Been very busy at work lately (I'm an airbrush artist)- I'll mount up the 100 macro and shoot it outdoors and see what benefits or drawbacks there are to using it- i'll post soon.

It seems to me, that you are perhaps missing a better option than a longer lens.

Every june, I set out feeders for the species that I am going to tape.

Unless your birds are far different from those here in the Adirondack Mountains, of New York State, after you feed them for a while, they practically eat out of your hands.

I am about to tape a quartet of hummingbirds, from a distance of 2 feet, using the stock 16-1 on my XL-1s.

Last august, I shot them at about the same distance, at 1/8,000 of a second, and shorter.

Stunning photographic ballet! They are full frame to head's only.

While I am not familiar with your laws, might I suggest, that if it is possible, plant some wild rice.

If you can do it in a secluded spot, they will come in to feed.

Most super long lenses are best used on dangerous situations. And, yes, I do use them………, often.

Bob

p.s.: Even at its highest speed setting, the hummingbirds wings are still a blur. Maybe the ?XL-2? will bring the speed up to a "decent" level.

I don't think a super high shutter speed alone can do what you want.

AFAIK, no manufacturer makes a high speed (slo mo) video camera under $50K.

That is why I personally want 720P to take root
as the HD format of choice. At least you
get a full 60 frames per second, as opposed
to 24P or 1080i. Panasonic is on the right
track with their varicam.

More frames provides more options. To reduce
bandwidth or if you want that stutter look, you can always repeat frames, but
if the number of frames is only 24, the options
are limited.

24Pdv will be an improvement over interlace, but
temporal resolution will remain weak. Fast pans
will still strobe.

I don't disagree with your conclusions, as to the format, such as digital HD.

Mine was just a wistful desire for a perfect camera (sic).

As we progress toward a truly solid state system, (no tape, disc, etc.), the progression to a fluid shutter system, such as the army has used for many years, seems to me quite likely.

I continue to dream on.

Bob

A perfect camera would have better contrast handling.

I am currently working on an Osprey documentary here near Ann Arbor, MI. These birds are beautiful. Their backs and the mask that cover their eyes are
dark brown. The top of their heads and most of their face is pure white.

If I turn my exposure down to where none of image is clipping, the rest of the
image is so dark that it is unusable. I done some experiments,
but my conclusion is with the XL1 filming these creatures, you gotta clip
their heads some or you have nothing.

JVC claims that their higher bit depth allows for in-camera processing to have better contrast control, so not only whites, but shadows.

I would love to see the XL1-HD not only have 720 P, but some kind of
in camera processing to control and level the whites better than any
other video camera made. Contrast at least as good as film would be
nice.

I've got a heckuva lot of older Canon HD lenses. Has anyone tried these? I'm thinking of using a Canon EOS adapter and an HD to EF adapter sold by B&H photo coupled together. Does anyone know if this combo works?

To the best of my knowledge it works. The viewfinder probably will show no lens and it'll be manual focus and manual exposure. Somebody here had an OpTex one, but I think it's a lot more money than the B &H adapter.

Jeff

Just doing some research on my question, above, I found an article explaining that the HD lenses are very difficult to adapt to the EF mount because of geometrical considerations. There is a rather rare canon adapter(available on ebay) that contains an optic(like a tele-converter) except that this optic isn't perfect(duh). In the end, the author does not recommend this ...;-(

Hi

Would have jumped in earlier but was on vacation.

T'was I who had mentioned that the Sigma 500 lens was not a good buy based on a couple of inputs. It would appear as if the the lens at the farther reaches vignettes badly and that the the lens is not crisp.

I have just returned from the bush where my 75 - 300mm lens was a much used item. I would love the 100 - 400mm but the price is too steep for me. I have no problems with the lens other than at times it is hard to focus in low light conditions. Very hard to keep steady, for me pans at full zoom are not possible and the slightest touch causes problems. Have to believe the 400 at full zoom must be even worse, don't know how one would keep a 500mm lens steady at full zoom. On a sturdy bench with sandbages you could get it right but would be unable to follow subject matter.

On the other hand I regularly run out of lens. Have come to the conclusion looser framed good steady footage is better than tightly framed bad shaky footage.

