ah... the memory
 

Thanks for that Andy.
The butterfly scales in your collection, was that a still from a video you shot?

The one of the road going east from Death Valley, reminds me of when we drove through there a few years ago heading toward Arizona. We stayed a few days at Panamint Springs, what a fantastic place, I would love to make a return visit.

No, the stills are from a Canon point-and-shoot. The microscope shots were handheld at the exit pupil limit for the ocular and zoomed in 3x in camera.

I haven't had a chance to post my XL2 microscopy yet.

Yeah, Death Valley was incredible last year with the record flower displays.

Eric,

I bought the adapter to use with my XL2. Super telephoto. It is interesting to point to a full moon. So far I feel it gives me a different perspective to play with whether it be at the macro or telephoto level.

Here is a collage of frames I shot with the adapter and a 90mm macro EF lens. Samples are flower. You can see the pollen grains and the inside of the center of a pansy like it is another world.

http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1742101

Stuart

nice one
 

Thanks for that Stuart. How much in the way of control do you have? for example could you do a panning shot or would there be too much in the way of shake?

I am getting a cannon 100-400 to use with my D30, has anyone used that combination which on the XL2, would be 780 - 3120!

I have done panning with EF lenses in the 100-200mm range without much problem. I have a 50-500 lens that when it is at 500mm it is really sensitive. I have tried this with two tripod heads. With the manf 516 I could maintain good fluid pan control with a very sensitive touch. With my smaller head there was noticable difference. I must say it is pretty wild to reach out and touch someone when you are at 500mm........

Stuart

Custom mike for Xl2
 

Hello Andy,
Can you tell me where you got the handle and parabolic dish for the mike that you made?

90 mm macro
 

Stuart,

what 90 mm macro lens did you use with your ef adapter!! I am shooting bugs this summer for a classroom dvd for grade 4 kids. I loved your snaps.
would a 50 to 200 or uch do as good a job? would be nice to have a lens do dual service if possible.

ND filter with EF adapter
 

I just tried out a new EF lens adapter with a Canon 70-200 f4 lens on my XL2. I had to stop down to f32 (smallest setting) in afternoon sun. Are ND filters commonly used this setup? I searched the forms before buying the adapter and didn't see any reference to this. With my 20D still camera the lens operates at normal fstop ranges. Is something going on I don't understand?

Thanks, Dave

Sure...
 

Try a minimal ND filter. Perhaps a shutter speed one level higher than usual. If you are 30p, try 1/60 shutter. Also, -3db is great for outdoor use. You might try a light absorbing Cpol filter as well.

I'm shooting -3 and 60i. I am just amazed that XL2 seems to be so sensitive. What's the difference between the chips in the XL2 and the 20D? I'm going to run some more tests in the morning, if I get time.

I don't think the XL2's sensitivity is much different from your 20D (actually I think the 20D is more sensitive because of the larger sensor). It has more to do with your shutter speed - you'd never use a shutter speed of 1/60 outside on a bright sunny say when you're taking stills - more like 1/1000 or something really high which will also allow you to keep your iris wider and freeze motion. Also, with that particular lens, you need to use high shutter speeds to avoid blur from image shake which isn't really an issue when shooting video.

Try out some ND filters and you should be good to keep shooting - I have the same lens and I think it's my favorite stills lens that I own but I havn't attached it to my XL2 yet.

Steer well clear of f/32 David! In fact for quality images with a 1/3" chipped camcorder, don't stop down below f/5.6. So yes, use lots of ND (but don't stack filters).

tom.

Well, DUH!!!! Of course, I'm shooting at 1/60 of a second so I'm going to have to stop down pretty far.

The lens is an f4 so if I don't close down past f5.6 that gives me a limited range to work in. Are f8 or f16 so bad? I've often heard that that lenses generally work best a couple stops down from wide open or is there an issue with the small 1/3" chips in miniDV? I've not heard of a similar concern with digital still cameras.

