Can someone please explain what this company has against designing a camera that can be comfortably put on a shoulder without the addition of a complex counter weighting system? Honestly, after the complaints about the XL1 you'd have thought that they'd straighten out the canted body and allow you the room to balance the camera. Do they think that adding counterweights to a camera so that you increase its length and weight is sexy? Or the addition of a pad makes all OK? Are they just concerned about their position in the museum of modern design?

I'm asking a serious question here. What gives with these people who seem like competent designers in most other respects. What are they thinking? Or are they just suffering from some weird virus that effects a localized area of the brain.

David

I never had a problem with the XL1 or XL1s because I used the optional MA-200 shoulder mount. The XL1 is the smallest camera I have ever used, coming from a Beta SP background. I have never had an issue with the camera being front heavy after batteries and wireless receiver are mounted. I also use the Lightwave isolator to give me a little added room with the viewfinder. The XL1 isn't perfect, but I don't expect the XL2 to be either. Every person is built different and most camera operators have to make modifications to their cameras to get it to fit in the most comfortable manner.

Well, I tend to agree with you David. I just hope that like my XL-1s, that it can be removed.

Jeff, do you, or anyone else, know what the 30? shutter speeds are on the XL-2? Also, how small of an f stop is available on the 20x? Maybe, f 32?

Sorry, Jeff, while you disgree, you fall into the category of those who have made the adjustment with add ons. In fact a whole addons industry has developed to work around the camera's lack of a proper shoulder mount design. And while no camera is perfect, this design flaw seems more glaring than most. Many shooters I know would never buy it precisely for this reason. But my question is this. they could have straghtened out the canted body and corrected the flaw. Why didn't they?

David, sorry that you can't recognize that the human body comes in many shapes and sizes and that one camera can't custom fit each user. I've had to modify every camera I've owned to be comfortable on long shoots. I'm sure the XL2 won't be any different. If modifying a camera is unthinkable to you, there are other cameras in this price range that may prove to be more suitable.

Robert, you may want to post your questions as separate topics so you can get comment. I doubt f/32 because of diffraction limits.

Jeff, if you can't do more than state the obvious, don't bother responding to my posts I'm only inerested in whether someone can shed some light on Canon's design philosphy.

Look here (http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/) for clues on their design philosophy. Canon is pretty tight lipped about design philosophy etc. like most Japanese companies.

I looked at the site suggested by Jeff which is a Canon Museum.

There is a picture of the design center - a super-modern building sitting all by itself in the middle of a large field - that probably tells more of a story than its face value. It says that this is a company where designers live in a world apart, where distictiveness of design can take precedence over functionality - not everywhere in their line-up, of course but probably most of all in their video division. I remember their odd hi-8 cameras which resembled still cameras with dozens of buttons.

Some people like this, others, I suspect the majority, just find it kind of eccentric. But when it hinders the camera's functionality I think it's kind of a mistake.

You need to dig a little deeper than just an artist sketch (by the way, the sketch is only an artists conception) to find the information you desire, David. I would post a link but much of the museum is flash. They have quotes from the chief camera designer and early design concepts etc. for the XL1. The XL2 is too new for the museum, but it's lineage is obvious.

<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Donald : You need to dig a little deeper than just an artist sketch (by the way, the sketch is only an artists conception) -->>>\


Looks like a photo to me!

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/design/process/camera_design/index.html


You're obviously refering to someting else. But thanks for the links.


david

Sorry, I thought you were referring to the sketch on the first page. Look in the Design Hall and then the Design Room. At the bottom of page is info on the XL1.

Jeff

Thanks for the link to the design museum...nice site with some interesting info. I think it pretty much spells out the answers to david' question as well.

Barry

This is actually one of the few discussions on the XL2 that interests me, probably because it doesn't revolve around pure speculation. My personal take is that until I get the chance to test the XL2, especially against the competition (DVX100a, since I plan to use the 24p and 30p modes) under the right conditions, I'm not going to celebrate or condemn anything about the picture quality based on specs or rumors.

The ergonomics are another issue; it's easy to see that the XL2 is virtually the same form factor as the XL1/XL1s. I am somewhat disappointed with this as I too believe that if the chassis was to be redesigned, a more ergonomic layout could have been implemented. I'm especially disappointed that the connectors continue to exit from the back of the camera, necessitating an air gap between them and any additional hardware that may be mounted. The new mounting bracket looks good and solid, it's nice to see that it attaches to the camera via several points.

