a newer version of the 3x lens to match the XL2?

Stephen van Vuuren · August 1st, 2004, 10:48 PM

Despite the fact I have a clear bias towards Canons (I own a Canon Powershot A70, Optura 40, and Elan 7e with three gorgeous prime lenses), I have to point out why I'm not buying the XL2 - no new manual lenses.

The XL2 will not be the prosumer king until it leverages the interchangeable lens system to better advantage. Right now, it only looks stronger than the DVX as a long telephoto camera or as mini35 rig.

My first camera was an XL1 with wide & 14x manaul. But although I enjoyed that camera and shot a lot of footage with it (and liked it far better than a VX1000/2000), I never felt it really delivered the lens options I wanted.

I was recently inbetween cameras. I waited patiently for the XL2 announcement, but then just bought a DXV100a. Why? It came down to bang for the buck.

After buy a XL2 & 20x (to get OIS), 16x manual and 3x wide, I've spent quite a chunk of change and ended up with compromised lens solution that leaves me no wider than a DVX100a, some really long telephoto of limited value (since I don't shoot nature or sports) and no clear reason as why it's worth nearly double the price.

If, however the XL2 had been released with a 14x lens (equivalent to say 22mm - 158mm 35mm) with manual focus and OIS, I probably would have put up with the form factor and lack of LCD regardless of the price difference.

But since no new manual lenses were announced, I could not justify the price.

I certainly hope Canon does rectify this. I would consider adding or replacing my DVX100a if this occurs and the XL2 image is equal or better to the DVX100a, especially in 16:9 mode.

But for now, for those of us who have to consider overall image quality and usability compared to dollars, to me the DVX100a is still the cam to beat in the miniDV universe.

Aaron Koolen · August 2nd, 2004, 01:42 AM

It sort of feels to me as if Canon didn't identify their market, or at least aggressively aim at it. The press release says it's for ENG and/or filmmaking and they've added bits for each but not, from what I can tell, all the must haves that anyone who was just in one of those fields would want (assuming low "5k" budget of course). Hence they won't jump at it.

Maybe all the people they talked to said "I don't need OIS with my manual lens" or "I don't want a good default wide angle" or "I don't care about 1/4" effective chip DoF in 4:3"

Aaron

Jeff Donald · August 2nd, 2004, 08:10 AM

Canon identified their market all right. But unfortunately, the primary market of the XL1 is not independent film makers. Indies are more than a drop in the bucket, but not the market factor we may think we are.

Dylan Couper · August 2nd, 2004, 05:01 PM

Aaron, I'm not sure why you don't think this is a great ENG/event camera. IMHO, it outclasses every other 1/3"chip camera in this field as far as ENG/event goes, except for the price.
As far as the indie film market goes, the only thing I think the DVX100 has over it is a wider lens at the base price. Besides, as Jeff says, that market is a drop in the bucket.

As far as your other points:
There aren't many manual video lenses out there than have OIS, that aren't several times more than the price of this camera. Canon isn't going to bundle a $20,000 lens with a $4,000 body.

Most people that buy these cameras are not film students, and acutally work with them and make money. Shelling out an extra $1400 for the 3x wide angle lens isn't a big deal. Really, it's chump change when your average job pays for the camera entirely.

And finally, no, most people don't care about 1/4" effective DOF in a 1/3" chip. I think most people would rather have true 16:9. The only people who really REALLY care about it are the indie film people, and again... drop in the bucket. The series filmmakers who use it can rent a mini35 to fix that problem.

Aaron Koolen · August 2nd, 2004, 05:23 PM

First, I admit I'm no pro - that's out of the way ;)

Second - I've always said we need to see some real tests of the cam - so obviously all these things are rumminations.

I guess as far as ENG stuff goes, most ENG cameras shoot 4:3 - but they've made the CCD 1/4" an inch in this mode. The pixels are also going to have to be small cause of the higher res. So because of this most peple are wondering how the sensitivity is going to hold up.

I wasn't expecting a fully manual/OIS lens that's like a 20K lens. I more wonder why they didn't add to the stock lens, repeatable barrel markings like the DVX. Panasonic did it, I'm sure Canon can. The ENGers wouldn't care the the movie people would love it.

If the Indy market is so tiny compared to the event/eng markets, why didn't they add stuff like timecode syncing. Or give us a good default B&W viewfinder stock (Even just give us underscan on the current one), or give us a good sized LCD and not a 2" thing. Why not give us peaking on the LCD for focus? Would these have really cost them a lot of money?

