Shannon and Chris
Sorry I am a little slow; Too many phone calls.
Shannon;
Do you think the EF adapter is adequate to resolve HD? It would seem to me to be the weak link. I have always felt the lenses would be OK, but some improvements in the adapter would be in line.

the only difference between digital lenses and film lenses:

they are made with smaller sensors in mind, because of smaller mirrors the lens can sit closer to the mirror then film lens with has to accomadate full sized mirrors...for example a typical EF-S canon branded digital lens the s stands for short back focus...the optics are also smaller becaouse they done't have to cover a full 35mm frame, so while you couldn't use one of these on a full frame camera (film, d5, 1ds) or even a camera with a 1.3 crop factor (1d) you could use them on any camera with a ASP-C sized sensor (30d, 20d, rebel, ect..)


as optics quality goes they are basically the same with the exception of the new arrangement due to the lens extending more into the camera and the smaller crop factor, this also allows them to be made at a lower cost...

due to the tiny super small senors in the the canon H1 it really would have zero impact, except for the fact that you can't install an ef-s mount lens on the eor adapter without a hack...i would say it would be even better because you can use the very excellent 10-22 for interviews with proper lighting as the lens is very slow max ap at 3.5, but its tack sharp

Robert,

Graeme said it couldn't. And that's why I said that. See:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...SLR#post374915

Notwithstanding the use of a Mini35.....according to him if you use a straight adapter (like the EF adapter we are discussing), then a D-SLR lens is not good enough for 1/3" chip HD recording. Is he off?

I'm all confused now. Who's right, who's wrong?? Who done scientific testing? who's just guessing? I base allot of my purchasing decisions off you experts here. Especially Chris Hurd & his expertise in the Canon XL series cameras & Barry Green with his Digital Video PHd. C'mon, gimme some good news. *smile*

P.S.
I probably wouldn't use a D-SLR lens anyhow, since it has to way of adjusting the iris.

Ron,
At this point, I would say YES, the EF adapter is fine for XL-H1 HD recording so long as you use the right good lens (film only, no D-SLR). But I am kinda confused now, and not too sure about that. It looks like Robert & Chris are saying we can.....but still can't...because of the connector.

- Shannon

I am guessing and hoping that the 35mm still lenses will work. We need some tests. Who can, or is willing do them?

I can and will.

I spoke with Eric over at www.IndieRentals.com and we are testing the XL-H1 as soon as he gets back from the holidays. it was my Z1U that he used to test his Mini35 with back in Feb. and the results convinced him to buy one for his customers to rent. We will be testing the XL-H1 so he can make the same decision for this camera.

Now, if you don't wanna wait 'till after the holidays and someone in Los Angeles has some adapters to test TODAY, then give me a call. Let's do it.

- ShannonRawls.com

I'm looking forward to your findings, Ron.

I have a sneeky feeling that both the Canon FD and Nikkor ED-IF medium to long telephotos lenses will perform superbly on the XL-H1. If there is to be a problem, I suspect that it will be with the corners of wide-angle lenses, due to the acute angles of bounced light...as with ultra wide 35mm film lenses on full-frame DSLR bodies...but, I reckon even the wider fixed lens optics will perform OK.

The best way is to actually try them out first!

Nice offer,Shannon. Your the man!!! I am sure that I can speak for all the wildlife people and say---- Its appreciated - very much!!!!

Tony;
Hope your right; However, there are some serious arguments against the capabilities of these lenses. See Shannons post for a link.

The only point I wanted to make is that it's phyically impossible to mount a Canon EF-S lens to the Canon EF adapter without performing surgery on the lens back plate, and I cringe at the thought of putting a knife to any photo gear.

Lenses aren't circumcisable?? *smile*

- ShannonRawls.com

Shannon;
To be sure we're on the same page: The 35mm still wildlife lenses I see in the field are the Canon EF L 70-200 2.8, 300 2.8, 500 F4, 600 F4, or the Canon FD L 50-300 F4.5, and the 150-600 F5.6. The Nikon ED's are not as evident, but generally the same focal lenght as the Canon. I sure wouldn't expect you to test them all, but if you have a 70-200 available, that would be an excellent test. Looking forward to your results. Best of the holidays!!

