XLH1 manual lens discussion
 

it's interesting that in their initial, official announcement of the camera, they pronounced the XL series of lenses as "unable to resolve for HD," and now they are pushing the 3x and 16x lenses as professional accessories for the XL H1 on this website. what gives?

still, this camera does get the juices flowing...every time i think i've ruled it out on the basis of its price point, i read something about it and get a bad case of the IWANTs....

also, after hearing all these rumors floating about regarding scott billups' testing of this camera, it's interesting to get a little bit of this feedback. has he published his own version of his testing results yet? anyone know where?

i'm assuming console will work with the new intel-based macs and windows, so canon is probably not motivated to release a mac version....

Hi Meryem,

I think regarding the lenses, from the get-go Canon (marketing?) have been doing the standard marketing thing and speaking out of both sides of their mouths. On the one side, the H1 is an XL camera with an XL mount and therefore all the existing lenses are "compatible" and certainly can be used -- and were listed as accessories from the very start.

But on the other side, those existing lenses were designed in the days of SD for SD cameras so it was an easy thing to preserve market space for better and more expensive purpose-designed HD lenses like the 6x that'll be released in a few months. Hence the "HD Incompatible" message that appears in the viewfinder for a few seconds when I power up with the 3x. No doubt the 6x will have superior optical qualities, but in the meantime, when I need a wide shot I have NO hesitation about slapping the 3x onboard. And those with the 16x seem pretty happy with the results they're getting.

To compare apples with apples, the new 20x HD lens is undeniably a better lens than the SD one that sold with the XL2, but from an end-use perspective, not THAT much (the engineers will groan at that, sorry!)...so it becomes a matter of marketing semantics whether the SD 20x would be deemed capable of "resolving HD" since the HD version **is** better, and meets whatever unpublished standards Canon holds for calling a lens "HD Compatible." At least that's my perspective on it...that and a quarter USED to get you a cup of coffee. Now you get an HD coffee for about $4. ;-)

Don't know about the Mac / Console situation.

Your assumptions are correct, Meryem. I observed Console running on an Intel based Imac at Canon's NAB booth. Cindy, a Canon booth rep, said that the program ran very well in this configuration.

-gb-

LOL!

Pete, I'm in agreement regarding the 16x lens, it's fine on the XLh1 and the added softness compared to the 20x can lend itself to a filmic look if that's what one is after.

In my opinion, the same cannot be said about the 3x wide angle because the lens is not resolving detail the way it should for HD. One of the biggest selling points of the camera is its ability to render detail and this is lost with the wide angle.

Detail or lack thereof is most obvious when there is a lot going on in your frame and lack of edge-to-edge sharpness is really obvious when everything is in focus. It's easy to get away with this when you are doing medium or closeup shots because you can make a narrow depth of field work to your advantage.

Steven,
You describe the 16x manual lens as being softer and possibly more film-like. But do you feel it still resolves and holds detail? I ask because you mentioned the 3x wide does not.

Thanks,
Marty

Marty, I'm really talking about theoreticals here. The whole reason behind a wide angle lens is to capture a lot of small detail in a cityscape, landscape or just to expand the space of a small room, etc. If using it for the latter then it won't be a problem because the audience is not focussing on the details so much. If one is shooting a landscape, then uneven resolution is going to be really obvious particulary as the eye is driven to the edge of the frame. The full potential of the camera is not utilized in this case and maybe it's not a big problem for everyone else but it is for what I'm looking for. I bought the camera mainly because of the sharpness and resolution.

I believe both lenses are good but the fact remains that there is a heavier demand for finer detail when using the wide angle lens.

Am I making sense or just meandering? I feel like it's the latter :)

Oh yeah, the 16x to my eye does hold detail but it's more akin to what the HVX200 can resolve, which is fine but it ain't gonna look like the full 1080

Steven,
I know what you mean. I am more interested in the 16x manual lens. I realize it will not be as sharp as the HD lens but I have been hearing more and more great reports about it. I can understand how edge to edge sharpness is critical for the work that you do and can completly relate to seeing blurriness or chromatic abberation at the far edges of a landscape shot or something like it.

Thanks,
Marty

There is a good article in the latest issue of DV that compares the 2 lenses. When I first bought my H1 (Dec. last) I had an XL2 with a 16X and reported on this site that after shooting some pretty comprehensive real world tests I thought the 16X worked very well with the H1 - in fact my reactions were very silmilar to those in this DV article - it is softer at some aperatures at some focal lengths...

I have, unfortunately, sold the XL2 since - along with the lens - because I (wrongly) assumed that Canon would jump quickly to support this camera with other lenses in order to compete with the February Panasonic release...