I think that both of us are right. This camera, to really kick into gear and be a "pro" piece of equipment, requires lots more addons. *BUT* a lot of us are thinking that the price needs to sit around (With a little bit more spending for some things, sure) the 4-5k mark.

When you start adding all these goodies if you're an ENG person, manual lens, B&W viewfinder etc etc then I would have thought that you might as well go out and by a full shoulder rig with 1/2" chips like the DVC200? So as I've said in previous posts, I think this camera Is not in the class of the DVX - it's really in a higher class due to cost but does it deliver that level of class compared to other camers once you've had to spend the extra $$? Dunno.

All this is just gut feeling, from somone who isn't a working video pro, and I have no problem being proven wrong - my ego can handle it ;)

Aaron

Stephen van Vuuren · August 2nd, 2004, 11:00 PM

I think the statement that the indie market is a drop in the bucket compared to ENG/Event in the under $5 camera market needs some strong evidence to back it up.

I would define the "indie market" as the "aspiring filmmaker" market.

First, the more expensive the cam, the lower the overall sales. This automatically puts the DVX in a higher overall sales potential.

Secondly, if our area (Greensboro, NC) is representative of the US market, there are 4 TV station and about 25 video producution companies, most of them 2 person operations or smaller, in the area. Plus a couple of film schools.

The aspriing filmmaker number many more in both people and in cameras of any kind owned. (I run the local indie film group - we have almost 200 members).

If you factor in the most TV stations and many event people want 1/2" and 2/3" inch cams, & that film schools will find the DVX100a's price far more attractive, I fail to see how the event/ENG market is huge and the aspiring filmmaker market is a "drop in the bucket" which implies 1% of the market or less.

I did not find any hard statistics via google, but I would like to see some hard numbers before I buy this "conventional wisdom".

Jeff Donald · August 3rd, 2004, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Indies are more than a drop in the bucket, but not the market factor we may think we are.

. This is my statement, dylan may have a different opinion. Lumping "aspiring filmmaker" in the "indie market" would give false figures in a company trying to determine a market. I have classes full of aspiring filmmakers, but few will be working independent filmmakers. I wouldn't even put the education market in the "indie market" because of the dual roles many of the cameras play in secondary education. The cameras are used for taping sports, training, school functions, but few independent films. Event, ENG, Education and Law Enforcement are much larger markets than the independent film maker in my estimation.

Dylan Couper · August 3rd, 2004, 09:16 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Donald : The cameras are used for taping sports, training, school functions, but few independent films. Event, ENG, Education and Law Enforcement are much larger markets than the independent film maker in my estimation. -->>>

Ditto. Don't forget weddings, documentaries, and the adult film industry.

Stephen van Vuuren · August 3rd, 2004, 10:06 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Donald : . This is my statement, dylan may have a different opinion. Lumping "aspiring filmmaker" in the "indie market" would give false figures in a company trying to determine a market. I have classes full of aspiring filmmakers, but few will be working independent filmmakers. . -->>>

Jeff:

While obviously few will be working indie filmmakers, my point is that related to this thread aspiring filmmakers and indie market look for same features, price points etc. in a camera.

In our community all of the indie filmmakers, inclluding myself, earn little or no money from our films. However, like all artists, we consider ourselves pros and look at equipment that way.

I don't think you can split this market from the standpoint of camera features & pricepoints.

Jeff Donald · August 3rd, 2004, 10:37 AM

I understand your point, Stephen. If I were a manufacture, I would be most concerned with the people that actually buy my product, not window shoppers. The longer lenses and many of the features are designed for the people that are the actual buyers and users. Law enforcement, schools etc. like the extra reach the longer telephotos provide. Wide angle is more of an after thought to these buyers and the screw on adapters are more than adequate for most of their needs.

I agree that Canon has made some accommodations to the indie market with the XL2. I just don't expect them to ignore their core users, which have differing needs than indie filmmakers.

Stephen van Vuuren · August 3rd, 2004, 11:32 AM

Jeff:

But I'm not sure that Law Enforcement, schools is a bigger chunk than the aspiring filmmaker crowd. Plus law enforcement, schools - money is big issue and the XL2 is much more expensive than it's competition.

Barry Green · August 3rd, 2004, 11:54 AM

I take no position on this discussion because I have no idea how many cameras Canon sells to each particular market. However, in almost all the advertising I've seen for the XL1s and GL2 recently, Canon focused specifically on aspiring indie filmmakers. They ran incessant ads featuring Soderbergh and the XL1, and they organized tours promoting the GL2 and how to get a film look out of it.