As far as releasing a camera that does not balance on the shoulder out of the box, I do agree that this is a frustration. However one must remember that none of the competition, perhaps with the exception of the JVC DV5000 which adopts a Betacam-style design, even rests on the shoulder at all. I would have been more impressed if Canon had created a modular system that allowed for a quick-release back end with mounting points for additional hardware (wireless receivers, Anton Baeur or standard battery, etc.) that essentially snapped into place, creating a seamless appearance of a longer camera as well as a centered balance on the shoulder. This way the camera can quickly convert from a stripped-down "event" package to a full-fledged production camera as needed.

It is my belief that good handheld operating is a result of a balanced camera on the shoulder. I don't believe in supports that cantilever down to belly plates and all that. Any time your hand is supporting excessive weight, it will ultimately affect the frame. It's a common issue with all small size camcorders, and the extra weight of the XL1/2 makes it even more awkward in this regard.

Doesn't mean I'm not going to get an XL2--it just means I have to figure out more customized stuff to make it work for me (never satisfactorily finished doing that with the XL1!)

Jeff, you are so right. I am 55, 6"0'' , 201 lbs and the Canon XL-1s fits me just fine, and yes, I hand hold it a lot. Is it the best camcorder I have ever held? No, the $25,000 Sony probably beat the Canon. But, I do not have $25,000. Oh, let us go back to 1998 and remember what we paid for th eoriginal XL-1 when it hit the streets. I bought my first from a TOP camera store in Atlanta and it was almost $4,500.00 at that time. Bob

That is a nice website, thanks for the link. I'm curious as to why they stuck with the same color scheme. Would anyone have objected to an all-black finish?

Boyd, I'm guessing they stuck with white based on their white/red scheme for the L-series lenses. I would have liked black too though, although it is kind of nice to have a camera that sticks out.

As far as I'm concerned Canon fixed the first biggest design blunder, the VU meter that you can't see while looking into the viewfinder. That's a nice fix.

Yes, I would have liked to see a full shoulder mount version, although to me, their design is still far more useable for me than the DVX100 and PD-150.

I do a fair amount of still photography and I remember once reading a tidbit about Canon's EF L lenses and why they were white. It explained that, well, it was a distinctive look, but that wasn't the reason for the design, i think they said that it was to reduce the absorption of heat by the lens (white, reflects, not absorbs). I know I probably couldn't find where I read that, but it's an idea I got from some literature somewhere.

It makes sense, but reflectivity isn't good to have when on set. Unless you're using some reflectors for that purpose.

That is correct about Canon's L series telephotos (300mm and up, and 70-200mm zoom and up). The large glass elements could heat up and that could effect focus. In fact most (all?) of these lenses focus beyond infinity in order to help compensate for thermal expansion. White XL bodies are welcome in Florida.

The white bodies might even help reduce noise in the video signal. Noise is a byproduct of heat from the CCD. Some pro cameras even use peltier elements to reduce the temperature of the CCD's.

<<<-- Originally posted by Bob Safay : Jeff, you are so right. I am 55, 6"0'' , 201 lbs and the Canon XL-1s fits me just fine, and yes, I hand hold it a lot. -->>>


Bob,

Because you can "hand hold it a lot" does not mean that most others (or if you prefer MANY others) can or will choose to do so.

Can't we all accept that by it's design the XLx cameras are going to have a smaller market share than they could have. maybe should have given the cameras other, superior features? If this is too bitter a pill to swallow for some XLx users then I suggest applying for Official Church status and at least taking advantage of the tax benefits.

David

Any camera will have a "smaller market share" by virtue of some of its design characteristics. There are plenty of people turned off by coffee-can camcorders.

<<<-- Originally posted by Richard Alvarez : Any camera will have a "smaller market share" by virtue of some of its design characteristics. There are plenty of people turned off by coffee-can camcorders. -->>>

Yes there are - but in this case I'm referring to ergonomic deficeincy as a result of what appears to be nothing substantially more than aesthetic considerations - the canted body. On Canon's design museum site the camera designer explains the canted body as an ergonomic positive. I can only speculate what he meant by that but I'm pretty sure he wasn't referring to resting the camera on one's shoulder.

