a newer version of the 3x lens to match the XL2?

[Yi Fong Yu]

I've read there are limitations of the 3x lens on the XL1s, that it is soft/blurry for landscape wide pan shots. If you put 3x lens on the XL2 it may resolved cause of resolution but do you think Canon will come out with a newer version of 3x lens to match their XL2? speculations? I'm thinking about 3x lens... and if I get that and it goes out of date... I'd be a very poor miser.

[Aaron Koolen]

I'm more interested to see just what "higher" resolution they'll get anyway because DV is 720 wide, and you have no choice about that. There might be a slight improvement, but enough to warrant better glass on a lens?

Aaron

[Jean-Philippe Archibald]

If Canon plans to come with a new wide angle lens, I wish that it be fully manual, like the 14X.

[Barry Green]

If Canon comes out with a new lens, I hope it works like the DVX lens: full auto, full manual, and OIS. A lens like that would make the XL2 compelling indeed.

[Yi Fong Yu]

so no1 has news or rumours about a new lens for our XL series of cams? i mean is 3x gonna continue to be the sole contender in the widescreen arena?

[Dylan Couper]

No news.

I'd like to see a new wideangle also have a bit more zoom, like a 5x or so.

[John Mercer]

Hello to all, great forum, and this is my first reply - sorry to be slightly contentious.

"If Canon comes out with a new lens, I hope it works like the DVX lens: full auto, full manual, and OIS. A lens like that would make the XL2 compelling indeed."

Barry I have great respect for you and your anamorphic lens guide is a great idea, but I must take slight exception to what you say - I feel you have a slight bias which you declare by being a 'DVXuser'.

The DVX100 lens is not a 'full manual' lens in the sense of a truly professional one. It is a fixed servo lens with mechanical zoom, despite the fact that there is novel way to dial in focus. It is also rather limited in its range being only 10x. You can change it only with add on adaptors.

To critisice the Canon XL2 for it's lens is somewhat nit-picking. It has an interchangeable lens system. There is a very good 16x true manual lens available which corresponds very well with other professional lenses. What other professional lens has OIS - if you want OIS then the 20x is the answer; if you are shooting in a professional manner then use the 16x manual - the Canon XL cameras are the only ones at this level that allow you to change the lens.

What makes the XL2 'compelling' is true 16:9, interchangeable lenses, at last colour bars with 1KHz tone, XLR with phantom, 24/25p, SMPTE TC with user bits, ability to fit a truly pro viewfinder etc. Currently a combination available on no other prosumer camera at this level.

I have seen the debates about chip size, and we will have to wait for more reviews from respected people, but all I can say from downloading the few test shots (PAL) and comparing them to my XL1s and similar test shots from the PAL DVX100 on a broadcast monitor, this camera is very promising - I think it is markedly superior to the former and favourably compares to the latter. This is just my view of course though and I feel it is premature and foolhardy to prejudge either way.

Best regards
John

BTW Barry can I buy your guide in Europe and is the information still relevant for use with the XL1s? (I use the Panasonic adaptor with the XL1s 16x servo lens - works very well)

[Barry Green]

Originally posted by John Mercer : Hello to all, great forum, and this is my first reply - sorry to be slightly contentious.

I feel you have a slight bias which you declare by being a 'DVXuser'.

Not sure where you're coming from -- although I guess you're trying to imply that because I'm a DVX user, that I'm trying to put the XL2 down for some childish "mine is better than yours" reason?

Yes, I am a DVX user. I'm also a VX1000, VX2000, PD150, DSR250, DSR300, DSR500, and GL1 user, as well as owner/operator of various 16mm and 35mm movie cameras. And I am on record as saying that I'm very interested in the XL2, it has some significant unique features that the DVX doesn't offer, and I am quite interested in buying one. I'm all for "the right tool for the job", regardless of who the manufacturer is.

The DVX100 lens is not a 'full manual' lens in the sense of a truly professional one.