Jacques

I have used the XL-1 for birds to great effect. At the risk of stating the obvious a couple of techniques I have used involve, where possible moving the angle to include the background foilage this facilitates better exposure. Full and tight framing. Moving angle to lessen the sun glare. When you say you have done everything on the exposure side I assume this means you have also used the AE Shift wheel. Use of a good polariser. Changing the time of day (not always possible) late afternoon sunlight from behind softens the harshness and helps greatly.

Cheers
Andrew

Anyone had any experience using these?


These lenses are ALOT cheaper and easier to find around here... especially the large array of used lenses floating around.


I understand a fast lense would be needed... i was wondering if anyone has used these, could explain their experience with these.

Also, i am totally new to all this, are there other lense brands that fit the eos mount/holder/attachmen?

And has anybody used these... please be as specific as u could...

thanx
kermie

Kermie,

do a search on 'EOS lenses' and I think you will find what you are looking for.

One thing to remember though, when using 35mm still lenses that the focal length is multiplied by a factor of 7.2 which means a standard 50mm becomes a telephoto 360mm.

I did a search but found no actual example pictures...

or really much useful information....

i was hoping that people would talk about their experiences using them, the quality of output, which ones to look for... if other lenses fit the adapter...


i found very very little info on that... more talks of wild life shoots and what i should get...

rather than actual discussion of the lenses.

kermie

Hi,

the first thing to know about the EOS adapter is there is
a magnification factor of 7.2X. So, a 100mm becomes a
720. Great for wildlife shooting where you need long lens,
but not so great for wanting a wide zoom to remain a
wide zoom.

That said, good glass makes all difference. My EV 100-400mm IS
35mm lens is sharper and has better color saturation than either
the 16X and 3X video lens I own.

There is another adapter called the PS Technik ($8,000)
that allows the use of all kinds of lens, including film lens,
without magnification. Incredible images, but at a very
high cost.

There are many posts and threads concerning this issue, so
get a cup of coffee and check them out.

Are there any very small lenses available , that are very fast...

the reason i want one of these lenses, if more the improved images... relative cheapness involved in this process vs the mini35 solutions... and also the ease of controlling DOF with these (inherently having a much shallower DOF).

Has anyone had experience with very small lenses... that are fast... for my use i wouldn't really need something bigger than a 20-88 or something similar....

anyways

kermie

Hi Kermie,

It sounds like what your looking for is small, fast and cheap. Unfortunatly it doesn't exist. Fast lenses are never cheap. For the complete line up of EOS EF lenses look here http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/lineup/index.html They even show MTF charts.

It also sounds like your trying to get shallow depth of field and your thinking that using 35mm lenses will achieve it. Unfortunatly, it will not. They do not inherently have more DOF. Review the two ongoing threads and you'll see that just switching to 35mm lenses won't affect DOF the way you hope.

Jeff

Yep. Kermie, I think you are going down the wrong track here my friend. Even if you got that 20-88 lens you mentioned, you are still looking at an equivalent of around 140-600mm once it's on the XL1.

no i meant a lense that would equal a 20-88mm focal length on the xl1.....

kermie


ohh well............ there is no easy solution to a difficult problem :)

Kermie, that would mean you would need a 2.7-12mm lens.

I'm not a Canon rep, but the smallest EF lens I've seen was a 14mm, which will be about 100mm on the XL1.
Oh, and it's about $2300us.

You are half right, there are easy solutions, just very, very expensive. :)

HAHAH :)


I think ANYTHING can be done with enough money thrown at it.

The resoning i want these lenses is obvious, they are capable of producing a nicer image for me.

What is funny is, i could never spend $8000 on a mini35 if my output was still in the end PAL resolution, i cant see the worth.

But maybe something will come along, i don't have to get a canon branded lens, and who knows some browning rusted 25 yr old lense may come my way that produces some wonderful image that i could never imagine.

kermie

Kermie,

If you go to Optex's site you will find a number of adapters for various lenses like Nikon, Canon FD and a few others. The problem with these adapters is they are only mechnical adapters, ie mount to mount, and do not communicate electronically with the XL1. You will always have the 'no lens' warning blinking in your VF and will not be able to use the digital effects, slow shutter speeds and digi zoom.