It's all to do with chip sizes and focal lengths. The smaller the chips and the shorter the focal length, the worse diffraction losses become, and if you shoot at f/4 with your XL2 and compare it with the same shot at f/16 you'll know just what I mean. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Mini DV.

Ansel Adams shot onto huge 'chips' measuring 10" x 8", so he could happily use apertures like f/32. We're shoting onto tiny chips 4.4 mm wide, so beware tiny apertures much more than large apertures.

Yes, you'll have a limited range. But so to does the PDX10 and the HC1/A1 - neither camera stops down below f/4.5 unless all the internal ND gets used up first.

Moral: Use ND filteration, lots of it. Beware higher shutter speeds because it leads to CCD smear and jittery footage that contains movement.

tom.

re: focal length
 

If I understand correctly shorter focal length = more diffraction. I'm using a 70-200mm lens (highly multiplied by the 1/3" chips) so does that help me much?

Thanks, Dave

I don't know if I'm right or wrong about this, so please try using different aperture values and see what the results look like, but I don't think the rule of keeping your aperture very open applies with EF lenses for the simple reason that they are capable of stopping down much more (f/32) like you said so you'll have more room to play around before diffraction occurs.

The XL2 lens can't go above F/16 which is its minimum aperture, but when a lens can go to f/32, it's likely to perform reasonably well at f/16 and possibly higher values as well. The only problem is at these apertures, a lot will be in focus because of the smaller sensor/narrower aperture, so make sure the lens adapter and any filters are clean and free of dust or you'll see it on the image.

But again, I'd try it out and see if there is any image quality loss - what did the image look like at f/32?

It certainly dees help you Dave. I'm using a focal length of 2.25 mm with my 0.5x converter in place, and I'm very aware of the difraction sofrening. In fact Sony make warnings about it in their Z1 and FX1 instruction books, and many modern camcorders won't stop down below f/8 for this very reason.

Your 70 - 200 focal length is unaffected by chip dimensions, but if you're worried it's pretty easy to do some controlled tests. Talk into the mic as you stop the lens down, as using the 'display' function on replay to give you a readout is often less reliable. A lot of displays stop at f/11 (the one on my Sony VX2k does) yet the camera will film at f/16. f/22 and f/32 before the blades close. All these read out as f/11.

tom.

Sorry Andrew, but you're wrong. EF lenses are designed for huge chips (36 mm wide - ten times the width or ours) and such areas of real estate make small apertures much more acceptable and diffraction far less of a problem.

But you're spot on to suggest that Dave does some tests of his own. I've really surprised people I teach when I tell them these facts - invariably they've come from 35 mm cameras where f/16 is commomplace and they're often quite adamant that f/16 will be sharper than f/1.6. It never is with tiny chips; it's the laws of optics.

tom.

Here's a link to an article which explains Tom's point in a little more depth. http://www.tvtechnology.com/features...08.17.05.shtml

Well spotted, Dave.

okay, I see where I was wrong - thanks for the article - it really helped explain the issue. I think this would make a good experiment except I don't have an EF adapter, otherwise I'd pull it off.

Hey Ed,

Check-out this thread:

http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=66536

I did some quick tests outside with the standard 20x lens on my xl2 (which, interestingly enough, closes up past after f11) and maybe saw a difference between f2.8 and f8, but I need to do more tests. Frankly I am underwhelmed by miniDV in general, all the more reason to try to find its sweet spot I suppose. I couldn't really test the 70-200 lens as I would need a range of ND to test outdoors.

''underwhelmed by miniDV in general'', Dave? Gollygosh, I smack my forehead in disbelief at what my 6 year old VX2000 puts up there on the big 34'' Sony Trinitron. Astounding quality images from a camera that's so cheap, small, light and reliable.

Of course it sure helps if you work with and understand the limitations of the system. To know the value of expensive tripod heads, to keep well away from small apertures, to go for big bold close-ups whenever possible and to master your DVDs at the highest bit rate your player can handle.

Having come from (more expensive) Hi-8 equipment many years ago, I can say hand on heart that I'm one of the overwhelmed.

tom.

I worked in TV news for 25 years and was used to 2/3" chip cameras.