David,

Your comment got me thinking. Is the canted body a purely aesthetic decision? Could the extremely well paid designers at canon (arguably some of the best in the world) have forgotton the the most sacred tenet of modern design...form follows function?

So I got out my xl1s...I rarely use this camera hand held, because it has the 16x manual lens permanently attached to it, but I know in the past that I always felt it was a much better handheld camera than all my other cameras (gl1, gl2, dvx100). As I write this, I don't have the removable shoulder support on the camera...just the maligned canted body...

Anyway I put my eye up to the viewfinder and noticed that the canted body allowed the camera to clear my shoulder, rather than stabbing me with a pointy corner. So if I was in the mood to hold this camera "DVX or PD150 style", then it functions quite well considering its extra length, primarily because of the canted body. (now if they made the camera 3-4 inches longer this wouldn't be an issue, but ...well...see below)

Next I tip the eyepiece upwards, thus lowering the body relative to my head. The canted body now rests snugly, and comfortably against my upper chest. I have to say that this is the most comfortable, and stable position I've ever felt with a consumer level camcorder. And it is this successful because of-- again-- the canted body design. (If I add the shoulder support, I'm allowed another option..but in this situation it doesn't really matter whether the body is canted or not, so I'll not mention it...oops...I guess I did.)

Now I go to the canon design museum that Jeff linked to a few days ago, and I start reading...all the things I just noticed are referenced as part of the design of the canted body. They even mention how a shoulder mounted design is simply not effective when you consider the xl1s relatively small size...and this is important, because its size is, and was the primary design goal for the project.

You've suggested that others have needed lots of add ons to make the camera work well...I think the opposite. I won't use my dvx100 handheld without the $400 shoulder brace I bought for it...nor my gl2. The xl1s works better for me, (and I think most of us) ergonomically, than any of these other cameras even after their add-ons.

But lets get to the xl2.. its about 3 inches longer, with a permanently mounted shoulder support attached to the back (although I wish they'd make it removable)....looks to me like all your problems are solved..because the body really doesn't cant anymore, at least functionally.

Yes, the design of the xl series is front heavy, but this is only because it is a small body, that supports a relatively large lens system. In its design, canon has produced a number of innovations that make the camera much more stable than any other camera in its market segment. Had canon wanted to enter the world of high-end professional shoulder bricks...I'm sure it would, and could have.

Barry

Barry, thanks for saving me some typing. I agree 100%.

Barry,

Well, not being an XLx owner and only having used an XL1 - briefly, because I didn't like the design, all I can say is that your experience is not mine, and that the rational that this camera can't be designed to be shoulder balanced - with a medium sized battery and a forward shifted center of gravity, I find faulty. If you think that resting the canted body against your chest is the most comfortable position for thse kinds of cameras I'm happy for you; a. that you either only shoot wide angle or b. that you've learned not to breathe for 60 minutes ( a tape load of shooting verite) at a time.

I'd like to say 'to each his own,' and in a sense that's true, but in another sense it's not. There are many people who think that the camera's design restricts its use. I happen to think that it's probably unnecessarily. My opinion does count as I vote with my feet. I'd only consider buying this camera for a shoot that's 95% off a mount.

Dave.

So, you're suggesting, while keeping the same basic size and weight...that the camera should sit atop the shoulder balanced somewhere near the lense mount?, or would you just prefer a larger camera?

Is there another camera in this market segment that you would point canon towards to say...here...do it like this....this is better? I'm not fighting you on this...I just want to know what I'm missing here.

Barry

Barry,

Looking at the pix of the XL2 when they first appeared it struck me that the shoulder pad should have been slideable forward as far as the tripod mount. (removeable and replace the tripod mount?) Note that the canted body doesn't exactly prevent this - it just increases the difficulty. It would also require the EVF to be slidable forward and the battery placed on the back where it could act as a counterbalance to the lens - designed to accomodate everything from small Canon proprietary to Anton Bauers - sort of match battery weight to lens weight.

There are no other cameras on the market that could be pointed out as examples because there are no other cameras that are attempting to do what Canon has done with the XL series. The closest - the DSR300 series - went for a larger body with .5 inch chips. Perhaps the Arri SR series of 16mm film cameras comes closest.

