I have the stock XL1 16x lens and the 3x wide. Have been basically dissapointed with both (like the wide better of the two).

Over the next couple of months, I am shooting my first indy feature "film" and have considered the manual 16x (or 14x) for improved picture quality. Is the final product really improved with these manual lenses, or is it basically the ease of manual controls? Any input is appreciated!

I would go with the EOS adapter, but from what I have read here, the multiplier kills "regular" close shots...am I correct?

Also, Chris, we are going to shoot the entire production on the XL1s over 8 weekends near Ganado / Edna Texas (Hwy 59 South between Corpus Christi and Houston) in January and February. If you are interested in coming down to visit / observe / contribute / drink beer, etc., shoot me an e-mail.

I'm committed to spending some money, so which, if any, lens should I be buying here? All input graciously accepted.

P.S. I cannot afford to go out and buy the P&S Technik adapter and a good 35mm lens, so for all you independently wealthy content contributors, please don't go there...unless you have one you can loan me for about 8 weeks...I'll pay S&H!

Howdy!

In order:

The biggest improvement is the ease of manual control, zoom/focus. While many people here have reported a slight improvement in picture quality, several have also said there is almost no difference. Arguably, if you do not need the manual focus/zoom, it's probably not worth the money.

The EOS adapter with Canon EF lenses multiplies the lense by a little over 7 times. This means a 20mm lens will now be over 140mm, killing any wide angle plans you may have, leaving you only close ups. It's best application is wildlife and surveilance.

If you are commited to spending money, that much money, just for the sake of spending it, feel free to send it to me. I take Paypal.

If I was you and I was spending someone elses money, I would consider renting a P&S mini35 adapter and lens. I don't know how much they rent for (alot, I'm sure), and you may not be able to rent one and the lenses you need for 8 seperate weekends for the price of buying a Canon manual lens. But I'd still look into it, you never know.

What disappointed you about the picture quality of the lenses?

If it's sharpness, or lack thereof, that's one of things about the XL1, compared to other miniDV cameras; it's known for it's somewhat softer image. You can always try upping the sharpness on the custom presets.

I checked into renting the P+S Technik. I threw out the quote, but I think the final number was +/- $800 day plus S&H...

Sorry for the confusion...I'm more broke than not...

800 / 900 a day here in NY for a PS technick rental.

Which basically means at 8000$ , ten days shooting, you should arrange to buy one (when shooting with someone elses money!)

<<<-- Originally posted by mbearden : I checked into renting the P+S Technik. I threw out the quote, but I think the final number was +/- $800 day plus S&H...

... -->>>

OUCH!
Someone is racking in the cash there! Was that including lenses?
Does anyone see something wrong with a rental price for 2 weeks that would allow you to just purchase the item outright?

Well, write that off and go back to the advice in my first e-mail. If the image is too soft for you and you want sharper, rent a PD-150. Probably around $100/day.

$ 800 a day for the Mini35? That's bizarre. I just checked with my rental firm in the Netherlands, www.hollandequipment.nl, and they rent out the Mini35 for €150 which is around the same in US dollars... Someone in NY is making a lot of money, or maybe he's making no money at all...

Bar3nd

I hope that rental fee includes $50,000-$100,000 kit/set of prime lens.

If so, that ain't bad . . . really. You can call Stratton camera here in The Detroit area and see what they'll do for you.

It is amazing that for _each_ "slight" increase in quality you pay out the nose.
If you do rent the PS and lens kit, you'll get better results, but the XL1s/PS/film lens combo still won't be as good as 16mm. It's softer.

I just did a film style shoot with XL1 and various canon video lens. All I could think after working hard on lighting each shot was, "If this was 16mm, we'd be there."

OTOH, everyone who looked at the clips was impressed, so at that point,
the content should take over and do its work, AND we did the shoot for CHEAP.

<<<-- Originally posted by Josh Bass : What disappointed you about the picture quality of the lenses?

If it's sharpness, or lack thereof, that's one of things about the XL1, compared to other miniDV cameras; it's known for it's somewhat softer image. You can always try upping the sharpness on the custom presets. -->>>

I don't think the XL-1 (not s) has such setting? please correct me if I'm wrong, I would like to know myself how to increase the sharpness or even get better focus, because looking through the view finder is a hit and miss issue for me.

Some of my shots are in focus and some aren't.

I have XL-1.