If this in not a problem for you then I'd suggest Canons FD range of lenses, quality glass at superseeded prices. I've seen 300/f4L lenses for about $200 in various secondhand camera stores in Brisbane.

<<<-- Originally posted by kermie klien>>>

What is funny is, i could never spend $8000 on a mini35 if my output was still in the end PAL resolution, i cant see the worth.

___________________

The worth is in images that come close to 16mm, but at a total cost of
$5 for an hour of editable product instead of THOUSANDS.
Believe me, once you've seen what this rig can do
with an arri film lens, you'll lust for it like everyone else.

I love the look of good glass, and if
I could afford it, I'd be shooting using
the PS Technik adapter and film primes . . . sigh;)

The images produced when using the EV 100-400mm
and EOS adapter are a huge improvement over
the stock 16X, so I am wondering if anyone has tried the EOS with a wide telephoto such as Canon's
16mm or 18mm zoom?

I've tried it with the Canon EOS EF 17-35mm. The image is very sharp, sharper than the 16x (white lens) and the 14x manual lens. The problem is it is only a 2x zoom (122mm to 252mm) and the range is rather limiting. I've borrowed a Canon EOS EF 14mm and it also is very sharp. But it works out to be a 100mm lens. It's all nice glass and very sharp, but no versatility.

Jeff

Hey Jeff,

thanks for the response. This is the kind of information that really
means something. I want better images out of the gear I presently
own and buying another lens that will bring those home maybe a
cost effective upgrade.

I realize that a 122-252mm lens doesn't have much versatility,
but hey, it will do what it does well. Another screw driver in the
tool box.

I would love to buy a new PS Technik/XL1s combo, but I don't
want to dump a bunch of money on a NTSC or PAL camera just now.
HD and progressive scan are the future imo, and that is where I'd
like to invest when the prices come down in 1-3 years.

I am wishing for a 720P XL1HD cam, but I don't
know if they can pack enough pixels into a 1/3" chip to do that (yet).
If Canon goes to a bigger set of CCDs, then the lenses & adapters we all own
won't work. Issues that manufacturers like Canon have to think about . . .
backward compatability is just one.

The "near future" alternative would be for Canon to license the CCDs from
that new panasonic DVX100, which would at least output 30P.
That's a big improvement, but no where as big a leap as what the
Panasonic varicam achieves with much higher resolution and
variable frame rates. That's what I really want . . . a video "film"
camera.

Hi Jacques,

I'm a Canon 35mm shooter and I've tried most of their lenses, at one time or another, on the XL1. The L series lenses are the sharpest and on film I can really see the difference. The difference on tape is more subtle. Sharpness is what most people notice. But contrast is greatly improved, as well as color. The multi coating and optics handle high contrast scenes much better. Flare and ghost images are better controlled. Just all around better optics. Standard Canon EF lenses are usually sharper. But I don't see as much difference in contast. I was very surprised recently by the Canon 70-300mm IS lens. I shot jet skis, wind surfers, sailboats etc. at the beach and compared the result to my 100-400 IS L series and was surprised how well it held up.

Jeff

I'm wondering what is a good use for my EF adapter for my XL-1. I've tried putting wide angle lens on it. But they just don't look very wide through it.

How are other people using it?

Thanks Todd

The ef adapter will not get you very wide, because 35mm still camera lenses are just too LONG for the smaller imaging device (CCD) of a camcorder.

The rule of thumb is that the equivalent field of view willbe about 7.2x what it is if the lens is used on a 35mm still camera.

That 20mm super wide, installed on a XL1/EF adapter combo will give the effective field of view of a 144 mm lens on a 35mm camera.

Many folks use the EF adapters for nature photgraphy, surveilance, etc.

I just pruchased the XLS1 camera and seem to be a bit lost.I cannot find the counter reset and when using the vcr playback through a computer using the dv port ,the display shows dv in ,is there a way to switch the dv to output .I am finding the computer does not pick up the dv signal quickly wondering if this is because the dv from the vcr defaults to dv in .
Also I wouldn't mind some views on the ef adapter to enable eos lens use,I bought it but I'm wondering just how useful this will be .

Greetings

What kind of computer do you have. I have to guess a PC because a Mac will automatically take control of your camera when you launch the editing software and the camera is plugged in via firewire. What software are you using. I use Final Cut Pro, Primere and Avid. If we know what software it is easy to figure out the device control problem. DV footage on the XL1 records timecode. You can use that instead of thinking of a counter reset. Are you useing composite input/outputs?