I still believe that if the designers had made it a priority a shoulder balanced configuration was possible and all their statements about the ergonomics of the existing body are probably just spin or self-hypnosis.

David

Looking at those preliminary designs on the website I couldn't help but wonder if perhaps the designer had an inspiration while trimming his hedge one weekend? ;-)

David

So as one slides the the shoulder support forward, and the evf forward, where would you put the hand grip and manual zoom and focus rings...seems like your grip hand would need to be right at your shoulder, and your lens hand would be tucked underneath your chin. Except you could perhaps bring the grip even further forward next to the lens, but along with the xtra forward weight from the evf, now we're extending the body forward as well...increasing its front heaviness. I'm just thinking that the way out of this problem is just to add weight to the back. Kinda like you said with the anton bauer thing...and like Jeff said a few pages back.

Now you could do this with an attachment, like the ma100/ma200canon plus batteries (antonbauer, or canon) that canon has been using for years. Or you could do it by simply making the camera bigger, heavier, and more expensive.

Look, the problem with your theory is that this is simply a small camera. The xl1s body is about 8 inches long from the lens mount to the rear of the camera. If you put it side by side with a DVX100...the bodies are exactly the same length. The only difference is that canon has engineered it..by moving many of the controls forward...so that you can actually support it against your body in a variety of ways. No other camera of this size does this. Like you said, the only camera's that do this are much larger shoulder brick designs.

Look, I'm not trying to sell you on the camera. If you don't want it because the color doesn't match your humvee, that's good enough for me. In fact, you've probably sold ME on it. And I thank you for the discussion, because its opened my eyes to how innovative and bold the xl1s design was in the first place...there is still no other camera that tries to bridge these two markets in the way that it does.

Barry

<<<-- Originally posted by Barry Goyette : David

And I thank you for the discussion, because its opened my eyes to how innovative and bold the xl1s design was in the first place...there is still no other camera that tries to bridge these two markets in the way that it does.
-->>>

Glad to be of help in any kind of spiritual conversion experience. Enjoy :)

David

<<<-- Originally posted by Bob Safay : I bought my first from a TOP camera store in Atlanta and it was almost $4,500.00 at that time. Bob -->>>

Wow, you should have bought mailorder. I got mine for $3800 in 1998!

I agree with you David, I think more effort could have been made into making it a true shoulder mount. For most people that have to use the XL for extended periods handheld, it is a killer. I was actually hoping that they were considering going that direction (and they may be for the future) because Canon emailed me a survey months ago, and that was one of the items thay had on it. I still think highy of my XL because I think it was truly revolutionary in it's first release, but It needs a more functional design. Hey, maybe they're getting a kickback on all the stablizer devices:). I think weight at the front will be even worse than it was with the new lens. That said, the XL2 addressed a number of things that people were asking for, and it definitely puts them back in the mix.

I find the pointed discussions about the user's comfort and balance of the Canon XL models to be illustrative of the fact that everyone is very different, either in bodyshape or preferences. I've been making my own fairly elaborate shoulder-mount/stabilizing rigs for years. Rather than complain about having to do this, to make a camera more comfortable and to handle and function better, I'm thankful that I'm able to work on the problems and solve them.

I've only had an older Canon L-1 from this series, but it is proportioned about the same as the XL models. My shoulder mount allowed me to use it for two hours, non-stop, with no discomfort. Even without image-stabilization, I could hold it steady at full-zoom (2X extender
being used). There was no front-heavy or balance problem as there were 7 points of contact with my body. When I've used my 17-lb. Beta on my shoulder with this type of rig, it was also comfortable, but one hour was about my limit with it. The new XL2 wouldn't have to be awkward or difficult for anyone to handle, if the proper accessories are used.

Not to say that making such a mounting rig is simple or easy. I have custom-designed and fitted
a dozen of these for my friends. It's hard enough to please myself, when I make a modified version to match each of my new cameras. But getting one to suit someone else, in every small detail, is quite a challenge. I spend about a week on one for myself, but fitting one to someone else, seems to often be an unending job. If I did this for profit, I'd probably get about a dime an hour for my efforts.

So, how can anyone expect Canon or any
manufacturer to build a model that fits everyone, without modifications? It's amazing that this radical design they have developed, is as acceptable and workable for as many people as it is. I think that any professional or even a serious video hobbyist, must take some initiative and obtain or design modifying accessories for themselves.

