Canon 3x wide angle lens at DVinfo.net

Yi Fong Yu · July 14th, 2004, 10:47 AM

will 3x wide will look better than 20x (L) lens on the xl2? i mean with 'native' 16:9 support now 3x should look better, at least in theory.

Chris Hurd · July 20th, 2004, 11:13 AM

Don Berube shot a little at DV Expo with the 3x lens; hopefully he'll offer some input on his experience.

Yi Fong Yu · July 20th, 2004, 04:20 PM

hpoefully (rubs palms together in a sinister way) some screencaps? =^).

Alain Aguilar · July 20th, 2004, 07:26 PM

I hope it works better on the new XL2. I still have Xl1 with the 3x, however it seemed to give the image a very slight blur look.

Dylan Couper · July 20th, 2004, 08:34 PM

I think it would still be soft. I hope they'll introduce a new, sharper 3x. With manual focus and zoom. Black. Yeah..... That'd be sweet.

Yi Fong Yu · July 20th, 2004, 10:08 PM

so from experience you guys think that 3x is very blurry?

Ken Tanaka · July 20th, 2004, 10:23 PM

No. The 3x lens is not really the key culprit although it can get a little edge fuzz at open aperture. The resolution of most of these prosumer cameras is simply not good enough to do justice to wide shots. Even 1/2" cameras struggle with wide shots.

I -suspect- that the XL2 will actually do better with the 3x.

Alain Aguilar · July 21st, 2004, 09:29 PM

I first read the slight fuzz thing on a comparison test. I then did a test of my own and as Ken says it only happens in full aperture (in a low light situation) and is very minimal. I I think the XL2 actual true 16:9 ratio will defentelly work great with the 3X.

Jim Sofranko · July 23rd, 2004, 03:02 PM

I've been shooting a lot lately with the 3x on the XL1 and it seems slightly soft particularily in low-level, soft light conditions. It's not as bad when the shadows are harder in low light conditions.

But I have found it to be a great handheld doc lense when used up close, just stay away from those tempting wide landscapes.

Yi Fong Yu · July 23rd, 2004, 03:23 PM

but i thought the 3x was made for those wide-landscapes?

Barry Goyette · July 23rd, 2004, 03:50 PM

My experience is that wide shots...not necessarily wide angle...just shots with a lot of information in them, don't hold up very well in DV. I own the 3x lens, and, for the most part, I don't use it except for times when, as Jim said, I want to get up close and personal.

That said, I have often been stunned by how good the wide, and wide angle footage looks on my dvx100. Leading me to agree that the xl1's lower resolution is the culprit. I have high hopes that the xl12, with the 3x lens, will provide a similar result to the DVX.

Barry

Jim Sofranko · July 23rd, 2004, 09:15 PM

I was shooting a doc recently about a group of artists and their artworks. The 3x did wonders in being able to shoot the artist next to their work. The only time it didn't work out well was when the work was especially tiny. Then I went back with the 16x.

It is also very helpful in getting shots inside cars with several passengers. You can easily pan around and get 2-3 people in the frame inside a car with the 3x.

Also in small groups of 2 to 6 people it works out nicely as well. But if it is a larger group of people I tend to stay on the 16x.

It would be great if the XL2 yields a better resolution for wide landscape shots on the 3x and, for that matter, the 16x as well. I'm looking forward to hearing some real world observations using all the Canon lenses on the XL2 compared to the older XL's.

Bob Safay · July 28th, 2004, 09:15 AM

I use the 3X for tight inside shots. I videoed the inside of an engine room on a ship and it was fantastic. Really crisp and with great color (being able to turn down the sound was great as the noise level was deafening). I also used it two weeks ago at a wedding reception in Colorado. The clients LOVED the dancing footage that were shot with the 3X. I really feel that the 3X was not intended for landscapes but for close inside or tight places. As I said before, I never realized I needed a 3X until I realized how often I was borrowing one. Bob

Yi Fong Yu · July 28th, 2004, 12:39 PM

so guys... does this mean that using DV to achieve wide-panning vistas and landscapes similar to 'lawrence of arabia' CANNOT be achieved? that it is reserved for film or HD-only?

Jim Sofranko · July 28th, 2004, 02:23 PM

Depends on your meaning of CANNOT.