You cannot reset the counter. Timecode is automatically maintained
by the camera. Have you switched your camera into VCR
mode when exporting to your PC?

To add to Don's post, the primary application of the EF adapter is to achieve extreme telephoto lengths using Canon EOS lenses plus the inherent multiplication of focal length (by a factor of 7.2) when it's used on the XL1.

For more info, see "Guide to XL Lens Options" in the Articles section of the XL1 Watchdog at www.dvinfo.net/xl1.htm

Plus, from the Watchdog FAQ at www.dvinfo.net/xl1faq.htm:

Q: What should I know about using Canon 35mm EOS lenses?
A: The effective focal length of any 35mm still photography lens is multiplied by a factor of 7.2 when mounted on the XL1.

Hope this helps,

I am using a P4 2.4 intel ,I use the dv input to the computer through the ATI video In.I'm using Ulead 5.0 ,tried the ati MMC but it does not see the dv in .I have not tried premiere I always found premiere difficult to use .I also tried roxio's video creator but it only accepts an low res mpg and the output looks low res.
The XP movie maker is quite good but its streaming output is not one to archive.I would like to be able to make dvd quality and store it on dc.
I do switch the camera to vcr mode when outputting ,i thought the vcr would show dv out but it does not ,I wonder if thats why the ati MMC software cannot see the signal.
I do get all the controls to work with the computer but really miss the counter reset.

I'm still not sure exactly what your problem is. The counter can not be reset. It reads the time code on the mini DV tape. It resets when the cassette door is opened and a new tape inserted. It does not have resetable user data code or tape counter like VHS, Betacam etc.

If you not able to capture try posting the exact nature of the problem and your system specs in the PC section. Have you gone to ATI's site and downloaded the latest drivers for your card?

http://www.ati.com/na/pages/na_index.html

The EOS adapter allows Canon EOS EF lens to be attached to the XL1. Post additional questions in the XL1 lens forum or use the search button at the top right, to search related topics and questions.

thanks for the reply ,I now accept there is no counter reset.
I had the option of returning the eos adapter and decided to keep it.
Using premiere 6.0 I made an avi,then ran it through a conversion prg to make that file a mpg then to roxio to make the vcd format to run in a dvd player.
It works fine except the res could be a lot better ,but roxio only will work with certain files so I guess that the linitation.
I am going to reload the ati MMc and that might pick up the dv input which i would rather use.

The conversion program is the weak link. Post about MPEG-2 encoders in the PC section and you'll get some suggestions for a better encoder. They may have covered that so, might want to use the search function also. VCD should have the quality of VHS tape or a little lower. SVCD will have DVD quality with a better encoder, but it is not as compatable.

Jeff

If you want more resolution on a CD try SVCD (480x480 for NTSC
or 480x586 for PAL, MPEH2!). Nero is the product to burn such
stuff. Otherwise a DVD burner comes to mind.

Dumb question # 36425, 35mm cameras are used for astrophotography, can the XL1S be used with an EF adapter and telescope. could a video camera catch it and display it. Is it possible to hook a video camera to a telescope. A star party from the middle of your living room, remote viewing. I have never seen such a rig so it must be impossible, right?

Not only is it possible, it's easy. Any telescope that can accept a 35mm camera mount (in line, not at 45 or 90 degrees) can be hooked up to an XL-1 or s. (Shop Orion telescopes for hardware).
The problem is mounting the two pieces of equipment on a stable surface, and keeping the telescope ABSOLUTELY in step with the movement of the star, moon, planet, etc. This would require a good alt-azimuth mount and an accurate clock motor. Without such a set-up your subject will fly across the field like a race horse, its movement magnified by the telescope and the camcorder. Hardly seems worth the trouble just to let people avoid going out and enjoying the night air!

Steve Siegel
Miami, FL

Yes easy but dangerous!

You can build a setup by yourselft with the right parts.

This works without the XL-1 to EOS converter but it is rather tedious.