Thanks,
Shlooky

<<<-- Originally posted by Shloooky : <<<-- You can always try upping the sharpness on the custom presets. -->>>

I don't think the XL-1 (not s) has such setting? please correct me if I'm wrong, I would like to know myself how to increase the sharpness or even get better focus, because looking through the view finder is a hit and miss issue for me.

Some of my shots are in focus and some aren't.

I have XL-1.

Thanks,
Shlooky -->>>

You are correct Shlooky. There isn't really much you can do. If you can afford to throw money atr it, you can get one of the manual lenses ans the black and white viewfinder. That should make a huge improvement for you. Otherwise, I usualy just use the push autofocus botton to set my focus. The camera always seems to do a better job than my manual focusing. Sometimes. :)

Thanks Dylan,

You are right, another suggestion on the Watch Dog site is to buy a $500 colour or LCD screen which should also do the trick.
Because when I lug around my 13 inch TV, I get perfect picture because I know if the cam is in focus or not.

Cheers,
Shlooky

The smartest purchase I have ever made with my XL1s is getting a manual lense!! Gone are the days of spinning and searching for a focus. Now I know which direction will give me focus by the direction my subjcets are moving. Forget the automatic focus on the stock lenses. If you need the camera to be focusing for you, then you shouldn't be handling any cameras in the first place. Practice and experience with a manual lense, then you will know where to set your focus without having to do the "zoom in for focus" on the subject and pull out. Manual lenses are where true photography is at!!!
Kelly

<<<-- Originally posted by Kelly Hoggard : If you need the camera to be focusing for you, then you shouldn't be handling any cameras in the first place.
Kelly -->>>


I prefer to use the push autofocus feature on my XL1 rather than my manual focus. Why? Because I trust the autofocus of the camera more than I trust the so-so picture my eye sees through the viewfinder. My eyes can't tell exactly when the camera is in perfect focus because the EVF isn't detailed enough.
If I had the higher quality B&W viewfinder, this would not be the case.

And of course in your comment, you aren't referring to anyone that does sports photography or anything else that requires shooting a moving object. These people might take offense at your comment about using autofocus.

I still disagree with this. If you twiddle the focus ring back and forth over that point of perfect focus, in manual focus mode, you can tell when it's as sharp as it's going to get, even with the color viewfinder. I'll say though, that it is harder with the stock lens than with the 16x manual, but I blame that on the focus ring on the stock lens rather than the viewfinder quality.

Perhaps its a psychological issue for me in that I am used to a much crisper focus/picture off my SLR camera than the XL1's lens (in the viewfinder). As much as I fiddle the ring back and forth, I can't get an image crisp enough to satisfy me. By using the push focus, I know it's going to be as crisp as it's gonna get.
I know the manual lens and B&W VF would change that, but I really don't have any problem using the push focus.

Using my LCD monitor is much easier, but it isn't attached to the camera all the time.

Dylan,
First of all I guess I should not be so harsh about peoples problems with focusing because I understand we are all in the same "club" here. I simply hate to see people frustrated with an art that is not an easy one. Everyone thinks they are a shooter, and shooting is supposed to be uncomplicated and something everyman can do--And it's not. This is why I kind of lose a little of my patience when I see someone having a hard time focusing when the camera will not do it for them. Plus, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think NFL films has ever had an auto focus device in their 35mm film cameras as they zoom tight to a football screaming at 60 miles an hour towards them. Hope I'm not being an ass**** because I really am not one (honestly). Just wish people would start using their skills and quit relying on equipment to do all their work (guess I am kind of from the old school).
Kelly

<<<<First of all I guess I should not be so harsh about peoples problems with focusing because I understand we are all in the same "club" here. I simply hate to see people frustrated with an art that is not an easy one. Everyone thinks they are a shooter, and shooting is supposed to be uncomplicated and something everyman can do--And it's not. This is why I kind of lose a little of my patience when I see someone having a hard time focusing when the camera will not do it for them. Plus, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think NFL films has ever had an auto focus device in their 35mm film cameras as they zoom tight to a football screaming at 60 miles an hour towards them. Hope I'm not being an ass**** because I really am not one (honestly). Just wish people would start using their skills and quit relying on equipment to do all their work (guess I am kind of from the old school).>>>>

There's nothing wrong with being old school. However, there's nothing wrong with using your camera's automatic features to their full potential. In most situations you cannot do a better job of focusing your camera than it can. Plus it will do it almost instantly. I don't know about you, but my time is money. An extra minute focusing manualy per shot, times 50 shots...

