Thank you
www.video.com.mx

Jose. Where did you buy your camera in Mexico? I have been trying to find a good dealer of video equipment in Mexico, but without much luck. I never live near DF so didnt know that area too well to go hunting around for gear. And most seem to be just amateurish stuff and nothing good. Or did you just get yours across the US border and bring it back, or mail order it and pay the tax in the Aduana?

Thanks

Christopher
I bought all my stuff on ebay and USA stores
and then send it to my USA Address in merkalink www.merkalink.com
I pay my import taxes around 17% and the shipping to Laredo and then to Mexico (Around $30 US CY for up to $1000 US CY and 2 Kilos

A question. I have the opportunity to buy a used Canon 3X for $600. This is through a camera shop. I have the Canon 16X II and the 14X manual. I have usually been able to borrow the 3X in the past and know how fine a lens it is. In light of the XL-2 possibly coming out this year would this be a good purchase? Bob

$600 seems like a pretty reasonable price. I'd buy it. The XL2 probably won't be available for 6 months at best, and that leaves you lots of time to get good use out of it. Plus you can always sell it. There are probably a hundred thousand XL1 users out there, and they won't disapear when the XL2 comes out.

Bob,

I tend to use the 3X lens more than the 16X. I definitely recommend it.

3X is a must have for the XL series.

RB

OK, I picked it up last night. You guys were right. It sure is a nice hunk of glass. Thanks for the input. Bob

Bob, can you recommend the place you bought it from? I am looking for one but the brand new retail price is a bit hard to swallow if you can get an honest deal on a used one.

Rafal, it is a camera shop in Atlanta called Showcase. I have been dealing with them for 14 years. Excellant reputation. This is the first 3X that I have seen there. They usually do not handle used equipment much that was why I was so surprized. I will keep a look out in the Atlanta area for you. Bob

Thanks a lot Bob. Don't worry though, being the obsessive compulsive type ( this is my wife's opinion ) I will probably get it from BH ( USING LINK FROM THIS SITE :-) ).
Thanks again for your answer.

I'm about to buy a fisheye for my lens from Century Optics. But they have 2 diffrent kinds. One for the 3X and one for the 16x lens. I emailed them and asked if it was the same fisheye. They said the fisheye for the 3X would fit both. What I can't figre ut is how a bayonet monted fisheye can fith on both, the 3X and 16x lens if you buy the 3X version. But only fits the 16x if you buy the 16x.

So I wonder, for those of you that have both these lenses, are the mount any diffrent on the 3X? (lens shade) from the bayonet mount on the 16x?

They should both physically fit on each lens. I think what they are refering to is that if you put the fisheye for the 16x lens on the 3x you will get vignetting due to the 3x lens's wider angle of view. I've seen the 3x hood on a 16x lens, why I don't know, but it was on there.

All of the Canon XL lenses share the same accessory thread diameter: 72mm. So I suspect that Century meant that you will be able to mount their lens on either lens.

Given the extreme wide-angle nature of a fish-eye lens I doubt that you will be using a hood at all with this accessory mountd on either lens.

So if I understand correct,

1. Bayonet mount is when you use the mount where you usually mount your lenshood. The fisheye use a bayonet mounting system so it should fit where the lenshood usually goes? Pretty logical.

2. Both the 3X and 16x could share the same lenshood?

I can't figure out why they should have one for the 16x and one for the 3x as they list on their homepage. When I emailed and asked them, they said the one for the 3X would fith both lenses but it seems that one for the 16x won't go on to the 3X.

So that's why I'm confused, because if the lenshood mount is the same on both leneses there would be no problem.

Due to the wide field of view on the 3x, you would see the edges of the 16x lens hood in frame if you used it on the 3x. That's why they're telling you not to do it -- and that's why the 3x lens hood has such an exotic tulip shape. Hope this helps,

I just ordered a used 3x from B&H for 899. While not in the same price as $600 it's still cheaper than full new price of $1,200 and I trust B&H. Go to the web site and see for your self

what are some of the situations where you would use a Canon 3X lens?

Jack, 3x is a wide angle lens so it would be good for situation where you need to grab a little more in the frame without having to luxury of distance. Plus I am sure there are a whole bunch of other creative situations.