First you need part number YA1-1681-000. This is the reciever that a normal XL Lens connects to on the XL-1 body. That little silver ring that has about six screw holes in it. BTW Canon doesn't normally provide the replacement screws. Also you need some little screws that will fit nicely into the lens mount. Then get some black plumbers pipe. About 2" so you can place the mounting ring on the center (absolute) pipe and screw the little screws in.

Second you need the standard attachments that you would normally use when attaching a 35MM Lens. Mount them to the opposite end of the plumbers pipe. Remember to make the pipe long enough to pass your focus knob on yr telescope.

Now that you have these things put together, gently put the pipe on the camera body and attach to the telescope and balance real good while holding the telescope to the body.

Now you must have a bracket to hold the camera in place or you will bust the mounting ring on the "body" and Canon will charge you $1500 to fix it. So measure and build that mount and have it so it afixes to the camera body quick release screw hole.

So now you have your mount for the camera, mounting ring, T-Ring, and T-Adapter.

So there ya go. Now you are shooting at about f5.6 & what ever your telescope is in MM.

You can use other adapters with a Star Diagonal etc.

Now, I did all this stuff. But there is an easier way. Buy the appropriate camera that adapts to your telescope and hook it to your computer just like the pros do.

Call http://www.sbig.com/ up on your computer. These guys are sometimes hard to get along with. I don't like doing business with them. But they do know their business. They just "talk down" to most everyone that doesn't know what they want first. They are not help for the novice.

Regards,

I would suggest that you try the Sky & Telescope website. The ad's there for CCD items, that attach directly to your scope with out the necessity of all that costly hardware, will probably appeal to you.

Yes, they are expensive. But, so is coustomising the scope with the add ons.

Also, a CCD, is a better connection to your 'puter. It dosen't eat up your entire memory.

Hi ive got a ef converter and a canon 100-400 IS USM lense set up for my xl1s could anyone tell if the image stabilizer is powered by the battery in the ef converter or from the mainbattery on the camera itself?
thanks

Per the EF adapter documentation:

"Power is supplied by the camera for EF lens/EF adapter control. A 2CR5 lithium battery inside the EF adapter supplies power for driving the EF lens aperture"

"Current supplied by the came: 100 mA or less. Current supplied by the lighium battery inside the EF adapter differs depending on the lens."

" Unlike the Adapter VL, this adapter does not have an AF function, so focusing must be performed manually."

I know I might get blasted for posting this, But I can't find
the answer in any post. It's just a quick question!

I know the DOF on the XL1 is not equal to 35 mm film. And I know why too:)
But if I buy a EF mount and a EF lens, (with shallow dof) will the extender
mess upp the shallow dof, or the picture I get with my EF lens on a SLR camera is the picture I get on the XL1? (with x 7.2)

Hi,

do a search for "dof" and you will find an article called "The Ultimate Depth of Field Skinny". This should answer you queries.

Cheers
Andrew

I've done the DOF search :)
I've read almost everything there is, But still I can't figure out
how this will apply to the EF adapter. I can be honest and say
that I might not be the sharpest tool when it comes to calculating
physics. But I was looking for a simple answer to a "simple" question.

A yes or no would be quite enough if someone really knows.
I don't know if there are many people here using the EF adapter.

Regards,
Andreas

The lens should have the same DOF for the same aperture and object distance but because the field of view of the formed image is very different (by a factor of 7.2) it will not look the same.

See also our web page about DOF at http://www.dvinfo.net/articles/optics/dofskinny.php

As Don points out, the main drawback of using the EF adapter will be the extreme difference in Target Size (details on article at link above). Hope this helps,

I was just wondering about the use of the macro lenses with the EF adapter. How would it look and how would the DOF work? Granted they dont make a wide angle lens, but I was just wondering.
Thx for that link chis good infomation.

Rob

I thinking of buying the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM lens and with the adapter using it on my XL1 for a filming trip to Kenya.
I use a Manfrotto 501 Head.
Has anyone tried this combination before and if so what extra plate or support brackets did you use or do I not need any?

Gareth

My goodness, you'll need that 501 head. You do realise the magnifications you're takling about? yes, I'm sure you do, but for the others, that's like shooting 35mm through a 700mm to 2800mm zoom. It introduces all sorts of problems but with one big plus - you'll be using the central part of the lens' image, and - should the air be clear enough - you should get some spectacular telephoto compression distortions.

tom.