It would certainly seem that Canon is/was aiming their camera at the aspiring filmmaker as a viable market.

Stephen van Vuuren · August 3rd, 2004, 12:17 PM

Barry:

That's a good point. Every ad I've seen for the DVX100a, XL1s and GL2 have been indie film focused. I think it's also revealing that Panasonic discontinued the DVC80 due to an apparent lack of sales.

Even the DVC30 gets targeted at the indie crowd with the cinegamma and frame mode added in the electronics. And Sony's forthcoming pseudo 24fps consumer cam tells me "indie" feature drive big sales, not ENG/Event features.

John Mercer · August 4th, 2004, 12:37 PM

I think clearly Canon were aiming in part for the 'indie' market with 24/25p and 'cine-gamma' etc. In this respect they were aiming for the same market as the DVX100 and I think they are not going to sell as well in this category, because of the cheaper DVX100.

But Canon have had a strong following in broadcast, corporate and weddings too, and this can be a potentially far larger market than indies. Features like SMPTE TC and colour bars with tone indicate they have certainly considered this angle too.

It doesn't necessarily follow in my view that the XL2 will sell less than the DVX100, based on price or indie use alone - this is only true of a certain type of buyer. Those who need or simply must have true 16:9 and interchangeable lenses together with 24/25p won't find anything similar at this price - nada.

If the XL2 has the picture quality of the DVX100 in 16:9 then it will become an extremely attractive choice and there will be plenty of organisations, individuals and indies buying or renting them regardless of how it compares to other 1/3" chip cameras in price.

Nick Hiltgen · August 4th, 2004, 03:16 PM

I think this talk about which market it's for is a little silly, How many people out there use their camera for just one thing? Sure I'll shoot event footage with the canon but I use the same camera to shoot shorts and (bad) features. Along with weddings and promotional videos.

I think the idea is that you pitch that the camera can be used as a indie film cam but people will then use it for other purposes when they're not shooting movies. (if they bought the camera as a tool to make money)

August 1st, 2004, 10:48 PM	#16
Stephen van Vuuren Space Hipster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Greensboro, NC Posts: 1,508	Despite the fact I have a clear bias towards Canons (I own a Canon Powershot A70, Optura 40, and Elan 7e with three gorgeous prime lenses), I have to point out why I'm not buying the XL2 - no new manual lenses. The XL2 will not be the prosumer king until it leverages the interchangeable lens system to better advantage. Right now, it only looks stronger than the DVX as a long telephoto camera or as mini35 rig. My first camera was an XL1 with wide & 14x manaul. But although I enjoyed that camera and shot a lot of footage with it (and liked it far better than a VX1000/2000), I never felt it really delivered the lens options I wanted. I was recently inbetween cameras. I waited patiently for the XL2 announcement, but then just bought a DXV100a. Why? It came down to bang for the buck. After buy a XL2 & 20x (to get OIS), 16x manual and 3x wide, I've spent quite a chunk of change and ended up with compromised lens solution that leaves me no wider than a DVX100a, some really long telephoto of limited value (since I don't shoot nature or sports) and no clear reason as why it's worth nearly double the price. If, however the XL2 had been released with a 14x lens (equivalent to say 22mm - 158mm 35mm) with manual focus and OIS, I probably would have put up with the form factor and lack of LCD regardless of the price difference. But since no new manual lenses were announced, I could not justify the price. I certainly hope Canon does rectify this. I would consider adding or replacing my DVX100a if this occurs and the XL2 image is equal or better to the DVX100a, especially in 16:9 mode. But for now, for those of us who have to consider overall image quality and usability compared to dollars, to me the DVX100a is still the cam to beat in the miniDV universe. __________________ stephen v2 www.insaturnsrings.com

August 2nd, 2004, 01:42 AM	#17
Aaron Koolen Trustee Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 1,727	It sort of feels to me as if Canon didn't identify their market, or at least aggressively aim at it. The press release says it's for ENG and/or filmmaking and they've added bits for each but not, from what I can tell, all the must haves that anyone who was just in one of those fields would want (assuming low "5k" budget of course). Hence they won't jump at it. Maybe all the people they talked to said "I don't need OIS with my manual lens" or "I don't want a good default wide angle" or "I don't care about 1/4" effective chip DoF in 4:3" Aaron __________________ My Website Meat Free Media

August 2nd, 2004, 08:10 AM	#18
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	Canon identified their market all right. But unfortunately, the primary market of the XL1 is not independent film makers. Indies are more than a drop in the bucket, but not the market factor we may think we are. __________________ Jeff Donald Carpe Diem Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