Some situations:
Indoor birthday party
First dance
Small room
Wide shot of ball game

Jack, they are great for doing interviews as you can get closer to the subject and use the onboard mic. Also, last year I took a small ship throught the Straights, I used it in the cabin, passageways, engine room (by the way, being able to turn the volume down is fantastic in a situation like this) and SMALL dining room/bar. I have used it at parties wedding receptions, hazardous waste sites and in back alleys. It is a really good lens to have. I never actually thought I would buy one, until I realized how often I was borrowing one. Bob Safay

I don't know how much information is out on the XL2 yet, but wont you be able to use the 3x lens on the XL2 as well as the XL1/s? Assuming they are carrying on their reputation of having a camera that can do anything and then some... ooo, i'm excited.

Great for shooting with the GlideCam V8!

RB

XL1s and Canon 3X WA
After reading so many good things about the 3X wide angle I splashed-out nearly 800 GB pounds on one, primarily to use for shooting property interiors. My question is, how do you get a crisp, well focused image.
I have read every single posting on the topic and still have not found the answer.I have used every aperture/shutter speed/shooting mode possible, but still cant achieve anything but a slightly fuzzy image.
From minimum distance to about 1.5 m everything is razor-sharp, but beyond that it's all downhill!
Help please.
Regards to all
Dave

Hi Dave
It would help if you could post a screen grab of the image for us to look at. The 3x lens is a little on the soft side.

One thing that will help focus if there is good light in the space you are shooting and you can shoot at a 5.6-4.8 F-stop for that sweet spot.

Stopping down with the ND filter to hit that sweet spot will really make a nice focused image possible.


Other than that.. I still maintain that Canon shafted us a bit with the 3x.

I agree with John's suggestion: light your scene up. Way up. Get that iris closed down to get deep focus field.

Also, you should note that video cameras' relatively low resolution (with respect to film) make for mushy-looking wide shots. This generally doesn't become apparent (at television-size images) until you look at relatively distant objects. If you're shooting interiors this may not be a factor in your current complaint. But it's worth keeping in mind prospectively.

Tight interior shots is the ideal application for that 3x lens. I've been very happy with mine in that application.

Thanks for the replies, but now I'm even more confused.
John says open up the iris and Ken says close down for d.o.f. and go for tight shots.
If I needed tight interior shots then I'd use the standard 16X, the Idea behind the 3X was to produce wide interior shots for real-estate work. However, I do agree that the 3X is a bit of a leg-pull from Canon.
After being in 'stills' photography for over 30 years I find the transition to video not as straight forward as I imagined, but it does work if you stick to 'Video Rules' and shoot tight and close.
I shot one of my best ever weddings last week-end, simply because everything was c/up. I have no doubts that the XL1s and lenses are very good, used in the right conditions and sticking to manual operation will achieve unbeatable results.
My advice to anyone thinking of buying a 3X would be to fully understand its limitations and make sure it fits in perfectly with your requirements.
Regards, Dave

No, actually I -think- John and I may be making the same comment. That is, light the scene brightly to afford yourself (i.e. the camera) the opportunity to be flexible with your aperture. As you probably know from your still photo work, tighter apertures lead to deeper depths of focus. John remarks that you may find a "sweet spot" around f5.6, and that use of the lens' ND might be handy to achieve that aperture. Depending on colors and the depth of the scene I might even go down a stop or so tighter.

No, I'm not recommending tight shots, per se. Just remarking that video cameras, particularly small cameras like the XL1S, wouldn't be my first pick to shoot the Grand Canyon.

(Are we in fact coincident, John?)

I'm considering getting the XL2 body and just getting the 3x lens ONLY. Do you think this is wise? I'm only shooting features and shorts and will be using 24p ALL the time. Do I really need the 20x "L" series? I like the wide look and want to keep it for everything. I know that the 3x wide has less of a telephoto feature but I can't think of a reason for telephoto as I can't get audio so far away anyway (unless I dub it in while in post). So all in all I think 3x will be fine. Can anyone give me advice from their experience? I'm a novice!

A longer lens can be handy if you want shorter DOF. Perhaps you should consider to buy a good manual lens with a .6 or .7 wideangle adapter...

I shot my last two short films entirely with the 3x lenses. So, sure. However, that was the tool for the job at the time.