I know extremely well what the DVX lens is, of course. What I'm saying is, USE IT -- it gives you absolutely all the control that you NEED. The lens may or may not have pure mechanical linkage to the focus mechanism, but it sure acts like it. You can precisely control focus and execute REPEATABLE focus marks. It is miles and leagues better than the PD150-class manual focus ring. And the fact that it reports the physical position of the focus elements is a supreme bonus. It isn't exactly the same as a physical manual focus, but it's a case of where it's finally "good enough", and the only prosumer camera that has a lens focus system that's "good enough". And that's the minimum standard I find acceptable now. I cannot go back to the vague no-feedback servo system. And now that Panasonic's shown that it can be done "right", I see no reason why Canon or other manufacturers couldn't adopt a similar feedback system.

It is also rather limited in its range being only 10x.

Well, yeah. We all know that. And that's one of the more compelling reasons to consider an XL2. And if they make it with precise manual focus control, the XL2 becomes nearly irresistible.

There is a very good 16x true manual lens available which corresponds very well with other professional lenses.

Yes, there is. But if you use it, you lose autofocus, and you lose OIS. Why? I want both. That's what I'm asking Canon for. The camera would undeniably be better if it offered a lens that gave you the precision and control of the manual focus & zoom, while also offering the convenience of power zoom, autofocus, and OIS. Seeing as the competition offers it, I really don't see how I'm asking for "too much". And it's just a wish list item anyway... I think the XL2 is a very intriguing camera that may very well get my dollars once I have a chance to test it. But I am hesitant about the servo-focus system.

What other professional lens has OIS - if you want OIS then the 20x is the answer; if you are shooting in a professional manner then use the 16x manual

I want both. Anyone who's used the DVX would want both as well, because now you know you don't have to settle for one or the other, you can have both. And I only use the DVX as the example because it's the only camera I've used that has both. THere's nothing DVX vs. Canon going on here, it's just an example of a better way, and I'd like Canon to adopt the better way. They matched basically every other feature of the DVX... why miss this one?

the Canon XL cameras are the only ones at this level that allow you to change the lens.

Depends on what you mean by "this level"... the JVC DV5000 is the same price, allows you to change lenses with an actual industry-standard lens mount instead of a proprietary mount, and gives you true 1/2" CCD's as well.

Canon got it nearly exactly right with the XL2 (from the specs, at least). The only thing I can gripe about is the focus/zoom system. That's it. Everything else looks right. So fix the focus/zoom and the camera may be perfect (emphasis on *may*, until we see the footage). And I may get one anyway, and just go body-only and use it as the ultimate mini35 rig, so the lens issue may be a non-issue.

All I'm saying is, I want the 20x reach, the fluorite glass, the superb OIS, just add precise manual focus and zoom control and it'll be perfect. Give it controls that are at least the equivalent of the DVX (a 2-year-old camera, not too much to ask, right?) and it'd be irresistible.

BTW Barry can I buy your guide in Europe and is the information still relevant for use with the XL1s? (I use the Panasonic adaptor with the XL1s 16x servo lens - works very well)

Haven't used that particular combination, but some of the information would be relevant. Certainly all the explanations would be directly relevant. The guide gets most of its utility from the focus/aperture charts, which tell you what focus setting you need to be at to get proper focus at certain distances (or AF settings), and what aperture you need to be at when at certain zoom lengths/focus distances to get sharp focus. With the XL1 lens at equivalent focal lengths you could probably get identical results. But for the longer end of the lens, there aren't charts or distances factored in, so you might be limited to going no further than 45mm on your lens. And the focus compensation charts are based on the DVX's focus readout system, so I don't know how you would compensate for that on the XL1... might be possible, but I don't know how...

[John Mercer]

Thanks for your reply Barry and for the info on your guide.

"Not sure where you're coming from -- although I guess you're trying to imply that because I'm a DVX user, that I'm trying to put the XL2 down for some childish "mine is better than yours" reason?"

