I see no mention of DV on the site. Did I miss it? Is this camera not backwards compatible as a DV camera? Interesting...maybe they're making us keep our XL2's!

KW

Don't worry about DV compatibility - look at the pictures: the miniDV logo is clearly present... and the specs clearly indicate DV recording options.

-Steve

Hope so. I'm surprised they don't list that.

KW

can someone explain to me HD-SDI? i'm not familiar with that piece of technology. is this just dumping uncompressed HD signal through firewire?

jay,
a lens is a lens is a lens. i mean it's a piece of glass, there ain't limitations to it. how it an image resolves is on the body not in the lens itself. the only circuitry on the lens has to do with image processing not image resolving. that's done in the receptacle of the body. correct me if i'm wrong.

do you think Canon rushed this XLH1 to the market because of pressure from Panasonic&Sony?

PS don't you guys think the selectable aspect ratio guide is simply awesome? gonna shoot 2.35 all the time!!!! =).

SDI=Serial Digital Interface. It can carry both SD and HD data. It uses a single BNC type connector. Per Canon's page, you'll have to use a high quality RG-6 cable at least 18gauge wire to get runs of as much as 330 feet. You'll have to have either a deck that supports SDI, or an add on card for your computer to ingest the signal in this format.

Completely not true. There are low-resolving lenses, and high-resolving lenses. The quality of the glass makes all the difference. There are lenses that are engineered specifically to resolve high-definition resolution, and there are standard-def lenses that aren't. And high-def lenses cost a whole lot more than standard-def lenses do...

so what's the diff of the HD and SD lenses? to me it's all glass.

It's the same thing in SLR photography. For example, Canon are selling a 70-300 IS lens for about 300$, and another one for 1500$. The first one is less sharp and you can clearly see it in the pictures.

Design. Quality of the actual glass used.

Trust us Yi, it's all true. There's a reason a lot of 35mm motion picture lenses cost as much as much as your car (whether you drive a Honda or Ferrari).

Why the price is almost double the price of an XL2?

Do you think that the ccd chips and the body electronic are so much more expensive to produce, or is the new HD lens that push the price that high?

Yes to both. Right now, making high-res CCDs that read-out fast enough for video is an expensive low-yield process. Also, think of the speed of the electronics that have to process this stream of digital information and THEN encode it to MPEG. The electronics handle 4 or more times the uncompressed data stream of SD DV.

It's not just a faster computer inside...it's something like 4x faster.

Ok, so basically this camera is a Z1 with HD-SDI and a lens which comes off ?(since I wouldn't say interchangeable, because you have no other lens to chnage to) And it cost the double? What am I missing here?

There is also a (theorically) better 24p mode, 4 channels audio... But you are essentially right. That's why I asked which componnet pushed the price so high. It must be the lens...

Why would you say it's a Z1? The chips are native 1440x1080 vs. the Z1s 960x1080. It does real 24P (or so far are told, and I believe). It has SDI out, which for some is a big deal.

It's not very comparable at all to the Z1, if you ask me.

Don't underestimate how good a feature the HD SDI out is. I'm sure a converter will be quite expensive, but if/when someone comes out with a realtime converter to get the files to a harddrive via uncompressed or DVCPro HD, this will be a very, very interesting camera.

THIS is what I was talking about when I said I hoped for something more than HDV. It's not as good as an integrated optional feature (P2 or other), but at least it is "open" enough for a 3rd party to come in and suddenly make this a very good, more pro-leaning camera.

Kevin

Go ahead Michael. Pick me apart line by line. :-)