FX1 or XL2? at DVinfo.net

Tyler H. Smith · July 20th, 2006, 01:47 AM

Since both the cameras are at about the same price and barely in my budget I wanted some opinions on which to get and why. I will go and shoot some with both, but opinions from more experienced others is highly valued.

I wanted a camera that shoots as close to film as possible. I realize there are other factors other than the camera that go into this, but was wondering which was best.

I really want to use HD, but does slowing the frame rate down in post really degrade the quality or not look as good as true 24p?

Also, with the XL2 and the changeable lenses, I see there is an adapter for the 35mm lenses. Is this like the M2's or mini35 adapters?

Thank you all,
Tyler

Zack Vohaska · July 20th, 2006, 08:27 AM

This may help you a bit - click here.

Tyler H. Smith · July 20th, 2006, 03:29 PM

thanks it does.

One thing though, with the XL2's ef adapter, do the 35mm lenses when added look like the M2 adapter and mini35

Zack Vohaska · July 20th, 2006, 03:52 PM

I was hoping that was the case, but it isn't...necessarily. I looked extensively into this because I have a Canon EOS 50D with a 28-300mm 3.5f lens.

You do get a shallow depth of field with the EF adapter, however, the EF adapter multiplies the focal length of the lens attached by 7.12 -- so it essentially turns the EOS lens into a super-telephoto adapter.

I was looking into the same topic not too long ago, and was a little bummed by that. Anyway, I really can't figure out for the life of me why companies like Canon or Panasonic haven't developed their own 35mm adapters for their cameras -- I feel that a supported 35mm DOF adapter by these companies would sell like hotcakes.

Anyways, there is no real practical use for the EF adapter unless you are doing nature photography or something like that. I believe if you search the boards, you can find someone who used the EF adapter to take extreme closeups of the moon -- they basically made their XL2 into a giant telescope. Crazy stuff...but I don't think I'd ever need the adapter.

Out.

Tyler H. Smith · July 20th, 2006, 05:50 PM

well, that is a bit sad, I thought Canon might have thought of something truly great. Your right, if a major company backed the 35mm adapter, it would sell off the shelf in a heartbeat. They could also only sell one for their 35mm SLR lenses whereas Sony, JVC, and Panasonic would have to sell for their other lens manufacturers.

July 20th, 2006, 01:47 AM	#1
Tyler H. Smith New Boot Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 13	FX1 or XL2? Since both the cameras are at about the same price and barely in my budget I wanted some opinions on which to get and why. I will go and shoot some with both, but opinions from more experienced others is highly valued. I wanted a camera that shoots as close to film as possible. I realize there are other factors other than the camera that go into this, but was wondering which was best. I really want to use HD, but does slowing the frame rate down in post really degrade the quality or not look as good as true 24p? Also, with the XL2 and the changeable lenses, I see there is an adapter for the 35mm lenses. Is this like the M2's or mini35 adapters? Thank you all, Tyler __________________ Rockbottom Productions http://rockbottomproductions.googlepages.com/

July 20th, 2006, 08:27 AM	#2
Zack Vohaska Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 74	This may help you a bit - click here. __________________ -Z-

July 20th, 2006, 03:29 PM	#3
Tyler H. Smith New Boot Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 13	thanks it does. One thing though, with the XL2's ef adapter, do the 35mm lenses when added look like the M2 adapter and mini35 __________________ Rockbottom Productions http://rockbottomproductions.googlepages.com/

July 20th, 2006, 03:52 PM	#4
Zack Vohaska Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 74	I was hoping that was the case, but it isn't...necessarily. I looked extensively into this because I have a Canon EOS 50D with a 28-300mm 3.5f lens. You do get a shallow depth of field with the EF adapter, however, the EF adapter multiplies the focal length of the lens attached by 7.12 -- so it essentially turns the EOS lens into a super-telephoto adapter. I was looking into the same topic not too long ago, and was a little bummed by that. Anyway, I really can't figure out for the life of me why companies like Canon or Panasonic haven't developed their own 35mm adapters for their cameras -- I feel that a supported 35mm DOF adapter by these companies would sell like hotcakes. Anyways, there is no real practical use for the EF adapter unless you are doing nature photography or something like that. I believe if you search the boards, you can find someone who used the EF adapter to take extreme closeups of the moon -- they basically made their XL2 into a giant telescope. Crazy stuff...but I don't think I'd ever need the adapter. Out. __________________ -Z-

July 20th, 2006, 05:50 PM	#5
Tyler H. Smith New Boot Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 13	well, that is a bit sad, I thought Canon might have thought of something truly great. Your right, if a major company backed the 35mm adapter, it would sell off the shelf in a heartbeat. They could also only sell one for their 35mm SLR lenses whereas Sony, JVC, and Panasonic would have to sell for their other lens manufacturers. __________________ Rockbottom Productions http://rockbottomproductions.googlepages.com/