Not at all - I am suggesting that since you clearly have a preference for the DVX100, involved in the DVX100 community, are a current user, and some of what say about the XL2 appeared to me unfair, then I felt there was a slight understandable bias for this reason - nothing more. Sorry if you felt I was having a go.

You may want OIS and autofocus and full manual control in the same lens but I don't, and neither does it appear the high end pro camera manufactuers have a demand for it or see it as a limitation. In what circumstances would you be able to use OIS and pull both focus and zoom at the same time? OIS is for hand held only right? I have shot with the DVX100, great camera but you most certainly cannot pull focus on it like a pro lens whilst hand holding it.

The other thing is people have to really wait to see how this 20x lens pans out before pronouncing final judgement.

The JVC 5000 is most certainly not in the same price bracket as the XL2, in the UK at least, when you factor in the full kit including a GOOD lens and batteries, AND crucially it is not 16:9 - I need 16:9; most European broadcasters do too - this leaves the JVC GY 7000 and beyond and there is still no prog scan - I want that.

The point is this (the OIS lens issue) is not a standard thing that most people are crying out for, and it is a little unfair to criticise the XL2 on such a marginal lack or issue, as I see it, when most every other camera doesn't have it either. It seems you have gone some way to pick about the only thing that the DVX100 has over the XL2, whilst the XL2 has most everything on the DVX100 and then some.

Whilst that may be a perfectly valid concern for you it may not bother many other people generally. If when comprehensive tests come out there are problems with the quality of the image or other functional issues, these will be of more pertinent concern to most people.

Best Regards,
John.

[Chris Hurd]

<< I am suggesting that since you clearly have a preference for the DVX100, involved in the DVX100 community, are a current user, and some of what say about the XL2 appeared to me unfair, then I felt there was a slight understandable bias for this reason - nothing more >>

That's still a bit unfair to Barry. I don't see a bias at all. His points regarding the XL2 20x lens are dead on and I agree with him right down the line. Most users of this camera would have benefitted more from a true manual lens with auto focus and OIS. As long as Canon is borrowing Panasonic's 24p implementation, they should have gone even farther and emulated Panasonic's focus and zoom numbering system.

Instead of the 20x L IS lens (which is wonderful for anyone needing a very long focal length), I would have preferred a short, wide lens with true manual focus, auto focus, OIS, and analog control rings for focus, zoom and iris. I'm sure Barry and many others would agree. If that would have inflated the price by another grand, so be it. It'll find its market.

You can't blame Barry for his deep online involvement with the DVX, it is a complete home run for Panasonic and its customers as well. It's a superb camera. No wonder it attracts DP's of his caliber. Let's please not get into branding wars. These are just tools in the long run. And very interesting ones at that!

[Jim Martin]

MOST PEOPLE THAT WE DEAL WITH GO FOR THE CENTURY .7X WIDE ANGLE CONVERTER....IT GIVES YOU ALMOST THE SAME WIDE AS THE 3X, AT HALF THE MONEY AND YOU STILL HAVE A FULL ZOOM(ON THE 16X AUTO,16X MAN, OR 14X MAN).....BY THE WAY, AS A DEALER WE ARE VERY EXCITED ABOUT THE XL2. WE THINK ITS GOING TO DO VERY WELL, PARTICULARLY WITH OUR CLIENTS SHOOTING THEATRICAL PROJECTS AND MORE SO TO ALL THE "US AGAINST THEM" PEOPLE BANTERING ABOUT THE DVX VS THE XL2, HEY! NOW EVERYONE HAS 2 CHOICES OUT THERE TO GET THE BEST CAMERA FOR THE JOB THEY ARE DOING. SO....ENJOY AND HAPPY SHOOTING
.....JIM

[Chris Hurd]

Hi Jim,

It looks like your CAPS LOCK key is stuck on -- you'd better un-stick it or I'll have Jimmy Stewart and Johnny Carson pay you a house call (that's an inside joke between me and Jim).