August 2nd, 2004, 05:01 PM	#19
Dylan Couper Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Posts: 8,314	Aaron, I'm not sure why you don't think this is a great ENG/event camera. IMHO, it outclasses every other 1/3"chip camera in this field as far as ENG/event goes, except for the price. As far as the indie film market goes, the only thing I think the DVX100 has over it is a wider lens at the base price. Besides, as Jeff says, that market is a drop in the bucket. As far as your other points: There aren't many manual video lenses out there than have OIS, that aren't several times more than the price of this camera. Canon isn't going to bundle a $20,000 lens with a $4,000 body. Most people that buy these cameras are not film students, and acutally work with them and make money. Shelling out an extra $1400 for the 3x wide angle lens isn't a big deal. Really, it's chump change when your average job pays for the camera entirely. And finally, no, most people don't care about 1/4" effective DOF in a 1/3" chip. I think most people would rather have true 16:9. The only people who really REALLY care about it are the indie film people, and again... drop in the bucket. The series filmmakers who use it can rent a mini35 to fix that problem. __________________ Need to rent camera gear in Vancouver BC? Check me out at camerarentalsvancouver.com

August 2nd, 2004, 05:23 PM	#20
Aaron Koolen Trustee Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 1,727	First, I admit I'm no pro - that's out of the way ;) Second - I've always said we need to see some real tests of the cam - so obviously all these things are rumminations. I guess as far as ENG stuff goes, most ENG cameras shoot 4:3 - but they've made the CCD 1/4" an inch in this mode. The pixels are also going to have to be small cause of the higher res. So because of this most peple are wondering how the sensitivity is going to hold up. I wasn't expecting a fully manual/OIS lens that's like a 20K lens. I more wonder why they didn't add to the stock lens, repeatable barrel markings like the DVX. Panasonic did it, I'm sure Canon can. The ENGers wouldn't care the the movie people would love it. If the Indy market is so tiny compared to the event/eng markets, why didn't they add stuff like timecode syncing. Or give us a good default B&W viewfinder stock (Even just give us underscan on the current one), or give us a good sized LCD and not a 2" thing. Why not give us peaking on the LCD for focus? Would these have really cost them a lot of money? I think that both of us are right. This camera, to really kick into gear and be a "pro" piece of equipment, requires lots more addons. BUT a lot of us are thinking that the price needs to sit around (With a little bit more spending for some things, sure) the 4-5k mark. When you start adding all these goodies if you're an ENG person, manual lens, B&W viewfinder etc etc then I would have thought that you might as well go out and by a full shoulder rig with 1/2" chips like the DVC200? So as I've said in previous posts, I think this camera Is not in the class of the DVX - it's really in a higher class due to cost but does it deliver that level of class compared to other camers once you've had to spend the extra $$? Dunno. All this is just gut feeling, from somone who isn't a working video pro, and I have no problem being proven wrong - my ego can handle it ;) Aaron __________________ My Website Meat Free Media

August 2nd, 2004, 11:00 PM	#21
Stephen van Vuuren Space Hipster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Greensboro, NC Posts: 1,508	Indie Market drop in bucket? Show me the money I think the statement that the indie market is a drop in the bucket compared to ENG/Event in the under $5 camera market needs some strong evidence to back it up. I would define the "indie market" as the "aspiring filmmaker" market. First, the more expensive the cam, the lower the overall sales. This automatically puts the DVX in a higher overall sales potential. Secondly, if our area (Greensboro, NC) is representative of the US market, there are 4 TV station and about 25 video producution companies, most of them 2 person operations or smaller, in the area. Plus a couple of film schools. The aspriing filmmaker number many more in both people and in cameras of any kind owned. (I run the local indie film group - we have almost 200 members). If you factor in the most TV stations and many event people want 1/2" and 2/3" inch cams, & that film schools will find the DVX100a's price far more attractive, I fail to see how the event/ENG market is huge and the aspiring filmmaker market is a "drop in the bucket" which implies 1% of the market or less. I did not find any hard statistics via google, but I would like to see some hard numbers before I buy this "conventional wisdom". __________________ stephen v2 www.insaturnsrings.com

August 3rd, 2004, 09:16 AM	#23
Dylan Couper Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Posts: 8,314	<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Donald : The cameras are used for taping sports, training, school functions, but few independent films. Event, ENG, Education and Law Enforcement are much larger markets than the independent film maker in my estimation. -->>> Ditto. Don't forget weddings, documentaries, and the adult film industry. __________________ Need to rent camera gear in Vancouver BC? Check me out at camerarentalsvancouver.com

