|
nick, do you have any plans to try the EF adapter with an EF lens on shannon's camera, in the event you two do further testing together? what i'm really curious about would be a resolution test of XL2 with 35mm lens v. H1 with 35mm lens. in other words, is the resolution increase worth the $$ to upgrade, comparatively speaking? in outdoors testing of FX-1 v. XL2 with 35mm lenses, the quality of images seem very close, but given the distinct differences in having to position the camera to the image (12x zoom v. magnified 35mm lens), it makes it a tough choice. a resolution chart of XL2 with 35mm lenses v. H1 with the same 35mm mount would be very interesting to me.
*rant mode on* dear canon: i have purchased: 24-70mm EF lens $1000 70-200mm EF lens $1100 3x lens $850 XL2 $3700 EF adapter $400 GL2 $2500 Rebel XT $800 ZR-100 $300 plus assorted batteries, zoom controllers, etc. etc. no wonder your stock price (ticker symbol CAJ, for those who follow such things) is skyrocketing.... throw me a frickin' bone, wouldja, fer cryin' out loud.... BODY ONLY BODY ONLY BODY ONLY!! *rant mode off* thanks for listening..... |
Quote:
|
oh, fabulous. if you could start a new thread with those results (i don't mean to hijack shannon and nick's thread here), i would be so grateful. a resolution chart would be very helpful, but if you could for example, shoot the same bird twice, same lens, different camera, i would love to see that sort of "real world" footage. also, since a lot of the most beautiful outdoors footage is shot early morning or during dusk "magic hour," perhaps you could offer some assessment regarding differences in various outdoor lighting environments?
i was out walking around yesterday with my dog and saw the most lovely red fox, a really fine animal, not that far from me, and all i had with me was 12x zoom. grrrr. useless. of course, the H1 is not exactly a walk-around camera, like the fx-1..... maybe you could post your findings in a thread in chris' new wildlife forum because i think shannon and nick are doing more studio testing, and i think the needs for those of us who shoot a lot of outdoors are sometimes a bit different in terms of our lighting needs and expectations... |
Lauri;
Iam of the opinion that the EFadapter will degrade the image of the EF lenses on your XL H1. |
Hi Lauri;
To finish what I started! You, Nick or Shannon may be able to try the EF lenses without the adapter to determine the suitability of the EF lenses for HD. Simply position the lens ahead of the camera without the adapter and move the lens or adjust the zoom to gain focus. The aperture settings are more dificult.The settings will have to be made with the lens and adapter mounted to the camera and then remove the adapter and adjust the lens to gain focus. Throw a rag over the opening between the camera and lens to help keep out stray light. Awkward at best, but it does work. It's considerably easier with a RONSRAIL to support things. I have thought that the EF lenses are adequate for HD but have had no way to confirm it. Hopefully one of you can. Great people on a great forum!!! Keep it up. |
Quote:
Canon were rather stupid, if the EF lenses did not function well with the XL H1. For, nowadays, wildlife photographers are one of the biggest, if not even the main marketing segment for long EF lenses. Correspondingly, the very same people must be a significant customer group also for the XL series camcorders. In wildlife business the weight of the equipment is a major factor, and many choose rather portability instead of the utmost quality of 1/2 inch CCD blocks. So, is it possible Canon did not make a marketing study before setting the specifications of the H1? We should know soon. The idea of testing the camcorder without the EF-adapter is interesting. I'll try to do that. |
hi ron: when you say that you believe the EF adapter will degrade the image, are you thinking that they will need to release a different adapter for the H1? because you're saying that you think EF lenses will work with the camera but not necessarily work well with the adapter? i can't imagine that canon would release an HDV camera with an XL2-like form factor and an interchangeable lens mount and not allow existing EF users to use our very!! expensive!! 35mm lenses. would they? that'd be a real heartbreak.
i guess we will find out. i'm very much looking forward to the outcomes of lauri's tests. |
I think it states in the Canon literature that they do not recommend the adapter or the 1.6 extender for HD work. Hopefully they will provide "L" type equipment for the HD system, as they do for the EOS. Time will tell. Your trials will be much appreciated.
|
"...I am of the opinion that the EFadapter will degrade the image of the EF lenses on your XL H1..."
I'm hoping that the Nikon Nikkor adapter (that has no extra glass) will be OK, and hopefully, like it does with the XL1.s/2, the 'lens warning' goes off after a few seconds. |
There has been considerable comment about the 35mm still lenses not being able to provide enough resolution to support HD. It is my hope that some of the early users can provide us with the answer to this. It would certainly alleviate some fears for the wildlife people. The Canon FD and the Nikon lenses do not require glass in the adapters, which would be an advantage. Canon would have no problem in replacing the 2 small lenses in the EF adapter with L glass to improve the quality. But, the question remains whether the premium lenses of Nikon and Canon will resolve enough for HD.
Will Canon answer the question? Hope so!!! |
35mm lens for HD ?
I have discussed of that with someone of Canon, here in France. He told me that the lenses made for the XL1 and XL2 won't have enough resolution for the XL-H1, but the lenses made for the 35 mm still camera will be fine.