The bottom line is the right tool for the right job.

but i thought DOF should be achieved by moving further away from subject anyway?

meaning instead of taking a 16x lens and screwing century wide lens adapters to it, you take a 3x lens and screw telephoto lens to it. it this possible? converting a wide to telephoto?

What kind of depth of field are you talking about exactly Yi? Shallow or deep? You can achieve a Shallow depth of field by zooming in and simply focusing on your subject, but keep in mind, this also increases the size of anything behind the subject, and in front of them for that matter. Also, opening the aperature up as far as you can with a good ND filter, gives more shallow depth of field. Closing up the iris can help with a greater depth of field as long as your luminence is high enough to keep the image from getting too dark.

<<<-- Originally posted by Dylan Couper : I shot my last two short films entirely with the 3x lenses. So, sure. However, that was the tool for the job at the time.

The bottom line is the right tool for the right job. -->>>

Exactly... =)

You have the Canon 1.6x XL extender for example that would
turn the 3x into a 4.8x lens, but that would not nearly get into
the same range as a 16x times. I don't think it is possible what
you want. I guess that's what the whole swappable lens feature
is for anyway. Just put the 16x lens on it.

i just got 3x lens for me xl1s and it gets very blurry during pan shots when i convert from frame mode (30p right?) to 24p to burn on DVD. frame mode looks spectacular. there's no "need" to do that i was just experimenting. i mean ... how do people like soderberg use the xl1s and then transfer it to film and have it still look OK?

Ok, I have never do this thing and I could be wrong, but I don't think that it is due to the 3X lens. People like Soderberg generally use PAL version when they want to go to film. Because PAL is 25 fps and it is easy to convert to 24P. It is almost impossible to have good results with 30P to 24P. I have read somewhere that most of the transfer labs require to work with 60i instead of 30p (or frame mode) to convert NTSC footage to film.

So you claim it goes wrong when you go from 30p to 24p. The
all important question is then: what software are you using and
which settings. The big boys have highly advanced software to
do such conversions as best as possible, usually with some
human supervision to tweak areas.

vegas5.

Why are you converting 30p to 24p? This will inevitably cause problems. It is not designed to work this way. To extrapolate 24p from 30p causes some serious artifacts.

If you shoot 30p then you are best to stick to 30p for all output. If you need 24p then you would be better off shooting on a camera capable of this frame rate.

Best regards,
John.

It would be better to do 60i to 24p than 30p to 24p. Of course it is best to do 24p as John point out.

Would it work any better if you converted 30p to 60i, then go to 24p?

Probably not, but try a short segment and see what it looks like.

good idea, i'll have to experiment next time i get my cam out =^).

"Would it work any better if you converted 30p to 60i, then go to 24p?"

You can't convert 30p to 60i since it is already 60i, with complete frames over two fields as opposed to two seprate motion fields - it's still stored 60i on tape. You can't recreate motion where non exists.

The problem will always remain that 30p into 24p does not go elegantly. There will be serious motion artifacts.

I don't know what you feel will be gained by converting 30p into 24p - are you after more of a 'film look'? It will not add to this. Are you wanting to output to film? You'd be much better off shooting regular 60i for that with the Canon XL1s or get hold of the DVX100a for true 24p.

Best regards,
John.

ok i plan to try the 60i->24p. i'm just experimenting with the film looks, yesh. i may also get the XL2 next spring, but meanwhile... need to emulate some 24p.

"but meanwhile... need to emulate some 24p."

24p won't add anything specifically more filmic than 30p - it's only really useful for where you've shot in the format and plan to work in a 24p timeline for either transfer to film or 24p DVD - but if you haven't shot in 24p it is pretty redundant other than taking 60i interlaced footage for txfr to film.

24p derived from 60i has it's own set of problems too - though not as serious as 30p to 24p - you will get motion artifacts on moving scenes, caused by interpolation of interlaced footage to progressive.

Honestly your best bet is to stick with 30p (frame mode XL1s) and experiment with colour correction etc. 30p progressive can look just as much like 'film' on video as 24p and you will have none of the problems that you are facing now. There is nothing magical about 24p versus 30p that suddenly makes it 'film'.

Best regards,
John.

ok thx =).

Is the 3x wide lens for the Canon XL1s fisheye?