Sure! A whole range of "stills" options

PLUS!! Tiny-Shorties . .
Mpegs = 4.67 MB

wmv = 3.72 MB

Can;t wait to see.

You Star-Man!

I'd love to see your comparisons too, Dale.

Attached to email please, would suit me fine if you've time or any other way you have to offer.

I'm easily confused so please spell out the details of which is which, thank you.

test footage.
 

anyone want to see the test footage you can drop me your email adress to dale.g@sasktel.net and I will forward the clip to you.

Not as good as I would have liked, but you can decide if there is a difference.

I think the century is better for detail. all the footage was shot at full zoom. If you are not at full zoom both give better detail.

I tested out the cheap system today. a 120 dollar 300 mm canon fd lens attached with a 120 dollar plastic fd converter for the xl. I shot some off the deck of the house and I must say it is far crisper than either lens with the converters. I also have to say that with the wind we have here keeping the thing steady was a whale of an issue. I am going to build an aluminum rail for the xl but that will take a while. the gl with the duplex is about a 1600mm and the xl is 1250. you might notice on the upland plover both were shot at the same distance and there is not much difference in size!!


I must say that down the road getting an ef lens with OS will be high on my list.

That falcon was something else Dale. Was it a young one practising wing-beats or were you really holding it in one gloved hand 'n shootin' with the other!?
You captured the plover's anxiety too, with both systems, but xl2 combo seemed slightly sharper ... all interesting footage, much enjoyed.

Brendan,

The peregrine is a 7 year old just vigorously exercising on a perch in the yard.

300mm + 1.6
 

This is some footage of an economical 300 mm lens with the canon behind. It was real windy so there is movement even though it was on the heavy tripod.

For fun tomarrow I will film the same but with the 2x century on the front as well.

On the front of? XL2 or XM2?

Great footage today.

Grazie

By (355.6 KB, 12 views) do you mean that what we are seeing is your edited version/combination of 12 snippets of footage? What did you edit it with and How did you compress it so neatly?

And after compression how are you delivering your final package for such easy-viewing with WMP? I don't expect you've time to spell out the steps to me but a reference to the appropriate pages of some manual/guide/tutorial would be a great help, Dale, thank you.

Brendan, Grazie,

What I actually ment was to put the 1.6 on the canon, then the adapter and the 300mm lens which then becomes 480 mm lens, multiply that times 7.4 for conversion to the ccd's, that makes it a 3552mm lens, then attach the 2x century on the end which will make it a reeiculous 7104 mm lens.
Well, it was rediculous as I thought it might be. the problem as I suspected was that you definitely lost the clearity that most anyone would want. If you were a double knott spy or something you could still make a persons face out but nothing like one would like to see for wildlife.

Anyway, it was an interesting test but that was about all.

The 300mm and the 2x century is alright bor bigger animals. You can make out the barbs on a birds feathers but they are not crisp.

As for adapters, I now am convinced that a higher grade adapter is a worthy investment.
I have a 100 to 500 zoom on the way and it will be of interest to use it.

Tomarrow I am going to start building a aluminum rail that will be adjustable for various lens. It is totally apparent that anything over the standard 20x lens is going to need it.

If you like i could attach a couple short clips of todays effort.

Dale - thank you! I even needed to re-read this post and then the penny dropped! Thank you!

. .and yes, I would dearly love to see your efforts. Look, even below par stuff can give me a clue as to what I can/can't expect - yeah?

However, after reading your Sig: "Life is getting shorter!! " maybe you don't wish to - LOL! - you may have better things to do!

mutter mutter, mumble grumble ... Dale, I still want to learn (a) how you compressed the footage to a few hundred kbs and (b) how you posted this extremely neat link to allow us to see large scale footage images, blurs 'n all ... just answer, if you would be so kind:

1. It's easy; just look up thread XY or link XZ or help desk YZ OR
2. It's not easy; but there's a useful tutorial called XYZ to be got .. OR
3. You can't do it unless you have your own website to put it up on and that's where the link is sited ... for info ask website designer ...

... a reply of any (or a combination) of 1,2,3 would be much appreciated OR you may have a much better suggestion .. apart from shootin' myself with my XM2

Brendan,

for the blur, I shoot in 1/30 if i have to but generally 1/60 with a polarizer, haze filter and both nd filters if light will let me. Oh yea, I always shoot in 16/9 and at 30 P. with the gl2 or the xl2

I have both premiere pro 1.5 and premiere elements 2.0. elements is a cool little program and exceptionally user friendly (dirt cheap too, and does not have the flaws of pennicle). I always use it for short work or something I am whipping up for friends or such that will not require a lot of Post work.

with elements: you go to export, select windows media, the default is 320 by 240 @30fps. It does the conversion, save and then attach as a file later.

wish I could say I was a wizard, NOT; but, at least I was wizard enough to buy such a handy little program to keep things simple.

I will post a few more short clips today or tomarrow, gotta take the wife out to supper and a flick this evening

This is so helpful Dale ... it reads like exactly what I wanted to know. You go right ahead and kiss your wife during the ads; and just this once you can give her mine as well ...

Test clip
 

Here is the Test clip of the 100 to 500 mm zoom.

keep in mind that is the equivalent of a 760 mm to 3800 mm Zoom on a 35 mm camera.

The lens is not an expensive lens and as you reach out with it you can see a loss of clearity.

It was clear but hazey when shot. no filters 1/60th of a second at f22, opened up one f stop at 500mm.

To sumarize my test I will now step forward to purchase an ef adapter and a quality lens by next spring.

One thing is for certain, shooting over 300mm on the xl2 requires dead steadiness and overall is not all that practical.

whiile I spent a few hundred dollars on the lens and adapter I did not waste my money as I have a canon 35 mm camera that all the lens fit!!

for the most part the standard lens and a century or canon 1.7 plex will cover almost all of my bases.

What distance (approx) were you from the target, Dale? I'm presuming you took all shots from the same distance using a tripod.

Any idea why the colours seem to get richer when you move to 350mm?

Did you do all editing with Premiere Elements 2?