I'm right, i use the ef-s 10-22 and i can tell you it beats my 17-40L, the ef-s line is made to resolve a chip set much bigger then that of the xl h1, lets get real....

the problems with the efs line are they don't fit the eos adapter, and you would need efs to ef adpater, which was the hack i'm reffering to, but is it worth the trouble? i would say not...if your buying a 10,000 camera get a mini 35 and some nice wide primes...

but lets clear the air about the quality of efs lenses and whether or not they can resolve details from a 2 meg sensor when they resolve images from an 8 meg sensor...

it would be awesome if shannon could test the H1 with an EF adapter and a canon EF 70-200mm 2.8 lens and/or an EF 100-400mm lens because i think those are probably the most commonly deployed with the XL2 (personally, i use the 70-200mm) for wildlife shooting, which seems to me to be the widely-used EF adapter application--it's used way more than for interviews, where a 16x manual or 20x or 3x video lens would work just fine. i'm also interested in how learning more about how ron's theory that less supplemental glass affects the image plays out (e.g. EF adapter v. Nikon adapter)....

the thing is, i'm really looking forward to lauri's testing, because she will be doing field testing under common wildlife shooting conditions, so i think, while some studio testing would definitely be helpful, and i'm chomping at the bit to hear outcomes, i'm holding out until she weighs in on the H1 in the outdoors, because that is what she does so well.....

Meryem

I too cannot wait for the outcome of the tests performed by Lauri and Shannon. As I am only interested in the nature/wildlife genre, my purchasing decision will weigh heavily on what they determine. Also, just for the record, Lauri is a common male name in Finland.

One thing that seems to be missing from this whole debate here is that the 1/3" CCD in the XL-H1 (or any XL cam, for that matter) only uses a small sector of the glass of an EF lens when used in conjunction with the EF adapter. To be able to at least make an educated guess, you have to compare the absolute sensor resolution of a D-SLR and the XL-H1.

Let's start with the XL-H1: what we have here is a 1/3" CCD with 1920 x 1080 photosites (correct me if I'm wrong).

1/3" = 8.467 mm
1920 photosites / 8.467 mm = 226.8 photosites/mm

Now lets take the Canon EOS-350D (Rebel XT) as the D-SLR contender: It has a 22.2 x 14.8 mm APS-C sized CMOS imager with 3456 x 2304 photosites.

3456 photosites / 22.2 mm = 155.7 photosites/mm

So, even though the XL-H1 produces an image with smaller pixel dimensions than the Rebel XT at highest resolution, the actual optical resolution of the XL-H1 is higher!! Almost 46 % higher!!

Now, I do believe that Canon designed their EF-S D-SLR glass with some headroom for sensor resolutions to grow. Let's do a little more math...

If we want to know the pixel size of an APS-C sized sensor with the XL-H1's resolution, we'd do this:

226.8 photosites / mm * 22.2 mm = 5035 photosites
226.8 photosites / mm * 14.8 mm = 3357 photosites

So that would make a 5035 x 3357 pixel sensor. That amounts to a 16.9 megapixel APS-C sized sensor. Did Canon design their EF-S lenses for such resolutions? Considering that none of the EF-S lenses are of the L-series, I'd say they did not. Whether or not EF (non-S) L-series lenses are up to this high resolution is debatable, too.

For fun, let's look at what pixel size sensor we'd get in a full-frame D-SLR with the same pixel pitch as the XL-H1:

226.8 photosites / mm * 36 mm = 8165 photosites
226.8 photosites / mm * 24 mm = 5443 photosites

So, we'd end up with a 8165 x 5443 pixel sensor. That amounts to a 44.4 megapixel sensor! Whopper!!

Are full-frame D-SLRs ever going to go that high res? Hmmm.... I have my doubts, but I could be wrong. The current champ is the Canon EOS-1Ds Mk II with 16.7 megapixels, and we've come a long way with that camera, looking back at the beginnings of D-SLRs. Remember the Kodak DCSs with 1 megapixel? For as much money as the 1Ds Mk II sells now! Fun times, those were!

As the owner of a Canon EOS 1 Ds (the previous model with 11.1 megapixel sensor), I can tell you this much: If you use poor glass on that baby, the resolution visibly drops! This comes as no surprise if we look at how much optical detail high-quality 35 mm film in still photography is able to resolve: between 4 and 6 megapixels. That's the resolution all pre-digital age lenses have been designed for (with ample headromm in case of the L-series, of course).

Ending this academic exercise, I'd say that both D-SLRs and HD video are pushing the limits of currently available 35 mm optics. Gives Canon a good reason to launch another raft of excellent L-series glass. L-HD or L-Extreme, anyone? Got to love it! :)

Now, whether Canon had HD-resolutions in mind when designing the XL EF-adapter is doubtful, IMO. If you take the 1.6x XL-extender and you see that it causes a noticable degradation of quality in SD footage, we at least have some proof what sort of res the designers were shooting for at the time: SD, no more (maybe a little less, even).

Interesting times lie ahead! One thing's for sure: HD is pushing the limit - on more than one front!

Cheers,

Ron