Well if you are saying a $5000 still lens has the similar quality glass as a $25,000 HD lens... then I agree... I used "high-end" incorrectly... I just meant the high of the consumer still market ($500 - $1000)...


ash =o)

After using the Canon XL H1 in conditions down to 36 degrees below zero, I have convinced myself that the Canon EF L, FD L, and the Nikon ED lenses all provide enough resolution to do a respectable HDV capture. An Optex converted Canon Super 16 14.5-480mm SD lens ($50,000) was soft, as would be expected.
All lenses I used, which didn't include the Nikons, could be made soft by closing the aperture to F11 or smaller, or going to the long end in some cases and using filters, extenders and/ or adapters.
I think a lot of the different opinions come from different conditions in which the equipment is used.
I also have the opinion the 20X lens provides a slightly better picture overall than the 35mm still camera lenses do. Considering resolution, contrast and color, which can be adjusted.
I have some comments to make about cold weather uses as well; But I won't go there!
Don't get me wrong, I do like my XL H1!!
In fact , I like it so well that my trusty XL1 is for sale!!!

Sorry for beating a dead horse, but after my little test, I was so P.O.'d at Canon that I impulsively just posted without doing a thread search, especially of Lauri Kettunen's excellent research.
My mistake was assuming that ANY good lens intended for use with film would bring vastly more resolution to the table than could be assimilated by a camcorder's chip, HD or otherwise. Guess I was wrong.

I should mention, there are new pics of some of these lenses on the XL H1 on my website.