Unfortunately, the new 20x L IS lens is not compatible with Century wide angle adapter in its current form. See my XL2 User Tips page for a detailed explanation. Hope this helps,

[Barry Green]

I am suggesting that since you clearly have a preference for the DVX100, involved in the DVX100 community, are a current user, and some of what say about the XL2 appeared to me unfair, then I felt there was a slight understandable bias for this reason - nothing more.

But... I've been a member of DVINFO.NET for about a year before I even started on dvxuser.com... I've been shooting DV since the first VX1000 came out. I use many different cameras, the DVX is just one of them (although, admittedly, it is certainly the most-used camera now). I used Sony's exclusively, until the Panasonic came out. It was a good enough tool that I converted to using it primarily. If the Canon proves to be a superior-enough tool, I would convert to using it. I'm no brand bigot, I use the best tool for the job, regardless of who makes it.

In what circumstances would you be able to use OIS and pull both focus and zoom at the same time?

I don't know when you'd want to do that, nor am I overly concerned about that. I want a lens that provides precise manual control for zoom and focus. I want a lens that has superb OIS (better than the DVX's). And I want that lens to have autofocus and power zoom too. The DVX comes close -- it provides almost everything I need. The XL2 could have been better. I am disappointed that it doesn't have true manual focus, and to get manual focus I'd have to give up OIS and autofocus.

What I'm saying is, why should it be this way? If the competition could do it two years ago, why can't Canon do it now? Canon is, afterall a LENS COMPANY, and they make some absolutely superb lenses. If anyone can do it, they should be able to. And they should do it. Better is better.

I have shot with the DVX100, great camera but you most certainly cannot pull focus on it like a pro lens whilst hand holding it.

But you can certainly pull focus on it under all circumstances better than you can on any other prosumer camera with a typical "servo" focus ring. That's what I'm looking for: class-leading performance. Canon can give it to us, that's one of the major advantages of having the interchangeable-lens system. And all I said at the beginning of this thread was, if Canon's going to make a new lens, they should make it with the best technology available. What's wrong with that?

The JVC 5000 is most certainly not in the same price bracket as the XL2, in the UK at least

Can't speak to the UK market, but here in the US you can get a DV5000 with a Canon 16x lens and viewfinder for $5399. XL2 is slated to carry a price of $4999. Batteries will be more expensive, yes.

It seems you have gone some way to pick about the only thing that the DVX100 has over the XL2

Although I don't accept your premise that that's the only thing the DVX has over the XL2 (until it's tested properly), let me say this: yes, you're right. Of course. Why wouldn't I point that out? I said the XL2 (on paper) looks nearly perfect. If they come out with a new lens that addresses the camera's ONLY SHORTCOMING, then it would be nigh irresistable.

If Sony introduces a 3-CCD HDV camera that has every feature anyone could want, EXCEPT 24P, then I'd criticize it for not having that feature, because clearly a lot of people want that feature. The difference is, if Sony did that, there'd be no way to fix it! Canon COULD fix this shortcoming, by designing a lens that operates at least as well as the DVX's does. I don't see why anyone would have a problem with that idea. Better is better. The XL2 is the new kid on the block, it's had a chance to learn from all the others, and it took basically every good idea the DVX had. Why not go all the way and offer this one last thing?

The XL2 would be a better camera if it had a lens with precise manual focus control, precise manual zoom, Canon's excellent image stabilization, power zoom and autofocus. Those are all within reach. I would suspect that everyone getting an XL2 could appreciate a lens like that. Canon could do it. I hope they do.

[John Mercer]

"You can't blame Barry for his deep online involvement with the DVX, it is a complete home run for Panasonic and its customers as well. It's a superb camera. No wonder it attracts DP's of his caliber. Let's please not get into branding wars. These are just tools in the long run. And very interesting ones at that!"

Hi Chris,

I don't think I am blaming or being unfair to Barry! I am saying that I feel he has slight (italics) understandable bias, as many here may have a slight bias towards Canon - perhaps myself included.