I'm doing wildlife photography alot now and I have run into problems with the XL2. I hooked up a shotgun (Sennheiser ME-80) and found I couldn't turn the volume up over 1/2 before preamp noise become objectionable. Running the mic into the line inputs thru a Shure FP-24 solved that and other problems like poor headphone monitoring and poor camera balance. If you shoot anything green with a lot of detail (hard to avoid in nature photography) there is crawl in those areas. This form and others have long threads on these issues. Shoot and mic people indoors with decent lighting and the camera works fine.

That being said, I'm too old to be lugging an betacam thru the woods even if I could afford one. Barry Braverman opens his book "Video Shooter" with "I hate DV!" (and what it's done to the business). He concedes that he and we have to live with it and adapt, and that I grant. I just want to work on the formats problems, problems that some seem not to encounter or perceive.

Thing is, a modern Minio DV camera (any of them) is a lot of camera for the money, and my guess is they're priced to sell by the bucket-load for not a lot of markup margin. As such the lenses are just good enough. I could have had more tele reach with my Z1, less chromatic aberation and certainly less barrel distortion, but overall it's a package that's nicely balanced from a specification point of view. Improving the lens a little would've put up the price a lot, I guess.

So too with your XL2 Dave. The whole bundle is a compromise, and the Canon R & D will have fine tooth combed every last pin and bracket in an effore to save money, weight, build time. If you think what a Betacam or an Arriflex would cost and weigh, you're much more likely to give a nod to Canon for their compromising excellence.

tom.

Dave,

Being a former news shooter, you might wish to purchase the 16x manual/servo lens. Although the iris is still electronically controlled by the camera, it allows you f1.6 at full telephoto. Many folks, including myself, also feel that it has slightly better resolution than the 16x and 20x auto lenses that are stock with the XL series cameras.

As for the preamp noise, I have this tidbit to offer. One thing that might have got you (because it bit me the first time I used the XLR jack with a studio conenser mic). Make sure that innocent looking 'ATT' switch below the '48v' switch on the rear of the camera isn't set to 'on'. It's a bit misleading from a visual perspective because the off position is actually the up position for the switch. I was having the same issue. Kept cranking up the gain and it was good and noisy by the time I got an acceptable voice level.

As for the mosquito noise on green areas, you can try setting vertical detail level to 'low' in the menus to see if it helps.

-gb-

I'm don't want to buy a lens that might not make the jump to HD. Also the majority of my nature footage is full telephoto so I need the 20x reach. A friend of mine has the JVC HD100. It has a pro type lens and that's nice but it lacks the throw of the 20x. The JVC also has crawl in busy detail. I've tried a few things to mitage in the XL2, but it is what it is.

My audio problems stem from cranking up my levels so high to pick up faint or far away sound. The Shure F24/Sound Designs MixPre has been great. The local nature sound society turned me on to it. If I don't need a second mike, I feed my shotgun into both channels. The limiters are so good on this mixer that I just set one channel so that no matter what it won't overdrive, the other I crank as high as I dare. It's also a joy to be able to monitor sound thru the mixer. A friend who works with the little Panasonic P2 camera was asking me about headphone amps as he is unhappy with the audio monitoring on that camera.

EF Adapter backfocus
 

I just got an EF adapter for my XL2. A Canon 70-200 f4 lens mounted on it won't backfocus. Is that the way it is with this set up? Anyone with 1st hand experience?

ND Filter with EF Adapter
 

Hi David,

I shoot wildlife almost exclusively and work in India where the light is ultra bright most of the time. I use a Nikon adapter and Nikkor lenses on my XL2. My standard long zoom is a 50-300 Nikkor and I hardly ever take off the x.9 (3 stops) ND filter. Before I got the filter (it's a non-standard size and had to be specially ordered from Tiffen) I was sometimes forced to shoot at very small f stops with the same lens without any ND and the results were remarkably good. No noticeable aberrations or defraction problems. I also often shoot extreme macro with the 105mm micro nikkor and deliberately shoot with very small f stops (f 16, f 22) for maximum depth of field and the images look really good.