And personaly, I can focus as well as anyone here. Up until 2 months ago, my SLR camera for the last 10 years has been a 35 year old Pentax with zero automatic capabilities. Hell, the light meter doesn't even work. On the new EOS Elan I just bought, I mostly use the manual focus unless I'm shooting fast moving subjects. On the XL1, I don't like the focus rings, and find the VF image is lacking, so I prefer using the autofocus for it's speed and accuracy.

I don't see why exactly you are losing patience, could you please be more specific?

Also
If we went out to an NFL football game, would we find anyone with their SLR camera's autofocus set to "OFF"? I don't know, I'd like someone with experience in this area to chip in.

Most Press Photographers I know use AF, including the sports ones. The current generation of AF in 35mm SLR's is better than the human eye in most conditions. Video AF is a different matter. The lenses made for ENG and EFP video cameras are all manual focus. AF is only found on consumer and prosumer video cameras.

Jeff

The problem with auto focus on a video camera is that so often it doesn't know exactly what to focus on, and consequently "hunts" for focus during the shot. That's annoying. I've seen it happen a lot and, for my own work, turn it off.

As a photographer for a newspaper, I've seen a lot of guys start relying on autofocus lenses for sports photography and they come up with excellent results. The difference is that for still photography the shot needs to be in focus only for that moment, and that it doesn't matter much if the camera makes lots of abrupt focal adjustments for its target. A lot more sports photographers are depending on the newest autofocus lenses and cameras and the number of sharp images during a game have gone up. Focal adjustments, or any other adjustments, have to be made smoothly during a video shot to avoid drawing attention to itself.

By the way, I once hired a fellow still photographer to shoot second camera for an event and the result was video which contained lots of sudden focus adjustments during the shoot -- even when the framed image remained more or less static. The image would get deliberately tossed out of focus, then back into focus after some experimentaton. It's a habit many still photographers have and they don't realize that it's something you don't do with video. We both learned something important back then.

Dean Sensui
Base Two Productions

<<<-- Originally posted by dc_sensui : The problem with auto focus on a video camera is that so often it doesn't know exactly what to focus on, and consequently "hunts" for focus during the shot. That's annoying. I've seen it happen a lot and, for my own work, turn it off.

Dean Sensui
Base Two Productions -->>>

Agreed. My autofocus is always OFF. I can't stand seeing amateur video on TV hunting for focus all the time. If I need to focus on the fly, I use the push focus.

Most of the programmes I make are in an operating theatre with the auto focus off. I had to shoot a fire exercise where a ward was evacuated. As it was to be a 'fly on the wall' style, with no retakes I put the auto focus on. The camera was hand held as I had to follow patients as they were dragged down stairs strapped in their evacuation mattress's.

I hate it.

The constant hunting is a real pain and I find it quite off putting. Lucky for me the staff who requested the video think it was an intention effect on my part to add to the 'drama' of the event :-)

Never again.

Ross

Ross, next time a situation like that occurs, why not leave the camera completely wide, and just dolly your body in and out as needed? This should guarantee that everything in your shots is in focus (unless you're using a lens with a minimum focal distance).

Earlier I was talking about VIDEO cameras in auto focus. No offense, but still photography is a whole different breed of shooter.

Fine, video cameras then. What was your point?

Dylan.
My point is, you wrote "These people might take offense at your comment about using autofocus." I don't blame still photographers for using AF. But I don't see where VIDEOgraphers need to spend more money on LCD's or B&W viewfinders (although these things are nice to have), when a manual lense and a little practice can solve a lot of problems. This is my point. From your post I seem to feel you agree with that.

The reason to buy B & W view finders is the higher resolution. The small, low resolution, color LCD on the XL1/s is not easy to use to accurately determine focus. Pro ENG/EFP video cameras use large B & W view finders. Why? so the videographers can accurately focus the manual lenses on their cameras.

Jeff

That is correct Jeff,
I do understand the reason for a B&W viewfinder. From this thread i see people trying to make shooting easy by spending more money on equipment
that yes, makes shooting easier but will not make you a shooter. My whole point on this thread is that shooting is not easy, I don't care if you spend $1,000 or $10,000. I am just trying to say not to spend tons of money on stuff that may not totally solve your problem. Work at getting a focus with the color viewfinder, I have. Then take that money you save and spend it on your kids. Maybe the best advice is for myself,I should just shut up and stop writing on this thread because I am confusing the subject.

