Using the EF Adapter instead !!

[Jeff Donald]

The pixels would be too large or the space between the pixels would be too large, if you had a 24mm x 36mm sensor and only 3+MP.

[Ignacio Rodriguez]

> The pixels would be too large or the space between
> the pixels would be too large, if you had a 24mm x
> 36mm sensor and only 3+MP.

Nope. The pixel density would be just 30% less than that of current 2/3" SD video sensors. And that would be for monochrome. Since we are talking about a single large sensor for the three primary colors in a Bayer pattern, the density of picture sensors is actually quite similar.

Because the fill factor of CMOS sensors is lower then the fill factor for CCD sensors, the latter actually HAVE to be bigger to get equivalent resolution and sensitivity.

Just to make it even more interesting, I'll tell you CMOS sensors are less expensive to make, can include digital image processing on the same chip as the sensor itself and guess who's the expert on CMOS sensors... that's right, Canon.

[Amr Toukhy]

Jeff, am gonna be using the lenses to shoot a documentary, all are wide shoots the concept is "infinity focuse" -am alway crazy about DOP but in this film it is only clarity and openness... -the feel.

so when i checked www.centuaryoptics.com the have great wide angle lenses but they seem to cause distortion and rotation on the edges of the film... while the still photography lenses are ultra straight and wide... and this is where the idea came from...

back again to your comment. if i get the mini35 and stick an EOS wide lens on it will i get what i would get if i stick the lens directly or the EOS camera or i'll get a magnificated image.

can you post images. 'am soooo amazed with the quality wildlife images you have on you gallery, man :) great work.

my e-mail is: toukhys@link.net.jo

thanks in advance,
Amr Toukhy

[Jeff Donald]

Nope. The pixel density would be just 30% less than that of current 2/3" SD video sensors.

The size of a 2/3 inch chip is 8.8mm x 6.5mm The size of a full frame 35mm chip is 24mm x 36mm. The 2/3 inch chip is approximately 4 and 1/2 times smaller, not 30% There is a big difference in pixel density between the 6MP CMOS sensor used in the 10D and the 11MP used in the 1Ds and the size difference is only 1.7x.


Amr, The extreme focal length the EOS lenses have on the XL! really only makes them suited for wildlife documentaries. If you need to shoot CU of birds etc., then it is an ideal choice. But the working distances are huge if you attempt normal scenes Imagine that that instead of the camera being 3 meters from the subject, it is 21 meters to get the same framing. Interior shots become almost impossible unless you are in a gym.

[Barry Green]

Hey Jeff,

Could you perhaps answer a question about the magnification issue... could you use the EF adapter and mount a lens of, say, 85mm/90mm on your XL1, and note the field of view... and then put on the 16x lens, zoom all the way in (to about 85mm or 90mm, whatever matches the still-camera lens) and note the field of view.

They should be identical. But I don't have an XL1, so I can't check it.

It'd just be very interesting to know.

if i get the mini35 and stick an EOS wide lens on it will i get what i would get if i stick the lens directly or the EOS camera or i'll get a magnificated image.

You will get a somewhat magnified image, but not very much. The mini35 uses a frame size of 24 x 18mm, where the EOS uses a frame size of 36 x 24mm. So yes it'll be magnified, but not anywhere near what it would be like on the XL1/EF adapter.

[Jeff Donald]

I've done this and it is very difficult to compare because of differences in format (3:2 vs. 4:3), differences in viewfinder magnification etc. But the field of view is near identical, except for variations in the lens focal length (the lens says 90mm but actually measures 88.5 for example).

This principle is easy to demonstrate in a darkroom. It is very easy to switch film formats (sizes film) and use the enlarging lens. Guess what, the angle of view is the same, only the image size changes.

[Amr Toukhy]

Hey Jeff,

I just ordered the following items for the project am working on:

VS-06WA-XL2 0.6X Wide Angle Adapter
VS-FEWA-XL Fisheye Adapter
Tiffen 72mm Close-up Kit (+1,+2,+4) Lens
B+W 72mm Skylight KR-1.5 Glass Filter
B+W 72mm Circular Polarizer Glass Filter

But i think 'am gonna be getting the mini35 adapter soon, spicially the the guys from P+S Technik assured me that this adapter will be compatable with the canon next camera.

But i still wish if i can see any EF EOS lenses samples on the XL1s, and the same image from the EOS camera. kind of comparison, you know...

Regards,
Amr Toukhy

[Jonathon Wilson]

The new Dalsa camera uses a 35mm-film-sized sensor for (I believe) up to 60p framerates. Also - if my optics memory serves, a larger film plane actually means less light for the sensor. As the same volume of light spreads out over a larger area, there's less to go around... making a small sensor much more efficient in low-light than a large one.

[Jeff Donald]

But i still wish if i can see any EF EOS lenses samples on the XL1s, and the same image from the EOS camera. kind of comparison, you know...

I've never shot that type of example or test before. If I have the time, over the next couple of weeks I may try that for you.

[Barry Green]

<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Donald : I've done this and it is very difficult to compare because of differences in format (3:2 vs. 4:3), differences in viewfinder magnification etc. -->>>

That's not what I meant. I meant using only the XL1. First put the 16x lens on, zoom to 88mm, and record a few frames. Then take off the 16x lens, put on the EF adapter and an 85-90mm Canon EOS lens, and record a few frames.

Theoretically they should look basically identical. The factors of frame size, viewfinder etc. will all be negated because you're using the same camera. I'm just saying that a 90mm EOS lens should deliver the same fov, etc. on an XL1 as a 90mm (or thereabouts) XL1 lens...

[Jeff Donald]

It's exactly the same the same, given the variations in the focal length noted above. A millimeter is a millimeter.

[Barry Green]

That's what I thought. I was just wondering if the optical element in the EF adapter had any effect on focal length magnification.

So, in effect, the adapter is doing *no* magnification, and a 50mm Canon EOS lens is going to give you the same FOV as the XL1 zoom when it's set at 50mm.

That makes perfect sense, just wanted to make sure there wasn't something I was missing.

[Tony Beazley]

Why not just get the 3x lens from Canon I think that is a great lens to use.

[Josh Brusin]

I used a century optix wide lens once... nice but no dop.... that's the whole enchilada with the mini35... you still have to add color/grain/deinterlace/etc... for that whole film look

[Bernard Diaz]

Amr,
Check out these impresive shots taken last year by Michael Dalton. He used the EF adaptor and the Canon 35-350 zoom lens.
http://www.digitalcrossing.ca/ef-1.htm