Hope this helps,

Shekar

Shekar,

Good to hear from you again. I got a 3 stop and a 6 stop ND filter a few days ago. I've have only played around a little with them, been too busy with editing and pick up jobs, but my Canon 70-200 did seem better at f4 than f32. The wind was blowing too hard for a steady shot, I hope to get some tests in tomorrow. By the way, the 70-200 won't backfocus. I zoom in and grab a focus but lose it when I zoom out. Does your Nikon lens do the same?

Dave

Diffraction softness is much more noticeable at very short focal lengths than long ones Shekar, and your 105 mm as against my 2.25 mm proves the point. Glad to hear you're both using ND to soak the light.

tom.

EF Adapter and back focus
 

Dave,

To the best of my knowledge, there is no way to 'back focus' the EF adapter or a still camera lens mounted on it. I suggest that you don't treat this lens as you would a video or film camera zoom, where the correct way to acheive focus is to zoom in tight, focus and zoom out to the desired focal length. A still camera zoom is not engineered to behave like a cine zoom and needs to be treated as a vari-focal length lens. Therefore try focusing it at whatever focal length you intend to shoot at. However, if you want to make sure that your lens is ok, mount it on your still camera and see if it holds focus through the whole zoom range. If it doesn't, there's something wrong with your lens. I recently tried out an EF adapter on my XL2 with a Canon 35-350mm zoom, and it worked great at all focal lengths. The pictures were really sharp at both ends and anywhere in the middle.

Incidentally, my Nikkor 50-300 holds focus perfectly throughout its range even when mounted on my XL2 or Aaton Super 16mm camera. It has separate zoom and focus rings.

As for your problem with wind induced shake, this is a major problem with long stills lenses since the effective focal length is multiplied by over a factor of 7 on mini DV. You need a bridge plate that will lock camera and lens together (I hope your zoom has a tripod collar!), and a really sturdy tripod with a remote mounted on the handle. I've had my own simple bridge plate fabricated and will post some pictures of it in a day or two.

Best,

Shekar

EF Adapter
 

David,

I am not sure what you mean by back focus. I have used a variety of lens on mine. Focus is always hard to achieve when you are getting telescopic but I have had no problem adjusting back and forth in manual mode. I do not have your specific lens but I used the 75-300 this past weekend without issue.

Stuart

I think the correct term is track focus. If I zoom in and grab focus then zoom out, I lose focus. I must refocus at each focal length. Not the end of the world, I just never heard this mentioned before. The lens works fine on my still camera.

There's nothing wrong. That's just the way it works. Annoying, isn't it?

Parfocal lenses
 

lenses that do not change focus while zooming are called parfocal

interestingly the 70-200 F4 L is supposed to be parfocal.

I have not tried that with my XL adapter yet and i dont have the F4 but the F2.8 but i will see if i can try this

AFAI the following canon lenses should be parfocal

EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM
EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III
EF 90-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
EF 90-300mm f/4.5-5.6

and some of them i own i know are on still cameras and there shouldnt be a difference on the XL as it is a mechanical property of the lens

My 70-200 holds focus while zooming on my 20D still camera, but not the XL2.

I got a chance to try out the 70-200 and I was very pleased with the results. I didn't do a comparison with and without ND on tape, I could tell just looking thru the viewfinder that the ND was better. I believe that the 70-200 f4 puts out a better picture on my XL2 than the standard 20X. The color seems richer and smoother, less "cartoony" than what I've gotten with the 20X or the 3X lenses. I freely admit that I have done very little tweaking with the XL2 and may not be getting the best out of it but, at the settings I'm using, the 70-200 /EF adapter (running f4-f5.6 with 6 stops of ND) is more pleasing to my eye.

That's the way to go Dave - never smaller than f/5.6 with 1/3" chips and if you're shooting HD then f/4 is probably as small as you should go. It's for this very reason that Sony stop the A1's aperture blades closing beyond f/4. At this point 3 stops of ND creep across the aperture as the light levels increase.

tom.