If a camera has what you want, but doesn't physically fit you well, you have to assemble an interface system, that brings you and the hardware together as an ergonomically-matched pair. If you achieve a good mating of this type with yourself and a camera, the quality of your footage can rise to a much higher level.

If none of the commercially-available shoulder or chest mounts suit you, no one else is better suited than yourself to make one that does.

Consider all the time you might spend using a highgrade camcorder and how important good results from it are. Spending several days and a small amount of money working up a good mounting or balancing rig, is a worthwhile investment. If you have thought of yourself as not very handy with tools or innovation, remember the old saying about necessity being the mother of invention.
Some people might find the motivation to have such a useful accessory, that no one else could provide, may help them discover some hidden creative talents.

Steve McDonald

I always thought the xl1, xl1s design was not a good camera to shoulder hold as to it being a bit front heavy. That is untill today. I used a xl1s for two hours non stop. (only to change tapes) shooting a funeral. I stood at the front, shot speakers, swung to audience, and back. Then to items displayed at the service. After two hours continuous shooting I am completely convinced after this ordeal that this camera is brilliantly designed. Zooms and pans. Of course there is the odd wobbly shot, but what can you expect over two hours. A few cover shots will fix this. Lighting was changing as well and I thought all the 'buttons' were in just the right place. Was using standard 16x zoom lens and MA 100 shoulder pad. Well done Canon.

Owen

Hi Owen. Another Kiwi huh? We're slowly growing in numbers here. There must be a massive 4 or 5 of us now!

Aaron

Hi Aaron,

Might be only 4 or 5 of us. But betcha we can run rings around those northern hemisphere blokes!!

Owen

Owen.

Are you Folks (sic), going to practice bottoms up, on us?

As mentioned on this thread and on the FAQ section that Chris posted, it has been stated that the shoulder pad on the XL2 is not removable. In the photos, I see screws in the bottom of it. I wonder what purpose these screws serve and if there is absolutely no way to pull it off? How would a replacement be installed if the original was worn or damaged? Having seen the screws, I made the mistake of advising someone that it likely would be removable, as the pads on most pro camcorders are.

The pad appears that it would interfere with the attachment of the shoulder apparatus I make for my camcorders. There would probably be difficulty using some commercial shoulder-mounts with this pad in place. I'm hoping that someone will tell me that there's a way to get this thing off without using a hacksaw.

Steve McDonald

Guys. . .just a thought. I had this idea I thought I'd try, and it worked out pretty well. This could just be me, though.

I found a pro cam shoulder pad (from one of the big rigs. No idea what brand or model or anything) consisting of a the foam pad itself, and hard plastic that it was attached to, on eBay for $15. Drilled a few holes, bought a screw, and screwed it into the the "tripod hole" on the bottom. Bought the system isolator to move the viewfinder assembly forward, and now I had a rig that was balanced about as well as it could be without adding any additional weight, and it was pretty decent. Perfect? No. . .for one thing, the pad was only screwed on in one place, so it could loosen and pivot around, but a lot of you dudes are engineering geniuses, so I'm sure you'd find a way around that. Also, of course, that system isolator ain't too cheap.

Josh, a one-word solution to that rotating shoulder-pad: Velcro. If you use this along with the bolt into the tripod jack, it should stay in place.

Steve McDonald

Velcro. . . .BRILLIANT!

Although, now that I think of it, my solution won't really work for the XL2, will it? I remember reading that one of the things that was NOT compatible with the new camera was the system isolator. Does that mean they're making a new, XL2 specific system isolator, or that you just have to live with it?

Josh: if I remember correctly the problem with the extender is
the viewfinder cable. You would need to extend that cable I
believe (which should be doable). I could be wrong, ofcourse.

You're saying on the XL2, the viewfinder cable isn't long enough to reach where it needs to plug in, if the XL1s/XL1 system isolator is attached?

I believe that was the case indeed if I'm correct. Hoping someone
else with knowledge on this tunes in.

Actually it looks like the System Isolator is in fact compatible with the XL2. I'll have to go back and change those Watchdog pages. We tried it at DV Expo and it seems to work fine. I had been told it wouldn't work, well... never trust this stuff until you see it with your own eyes.

And once again, the Bass has helped better the world around him.