August 3rd, 2004, 10:06 AM	#24
Stephen van Vuuren Space Hipster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Greensboro, NC Posts: 1,508	<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Donald : . This is my statement, dylan may have a different opinion. Lumping "aspiring filmmaker" in the "indie market" would give false figures in a company trying to determine a market. I have classes full of aspiring filmmakers, but few will be working independent filmmakers. . -->>> Jeff: While obviously few will be working indie filmmakers, my point is that related to this thread aspiring filmmakers and indie market look for same features, price points etc. in a camera. In our community all of the indie filmmakers, inclluding myself, earn little or no money from our films. However, like all artists, we consider ourselves pros and look at equipment that way. I don't think you can split this market from the standpoint of camera features & pricepoints. __________________ stephen v2 www.insaturnsrings.com

August 3rd, 2004, 10:37 AM	#25
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	I understand your point, Stephen. If I were a manufacture, I would be most concerned with the people that actually buy my product, not window shoppers. The longer lenses and many of the features are designed for the people that are the actual buyers and users. Law enforcement, schools etc. like the extra reach the longer telephotos provide. Wide angle is more of an after thought to these buyers and the screw on adapters are more than adequate for most of their needs. I agree that Canon has made some accommodations to the indie market with the XL2. I just don't expect them to ignore their core users, which have differing needs than indie filmmakers. __________________ Jeff Donald Carpe Diem Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

August 3rd, 2004, 11:32 AM	#26
Stephen van Vuuren Space Hipster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Greensboro, NC Posts: 1,508	Jeff: But I'm not sure that Law Enforcement, schools is a bigger chunk than the aspiring filmmaker crowd. Plus law enforcement, schools - money is big issue and the XL2 is much more expensive than it's competition. __________________ stephen v2 www.insaturnsrings.com

August 3rd, 2004, 11:54 AM	#27
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	I take no position on this discussion because I have no idea how many cameras Canon sells to each particular market. However, in almost all the advertising I've seen for the XL1s and GL2 recently, Canon focused specifically on aspiring indie filmmakers. They ran incessant ads featuring Soderbergh and the XL1, and they organized tours promoting the GL2 and how to get a film look out of it. It would certainly seem that Canon is/was aiming their camera at the aspiring filmmaker as a viable market.

August 3rd, 2004, 12:17 PM	#28
Stephen van Vuuren Space Hipster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Greensboro, NC Posts: 1,508	Barry: That's a good point. Every ad I've seen for the DVX100a, XL1s and GL2 have been indie film focused. I think it's also revealing that Panasonic discontinued the DVC80 due to an apparent lack of sales. Even the DVC30 gets targeted at the indie crowd with the cinegamma and frame mode added in the electronics. And Sony's forthcoming pseudo 24fps consumer cam tells me "indie" feature drive big sales, not ENG/Event features. __________________ stephen v2 www.insaturnsrings.com

August 4th, 2004, 12:37 PM	#29
John Mercer Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Spain Posts: 73	I think clearly Canon were aiming in part for the 'indie' market with 24/25p and 'cine-gamma' etc. In this respect they were aiming for the same market as the DVX100 and I think they are not going to sell as well in this category, because of the cheaper DVX100. But Canon have had a strong following in broadcast, corporate and weddings too, and this can be a potentially far larger market than indies. Features like SMPTE TC and colour bars with tone indicate they have certainly considered this angle too. It doesn't necessarily follow in my view that the XL2 will sell less than the DVX100, based on price or indie use alone - this is only true of a certain type of buyer. Those who need or simply must have true 16:9 and interchangeable lenses together with 24/25p won't find anything similar at this price - nada. If the XL2 has the picture quality of the DVX100 in 16:9 then it will become an extremely attractive choice and there will be plenty of organisations, individuals and indies buying or renting them regardless of how it compares to other 1/3" chip cameras in price.

August 4th, 2004, 03:16 PM	#30
Nick Hiltgen Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Atlanta GA Posts: 1,427	I think this talk about which market it's for is a little silly, How many people out there use their camera for just one thing? Sure I'll shoot event footage with the canon but I use the same camera to shoot shorts and (bad) features. Along with weddings and promotional videos. I think the idea is that you pitch that the camera can be used as a indie film cam but people will then use it for other purposes when they're not shooting movies. (if they bought the camera as a tool to make money)