If that's true then you already have the correct information that you're looking for.

That's a mistake. With this forum, you don't need "elsewhere."

That's an entirely different matter. The firmware upgrade that you've heard about Canon providing to end users is *not* the same thing as the PAL / NTSC upgrade.

Nonsense. The reality of the video production business is that cameras are indeed shipped about as a matter of necessity; any serious camera owner knows that and takes the steps required to insure that their gear travels safely and securely.

And I have made it clear that this is *not* possible. The factory does not sell direct, and dealers do not have access to the PAL / NTSC firmware upgrade. You need to buy the camera first, and once it is in your possession, you send it to Canon for the PAL / NTSC upgrade. Your dealer is not involved in this process. But I've already explained that.

You were told wrong. Canon still offers the PAL / NTSC upgrade. It has never been available to dealers. It has been and still is available only to end users.

It's definitely incorrect information. I've nailed it and corrected it in my previous post, but maybe the second time is the charm.

You buy the PAL / NTSC upgrade directly from Canon after you have purchased the camera from an authorized dealer. You send the camera to Canon factory service. It comes back with the PAL / NTSC upgrade. That's the procedure. I don't know how to make it more clear than that.

It still exists, it is possible; you buy the camera from your dealer, then once you have it, you send it to Canon for the upgrade, which you buy directly from them. Canon sends it back to you with the upgrade installed.

It has not been taken away. You just don't seem to understand that it was never offered as a dealer option, and that it's up to you to buy the camera first and then send it to Canon for the PAL / NTSC upgrade.

A lot of people are *already* aware of the truth. There has been no change to the procedure for obtaining the PAL / NTSC upgrade.

It doesn't take very many words to say "nothing has changed."

I already know that.

I guarantee it.

Hi Dean, indeed there was a misunderstanding, and confusion, but the EX1 is *officially* reported to be a 10bit 4:2:2 live output.
It's fully expected that it will be the same in the EX3, and that his mistake was just that: a mistake. If you want to read details about it, this is the thread in the EX1 board:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=117419

I hope that clears some things up.
Best regards,

I hear a lot of people comparing the EX3 with the XLH1s. I understand folks are excited about the EX3 using bigger chips and being full-raster.

But, I just hope everyone realizes that the CMOS chips need to be debayered and will therefore lose about 30% of it's native resolution. So any advantage of full-raster sorta gets lost by going CMOS chips, does it not?

In the end you still end up with about 1440 pixels of resolution. The only real advantage being the chip size giving you a slightly shallower depth of field.

And a much bigger hit to your wallet.

Aren't you confusing CMOS chips with a Debayer sensor? Are they the same? I think not, but correct me if I'm wrong.
You are also forgetting that a bigger chip also captures more detail and gives better low light performance.

HA! I can't tell if Chris is angry or drunk but that was pretty funny. (of course I'm not saying that our fearless leader would be a drunk just that when I type clever things like that I'm usually 3 beers into an hour)

The timestamp is your clue. Before noon: angry. After noon: drunk. Late night: both.

Thanks for the reply Robert but the EX1 and EX3 have 3 CMOS sensors and do not need to be Debayered as they have no Bayer mask on them. This only applies to single chip colour cameras whether CCD or CMOS, such as RED, SI (that I know you are familiar with), Vision Research Phantoms, Dalsa etc

The EX's are full 1920x1080 x 3 chips......mmmmmmmm chips ;^)

I stand corrected.

Lens Adapter
 

Too lazy to check every post in this thread if it has been said before, but under "Accessories" for the XL series cameras, there is an EF lens adapter for the DSLR lenses.

Not new, but someone before asked if that was possible. Still doesn't make me want the camera, but I don't think it has been approached.

Come on, Canon!

Canon's EF lens adapter has been an XL series camcorder accessory for many years. The most important thing to know about it is the significant crop factor (7.2 times) which greatly magnifies the field of view of any EF lens when used on an XL series camcorder. For example a 50mm lens will have a field of view equal to a 360mm lens in 35mm still photography terms. In other words, *all* EF lenses become telephoto (or extreme telephoto) when using this adapter.

Man one day they should come up with.. oh wait it's in my signature

I'm sure Canon could build it if they wanted to. The question is - would they make any money doing so?

I think that we will see a Canon 35mm videocamera within 3 - 5 years. The technology is almost there. But I guess it is still expensive. And we are talking about huge amounts of data as well as heat issues. Canon is in a premier position as they have a huge assortment of 35mm glass. Sony has the same position, but all other companies don't have this priviledge.

But once these markets merge, it could also mean that companies like Olympus, Nikon and Pentax will enter the video industry. And I would be the first to buy a Nikon videocamera. Their glass is the best in the world. And my D200 is an amazing camera. As is the new D3.

Exciting times ahead.

In reference to Floris van Eck's post: I don't think it has been proven that Nikon glass is the best in the world. Canon is certainly a contender in that field. At the end of the day, systems from either manufacturer are an excellent choice!

Nikon vs. Canon = Ford vs. Chevy. There is no "best." Both companies produce great products.