I hope he was right, but it seems logical to me : indeed the resolution of a Rebel XT Camera or the EOS 20D, with 8 Million pixels, is even much higher than the CCD of the XL-H1. |
Ron,
35mm Still SLR Film Camera Lenses will resolve plenty of resolution for the Canon XL-H1 in HD mode. So it's safe to use a lens adapter. It's the SD "video" lenses like the 3x wide or the 16x manual that aren't up to snuff. Read about it here: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...ens#post380070 Ronan, About those D-SLR lenses...I don't know about that. The Digital Rebel, 1D, etc... type lenses may not be able to handle HD video. Those lenses are MAY NOT be as good as a "Real Film" SLR lens for a 1/3" size HD sensor with 1.67 million pixels in it. - ShannonRawls.com |
Actually the EF-S (that is, Canon D-SLR) lenses are just as good as the EF (that is, Canon 35mm SLR) lenses. The primary difference and the one single reason why you can't use a Canon D-SLR lens on the EF adapter for the XL series is pretty simple:
There's a lug on the EF-S lens mount that wasn't on the EF lens mount. The EF adapter doesn't mate up with an EF-S lens because of that lug. That's the only reason why you can't use an EF-S lens from a D-SLR. It has nothing to do with optical quality. Hope this helps, |
Ronan
Your conversation with the Canon rep is encouraging. The problem is the difference in the CCD size between the EOS and the XL. The XL being smaller has something to do with the comparison.Too technical for me! I have just tried to reach my contacts at Canon; But they are out for the hollidays. However, I have just been offered an XL H1 demo for a few days, after the New Year. If that happens I will be able to run tests myself. At least some non technical tests. |
Quote:
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? - Shannon |
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. |
Quote:
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?
|
Quote:
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.
|
Quote:
- 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!! |
Quote:
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 |
Your math is a little off. First there are 1440 photosites, not 1920. But more, the 1/3" sensor is nowhere near as big as 8mm, it's more like 5.24 x 2.95. The net result is that in the vertical direction, 1080/2.95 = 366 photosites per millimeter! So yes, the XLH1 (and other 1/3" HD cameras) are far more demanding than other formats are.
|
Ron P
A very interesting and educational post. Canon didn't put a lot of quality in the 1.6 and the EF adapter because the resolution isn't required. However, the new EOS extenders(1.4 and 2x) for the DSL and EOS cameras evidently do not degrade the image of the EOS lenses. Which would indicate that it would not be difficult to incorporate that glass in the XL products. I wonder if the new 20X lens is new glass technology or the L series glass. As you say;"Interesting times--" Ron A |
Quote:
Once I have the definitive info, I'll update my figures... Edit: Ah, I found something on dpreview that's interesting with this regard: http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glos...r_Sizes_01.htm 'There appears to be no specific mathematical relationship...' - go figure! Cheers, Ron |
Quote:
I hope Canon will introduce an HD EF-adapter for the XL-H1. But then again, they might not, because EF-glass might just not be up to the task. We'll have to see... |
Ron;
I own the older 1.4 and 2X and there is a definate difference in quality in the 2X. I was told the new doubler was equally as good as the new 1.4 , but maybe I misunderstood. Hopefully Canon will come up with a solution. Maybe, as you say, new glass and they really need more variety of new lenses for the XL H1. We need a 50 - 300 and a 150 - 500 mm lens with all the bells and whistles of the 20X.. Ron |
Quote:
I mean, a 2/3" sensor has a width of 1/3" and a height of 1/4"... so how does that become 2/3"? The answer, of course, is that it doesn't. The name "1/3" or "2/3" is in no way related to actual measurements -- rather it refers to how the size of the sensor would relate to the size of an equivalent tube-type camera(!) So a so-called 2/3" sensor is actually more properly referred to as a 2/3"-type sensor, with the "type" implying that it's roughly equivalent to the old 2/3" tube type sensor. Confusing, yes. Absurd, yes. Yet there it is. As for the actual size of the Canon sensor, that was extrapolated from actual measurements of 2/3" sensors. I found actual sizes of 2/3" 4:3 and 1/3" 4:3 sensors, and 2/3" 16:9 sensors, so I calculated the reduction factor from a 2/3" 4:3 to a 1/3" 4:3 and applied that same factor to a 2/3" 16:9 to come to the end guess of 5.24 x 2.95mm. |
The way I reasoned in another thread on a similar subject is that HD is supposed to give us about the same quality as 35 mm film which has a diagonal of about 30 mm (cine frame). The H1 sensor has a diagonal of about 6 mm so, ceteris paribus, the Canon HD lens has to be 5 times sharper than the 35 mm lens. Lets give credit to Nikon and Canon and say they make 35 mm lenses twice as sharp as they have to be. That means the HD lens still has to be 2.5 times sharper than the 35 mm lens so the 35 mm lens isn't likely to produce an image as sharp as the HD lens.
I tried the 35 mm Nikkor tonight and the result is at http://www.pbase.com/image/53863540. If you compare to the charts shot with the XL-H1 lens (hit previous a couple of times) you'll see that indeed the Nikkor's resolving power isn't quite as great as the XL-H1 lens. Need to try this in the real world to see if the sharpness is acceptable on actual video. Note that I used f/2.8. Using Barry's numbers I calculate the green (light that is - nothing to do with Barry) diffraction limit at f/5.5! This would apply to the HD lens as well and should go on my list of things I don't like about the camera. |
bill: thanks for the heads up...i will try to be more gender-neutral, esp. since my own first name is turkish, and is often hard to read as either male or female (it's female...)
....probably just my wishful thinking that there could be more women who shoot video (especially the kind i most admire....lauri does the most beautiful footage!) |
A.J.;
Much appreciate the tests. Now we're getting down to something tangible. Your real world test are patiently awaited. These tests are going to help determine my purchase decision. Was the Nikon lens you used an ED? |
Ron,
No, don't think so. It's not marked as such and is pretty old. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:07 PM. |
DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2024 The Digital Video Information Network