I have seen others use fluid heads for their 35 mm cameras with success.
To support your XL2, start with a good fluid head mounted on a sturdy tripod built for video cameras. Naturally, you should use my RONSRAIL to support and balance the lens - camera combo. The interface between the lens, adapters, and camera are the week point in the system. Cameras hanging off the back of a long lens are an invitation to disaster. I've seen many instances of major damage. When we do wildlife, we subject our equipment to adverse conditions, we need all the support we can get. The majority of of wildlife videographers I come in contact with use a lens - camera support.

Use a RONSIGHT to find the subject in your limted field of view.

Tripods made by Sachtler, Vinten Mitchel, Cartoni, Miller are all used in the industry. Bogen is a less expensive option. Get the best you can afford.

If you haven't had the chance, check my website for the various setups.


Best;

Ron

Georg;
Forgot to mention the Gitzo tripods. You may have one. If it has a removable top plate, there is available, a half ball adapter that will allow the use of a video fluid head. My 400 series Gitzo tripod does have a removable top plate. Gitzo has the adapter,however, I don't have access to the stock number.

Could save having to buy a new tripod.

Ron

<<<-- Originally posted by Georg Herbet : How does one mount a long lens with a presumably very heavy body such as the XL2? The same way? -->>>

I'm afraid the Wimberley head is not that useful, but instead you needed a fluid head. I tried the Wimberley head (which is marvellous taking still photos of birds) at some point, for the head would have been rather practical in a hide, but was not satisfied with it.

I have Manfrotto tripod and fluid head and have used Vinten 5 as well. I attach the plate to the lens using both the 1/4" and 3/8"screws. Then by sliding the plate on the fluid head it's easy to find the balance. The weight of XL2 is no problem. So, my experience supports what Ron said about fluid heads. Yes, Ron has also a point that since the XL2 extends by 7.4x the focal length of EOS lenses, it is sometimes difficult to pinpoint the subject one wants to film. Notice also that on warm days the huge magnification together with the moving air may blur the image. In winter time I haven't had problems, but once when filming an eagle nest about 100m away, the whole tree appeared like a piece of rubber wiggling in the wind.

I was fortunate enough this winter to video a mountain lion about mile away. I didn' feel the conditions were right with heat waves and the distance involved, so I didn't take much footage. I used a 600mm f4 lens, opened up all the way and on reviewing the pictures wished I had taken more footage. The cat had two full grown kittens with her that I wish I had taken!!! The video was taken with the temp somwhere between 0 and 10 deg. f., late afternoon and in snow.
Wouldn't have been able to find the subject without the RONSIGHT.

Ron

Very, very interesting.

I'm thinking a lot about the XL2, nature photography, and the other topics mentioned here today.

You know, to make the investment, I'd need to know whether/how you folks sell videos of wildlife. I know how to do it with stills: I use galleries.

I'm not sure, though, that I want to delve into this, with this much expense over my already expensive still equipment, and not be able to recoup the costs. In other words, for my own pleasure I can't justify this.

Perhaps I will hold my nose and use a GL2 for lightweight videos, non-nature. I can't see giving up still, and I surely can't see lugging both rigs with me in the field.

<<<-- Originally posted by Georg Herbet : You know, to make the investment, I'd need to know whether/how you folks sell videos of wildlife. -->>>

Yes, I do sell the wildlife videos. My customers are broadcasting companies, advertising agencies etc. Still, I have no wisdom, how to do it. The best comment/advice I've ever heard was given by a manager of a broadcasting company, who said, they seek for professionalism. At that very moment I realized there must be a lot of people who are not able to make their point aptly and efficiently, but instead, they steel time from the already busy people.

So, in the end of the day, everything seems to boil down to private relations which have to be built with time. Second, every chance is unique, and thus, should be taken accordingly. I often say to myself: "It's now or never, are you willing to do simply your very best."

Finally, Ron has definitely a point with the RONSIGHT. Some equippment is often needed to find the target one wants to film. For the same reason, one needs a suspended fluid head. If the suspension is based on friction (as in the Wimberley head), it becomes rather difficult to control the movement of the camera.