I understand much better what you point is now. To address you point (don't waste your $$, practice and learn your trade) I would counter with the right tool for the job. It would be like training someone to be a house painter and giving them a 1/2 inch brush. Very, very frustrating. Give 'em the right tool for the job.

In my opinion, to put it in the vernacular, the color LCD s**ks. Why increase a novices frustration? He may have a lot of talent, good eye, follows the action, good composition etc. But if the focus is off, the shot is useless. I'll urge anyone to use any advantage he can to get better shots. right tool for the job.

Jeff

Jeff
Yeah, you are absolutely correct. Maybe its the cheapness in me coming out. I really tried to get the B&W viewfinder with my XL1s, but with the manual lense it got to be way out of my budget. I do understand the frustration, sometimes I think everything I have shot for the whole day was out of focus. Someday Canon will have the B&W standard on this model and we'll be the old men saying "in my day we had to look thru that crazy color viewfinder." By the way, how did you know I used to be a house painter? haha

Kelly, Jeff sort of made my point clearer, but I also agree very strongly with you that people should learn to use what they have before upgrading.
And yes, if I had a real manual lens instead of the stock servo lens, I'd probably never touch the autofocus again. But for now I'd rather have the $1500 to spend on myself (no kids yet). :)

I'm still curious--no one has told me yet--does the black and white viewfinder show the WHOLE picture, or just the overscanned portion?

<<<-- Originally posted by Josh Bass : Ross, next time a situation like that occurs, why not leave the camera completely wide, and just dolly your body in and out as needed? This should guarantee that everything in your shots is in focus (unless you're using a lens with a minimum focal distance). -->>>

Ta Josh - will do.

I'm thinking that's the best way to go. Or, learn to be a focal god. Pratice focusing manually when subjects move in and out of the range of focus, till get you get to be as fast or faster than the auto focus. When I watch Access Hollywood and shows of that caliber, I always see the camera guys doing that (I think that's what they're doing anyway).

Interesting thread on focussing etc!
Now imagine standing with your XL1 in the Afican bush on a Big Five Hunt and you have to take a video shot of a hunter shooting say, a Buffalo who is standing amongst bushes and shrubs. . .
1. Autofocus continuously hunts
2. You cannot keep the lens on wide - because you cannot move closer to the subject (the buffalo)
3. Manual focus is extremely difficult because of the shallow depth of field on tele.
4. Turning the ND filter off does not work to get a greater depth of field. The camera keeps on flashing the "ND filter on" in the viewfinder and the maximum iris is on f16 (exactly the f-stop where the Canon gives the poorest definition)
5. And then, wearing specs does not help to try and get one's eye as close as possible to the viewfinder for critical focussing!
While I am battling with all these factors, the hunter might shoot too fast, or the buffalo might run off - and the shot might be lost!
Can a manual lens be the solution??
Ewald

Hi Ewald,

with the std 16X you are able to work around the problem. The manual lens will still not solve your spectacles issue as you will still need to get your face to the viewfinder.

a) Shoot in AV mode and set to f5.6 or f8 (the sweet spot of the lens)
b) Fit a good polariser, you will be amazed at the increase in definition you get in the bush. Also stops the lens down by ~1.5 stops. That with the ND filter will allow you to be at f5.6 / f8. I use a circular polariser as I once read that this is better for autofocus. Many on the forum disagree and say that the cheaper linear polariser is OK. Why take the chance is what I say.
c) Switch the lens to manual focus and use the [Push AF] button to get your initial focus.

Try these first.

How about a telphone number?

Cheers
Andrew

PS: Get a monopod, will help greatly for the shakes.

Thanks Andrew!
Check out www.intovideo.co.za
Ewald

I don't think a manual lens is necessarily the answer, either. In these type shots, I worry less about the limitation of diffraction and go for the maximum Depth of Field. If the shot is not useable because of DOF or focus limitations it is unusable. But if it is a little soft because of diffraction the shot will still look fine on most TV's. set your aperture to the largest numerical number, which will provide the largest DOF. Push AF will also prevent the hunting that you find annoying.

Jeff