Personally, with no manual lens on the horizon, I am probably going to buy another 16X next week... But I sure do wish Canon cared more about their market...

See my post about that article here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=68833

The hubbub about a $1300 3X wide angle standard def. lens not giving
superb wide out shots in HD is somewhat perplexing to me.

In the HD and film worlds, a good prime lens costs MORE than
the H1 WITH a 20x zoom lens. Come on folks, the 3X is/was/will always
be SOFT. Now, I am not saying that in the proper hands and given
the right job the 3X cannot produce great results, but as a crystal clear
wide out lens that resolves over 1000 lines? NOPE!

Remember, the 'good' lens for the JVC HD100 also costs more than the
H1 Kit.

Do I want a great wide angle lens for a grand, YES, but I also want
to win the lotto.

XLH1 - manual lenses
 

Hi Guys,

My point earlier on in the year was about adapting an existing 1/2" or 2/3" lens to fit the XLHI, which I explored then put off, hoping we were going to hear something from Canon. I have maintained right from the start that the camera looks like an upgrade. It is part of Canon's dichotomy that they supply both professional and amateur kit. Unfortunately, the XLH1 is caught between two stools and unless Canon really commit to it and produce some stunning manual lenses then it will always be a semi - pro product, even though it produces great results. It is not us, it is they that need to get their act together and begin to take the community of film makers more seriously. Our world is changing, the Web will soon be our broadcast medium and film will be as liberated as music is. Canon and all the others need to take our requirements more seriously. Wake up Canon, we are waiting...

Rod C

Surely you're aware that adapting an existing 1/2" or 2/3" lens to fit the XLH1 is highly impractical for two very big reasons, right? First, since the XL H1 handgrip is very much built into the camera body, there's no way to mount one of these broadcast lenses without cannibalizing it. Otherwise, the hand grip on the lens won't clear the hand grip built into the XL H1. Some major mechanical surgery is required there, which most owners of existing lenses would be highly reluctant to perform.

Second, since those lenses are made to work with a significantly larger image sensor than the 1/3" chips on the XL H1, you'd be forced into an all-telephoto situation where even the widest lenses have their fields of view magnified by the conversion factor of putting a 1/2" or 2/3" lens on a 1/3" camcorder. Not a disirable situation for most shooters.

What really needs to happen is for Canon Broadcast to get back into the 1/3" lens market. They could cater to the very large JVC HD100/200/250 crowd, and such a lens could be adapted by the factory to use with the XL H1 relatively easily.

It's been said before and is worth repeating now that Canon is dedicated to the XL series cameras. Certainly there will be more lenses, but the process doesn't happen over night. The new 6x was announced at NAB, and obviously there will be more to follow in the future.

obviously there will be more to follow in the future.

I wish that I felt as sure about the "obviously" part.. When Canon introduced the XL1 they weren't the only game in town, but they were the only game with a "pro seeming" DV camera till the DSR300 came out..

Now, they are being battered from all sides by serious competition... I'm afraid that, given Canon's conservative reputation, they will proceed slowly with accesories for the H1 until they're sure of the market.. bad for us!!! We want to be loyal, Canon...

Hi guys,

I have an XL2 and I'm considering the XLH1, but because the New Zealand market is not yet ready for HD, I'd be shooting quite a bit of SD footage with the new camera.

I just want to confirm that in SD mode, the 16x manual will work just as well with the H1 as the XL2, is that correct? I'm assuming that the issues (at certain apertures/focal lengths) raised in the DV.com article relate to HD use only, or am I wrong there?

Thanks.

Josh, I was about to post a response in this thread that Canon's marketing of the 3X and 16X lenses as being compatible with the H1 were likely referring to using the H1 in SD mode with those lenses.

I was hoping Pete or someone could put one of those on the H1 and see if the HD incompatible message appears if the camera is in SD mode.

-gb-

Got one right here, and the answer is no, the HD incompatible message does not appear when the camera is in SD mode using the 3x or any other standard definition XL lens. Hope this helps,

Well that answers my question. So we can say that in response to Meryem's original post that Canon is marketing these lenses as usable on the H1 when it's in SD mode. Wouldn't you agree, Chris?

-gb-

Absolutely right Greg. Plus, despite the brief "HD incompatible lens" warning, many shooters are finding these standard definition lenses to be adequate for HD (and plenty of other threads around here already discuss this point already). As usual, since it's strictly a personal preference, "your mileage may vary" certainly applies here. Some folks may find the SD lenses to be adequate for HD... others may not.