I am not getting into a branding war, I agree the DVX100 is a great camera with fantastic image quality - but this is a forum for the XL2, and all I can see is rather theoretical critisims about it from Barry in relation to the DVX100 that skew the real picture of the comprehensive feature set offered in the XL2.

I believe they are unfair because yes maybe it would have been fantastic to have a full manual lens with OIS, but none exists in professional circles - why? Because they use other devices such as Steadicam and interchangeable wide angle lenses. The point is it is one thing to say it would be nice to have this feature and quite another to criticise the XL2 for not having it, when it has a much better thing - interchangeable lenses. Maybe they'll introduce such a lens as you ask for? The point is with interchangeable lens systems you do that.

It amazes me that people talk about $4999 (a price that is bound to come down mind) as if it were 15k, and that for this price the XL2 should have absolutely everything, no excuses! This is patently unfair.

Look Chris I don't want to get into a protracted argument in my first few posts, that was never my intention - I'm here to contribute not argue, and as I've said I have great respect for Barry. But by saying I am being unfair to Barry you lock the discussion out - there is a legitimate counter viewpoint here I feel, but I shall rest my case in this post.

Barry,

I agree the DVX100 has the very next best thing to a full manual pro lens and is much better than Canon's servo offerings - but unfortunately it is fixed and of limited zoom range. So it is somewhat moot for me.

"Can't speak to the UK market, but here in the US you can get a DV5000 with a Canon 16x lens and viewfinder for $5399. XL2 is slated to carry a price of $4999. Batteries will be more expensive, yes."

Again, not the case in the UK and I can only repeat - this is moot - no 16:9 solution of ANY kind, and no progressive scan, and therefore it is an apples to oranges comparison.

"If they come out with a new lens that addresses the camera's ONLY SHORTCOMING, then it would be nigh irresistable."

I accept every camera has shortcomings and you can fairly criticise them - it's just that I find it very hard to believe that anyone would find this a major shortcoming, why not criticise the DSR 500 for the same reason - it's something quite specific that you want. I want interchangeable lenses with true 16:9, which the XL2 has and I think this far outweighs the shortcoming. Plus a small thing like 1KHz tone with colour bars is very important to me and a welcome feature at this level.

I accept for you the OIS issue is a shortcoming that could have been addressed by Canon, but for me they've addressed the major issues and frankly that is one that never occured to me.

Best regards,
John.

[Barry Green]

Hey John,

No problem whatsoever. To each his own. The only thing that has me raising my eyebrows at all is this subtext of "you're a DVX user, therefore you're not allowed to comment on the XL2"...

You're correct the DSR500 doesn't offer that as an option. But in the future cameras like it will. For the longest time professional cameras didn't offer a flip-out LCD... but now they're starting to. Everyone used to think autofocus was "unprofessional"... now every SLR on the market has autofocus.

You place a premium on interchangeable lenses. Obviously that's a good feature, but it hasn't stopped Sony from selling hundreds of thousands of PD150's. Would the PD150 be a better camera with interchangeable lenses? Undoubtedly.

Would the XL2 be a better camera if its lens offered true manual focus together with OIS and manual zoom? Undoubtedly. To argue against that notion is puzzling to me.

Without the ability to execute precise manual focus, the camera becomes somewhat limited for my purposes. Without the ability to interchange lenses, the DVX is limited for your purposes. To each his own. All I've been saying is, hey Canon, next time you introduce a lens, can you please make it this way? For the life of me I can't understand how someone could have a problem with that concept. People said "hey Canon, could you make your camera higher-res?" And they did. They said "could you make it 24P?" And they did. They said "Could you add real XLR connections with phantom power?" And they did. "Could you give it full-res 16:9?" They did. So now, to that list, I say "Could you give it a lens that has true manual focus, true manual zoom, autofocus, power zoom, and OIS?" And, because of the interchangeable lens system, Canon CAN do that. And they should. It would make the camera even better than it is.