You might be interested in 2 articles about Taylor Wigton and Rodney Charters (DPs for Fox's 24) and their tests with among others, the Canon H1. Even the big guys are looking into the future of these cameras for TV production. The H1 fared well, but none of the lenses measured up for Drama production. They did point out they were fine for documentaries but due to the huge depth of field and spongyness of the lens, or as they say "..it breathes when you try to focus." meaning you can't ever do a proper rack focus, these lenses are useless for drama. They didn't mention sharpness, and I guess that is because the above put them immediately out of the game.

Here are the links and it is really interesting reading.

Part 1
http://www.showreel.org/memberarea/article.php?141

Part 2

http://www.showreel.org/memberarea/article.php?172

Handgrips
 

Hi Chris

Yes of course I knew about the hand grip situation - I never shoot wide angle and would have been quite willing to give up some functioning to get a lens that worked perfectly with the camera. As you say Canon Broadcast need to get together with their counterparts producing the XLH1 and make a range of compatible lenses.

You are saying that things can't happen overnight, but the price hike of £3000 did, and just what has been included in the new package to justify it.

Rod C

Uh, true HD CCDs, HD recording, HD-SDI output.

Goodies
 

Not enough - we want Canon to commit - like the slogan: Canon can...


Rod C

Rodney, it sounds like the XL H1 isn't the camera for you. Perhaps your expectations are more in the $30K+ range? Many of us quite like what we get for less than $9000 in a camera system using a 1/3" HD CCD, interchangeable lenses (including 16x manual results quite acceptable to most who've actually tried it), nearly infinite image control, HD-SDI out, etc, etc.

If Canon do eventually decide to release an HD true manual lens for the XL series, lots of people will be happy to buy it. But in the meantime, it is a personal judgment about whether the XL H1 is worth its price, and many of us who are getting great results with it couldn't disagree with you more. It's personal opinion based on personal needs and wants vs what else is available at the price point. So I find it rather pointless to gripe about whether the camera is worth its cost, especially in a thread about manual lenses.

On the other hand, if there are further constructive suggestions about what folks would like to see in future XL-mount lenses, let's hear 'em. I'm sure all the manufacturers, including Canon, do keep their ear to the ground.

For all those that might be interested, and I don't really know why anyone would be, I have placed an order for another 16x lens from ZGC this morning...

As you may recall, I had one but sold it with my XL2... I have grown used to some of the "oddities" of the 20x, and will still use it occasionally, but for the majority of my documentary work, I will use the 16x.

By the way, I build "data rings" for this type lens. In the early days of working with the Angenieux 12-120 they had these nice rings that clamped on the lens so you could see your footage (and aperature in that case) without taking your eye away from the viewfinder.. Too bad no one makes them now because they're almost essential with HDV - I make them out of plastic I buy from a hobby store and have an artist friend paint the scale for me... Steve Rosen

Dear Steve,

I would like to see a photo of your "Data Rings". This sounds like a good idea.

I'll send you a pic after I receive the lens and make a new ring (about 2 weeks)... I don't have a place to post it though...

Dear Steve,

Thank you.

You may email me the photo privately, if you wish.

It may be possible to post it on this site.

Steve,

If you can share it, I'm sure we'd all like to see it.

When I get it done in a couple of weeks I'll email a pic to one of you and you can post it..

It's pretty simple, really..

cut a clean circle in a piece of the white plastic that you can buy at hobie (hobby, sorry, I used to race Hobie Cats)stores, thicker the better... it needs to be about 1/2 inch more in radius than the lens - i.e. an inch bigger in diameter (in the past I have used a compass with a sharp pointer on both ends so the point scribes the plastic, then you break it)...

then cut a clean hole in the center of your circle the exact diameter of the rotating lens barrel at the place you want to mount it.

cut this donut you have made in one place so you can put it on the lens and make sure it's a snug fit.

Make a mark where you can see it from the viewfinder on the back of your matte box or lens hood. I have cut a triangle from white gaffers tape or from the same plastic.. this is the pointer..

with your eye at the viewfinder mark dots with a pencil on the donut at the places you want to mark footage - either use the lens scale, or be really precise and measure distances and manually focus the lens.

remove the donut and apply the footage numbers.. you can use the rub-on numbers available at electronics stores, you can just write them on with a Pentel marker (although that fades quickly), or you can paint them on if you're good at that sort of thing..

The biggest problem is devising how to fix the donut permantly on the lens. In the past I've just used a narrow wrap (1/4") of black camera tape in front and in back of the donut, going round the lens enough times so it's thick enough to hold it solid.. this tape will stick to itself nicely but won't gum up the lens surface (not too much anyway).

clamping is the best, though, and with this one, if I have time, I may make the donut out of aluminum and design it so I can tighten it with a screwdriver.. more labor intensive, but I have a friend who teaches metal shop and I may call in a favor...