You can certainly shoot them but they do break down a bit. Test it yourself before coming to any steadfast conclusion as to what you find acceptable particularily for what the eventual distribution of your video may turn out to be. A lot depends on the content of the shot and also how you plan to display your shots.

For the small screen, wide vista shots are just on the edge of acceptability IMHO. Much depends on how long the wide shot is onscreen and how interesting the composition is before you begin to notice the problem the format has in discerning small bits of information.

For film out it must be much more noticeable although I have not personally tested it yet. The bottom line is TEST, TEST, and then TEST some more!

Hope this helps.

July 14th, 2004, 10:47 AM	#1
Yi Fong Yu Trustee Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Vulcan Posts: 1,564	Canon 3x wide angle lens will 3x wide will look better than 20x (L) lens on the xl2? i mean with 'native' 16:9 support now 3x should look better, at least in theory. __________________ bow wow wow

July 20th, 2004, 11:13 AM	#2
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Don Berube shot a little at DV Expo with the 3x lens; hopefully he'll offer some input on his experience. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

July 20th, 2004, 04:20 PM	#3
Yi Fong Yu Trustee Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Vulcan Posts: 1,564	hpoefully (rubs palms together in a sinister way) some screencaps? =^). __________________ bow wow wow

July 20th, 2004, 07:26 PM	#4
Alain Aguilar Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: North Bergen Posts: 170	I hope it works better on the new XL2. I still have Xl1 with the 3x, however it seemed to give the image a very slight blur look. __________________ Alain

July 20th, 2004, 08:34 PM	#5
Dylan Couper Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Posts: 8,314	I think it would still be soft. I hope they'll introduce a new, sharper 3x. With manual focus and zoom. Black. Yeah..... That'd be sweet. __________________ Need to rent camera gear in Vancouver BC? Check me out at camerarentalsvancouver.com

July 20th, 2004, 10:08 PM	#6
Yi Fong Yu Trustee Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Vulcan Posts: 1,564	so from experience you guys think that 3x is very blurry? __________________ bow wow wow

July 20th, 2004, 10:23 PM	#7
Ken Tanaka Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,943	No. The 3x lens is not really the key culprit although it can get a little edge fuzz at open aperture. The resolution of most of these prosumer cameras is simply not good enough to do justice to wide shots. Even 1/2" cameras struggle with wide shots. I -suspect- that the XL2 will actually do better with the 3x. __________________ Lady X Films: A lady with a boring wardrobe...and a global mission. Hey, you don't have enough stuff! Buy with confidence from our sponsors. Hand-picked as the best in the business...Really! See some of my work one frame at a time: www.KenTanaka.com

July 21st, 2004, 09:29 PM	#8
Alain Aguilar Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: North Bergen Posts: 170	I first read the slight fuzz thing on a comparison test. I then did a test of my own and as Ken says it only happens in full aperture (in a low light situation) and is very minimal. I I think the XL2 actual true 16:9 ratio will defentelly work great with the 3X. __________________ Alain

July 23rd, 2004, 03:02 PM	#9
Jim Sofranko Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: West Shokan, NY Posts: 217	I've been shooting a lot lately with the 3x on the XL1 and it seems slightly soft particularily in low-level, soft light conditions. It's not as bad when the shadows are harder in low light conditions. But I have found it to be a great handheld doc lense when used up close, just stay away from those tempting wide landscapes.

July 23rd, 2004, 03:23 PM	#10
Yi Fong Yu Trustee Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Vulcan Posts: 1,564	but i thought the 3x was made for those wide-landscapes? __________________ bow wow wow

July 23rd, 2004, 03:50 PM	#11
Barry Goyette Trustee Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: San Luis Obispo CA Posts: 1,195	My experience is that wide shots...not necessarily wide angle...just shots with a lot of information in them, don't hold up very well in DV. I own the 3x lens, and, for the most part, I don't use it except for times when, as Jim said, I want to get up close and personal. That said, I have often been stunned by how good the wide, and wide angle footage looks on my dvx100. Leading me to agree that the xl1's lower resolution is the culprit. I have high hopes that the xl12, with the 3x lens, will provide a similar result to the DVX. Barry

July 23rd, 2004, 09:15 PM	#12
Jim Sofranko Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: West Shokan, NY Posts: 217	I was shooting a doc recently about a group of artists and their artworks. The 3x did wonders in being able to shoot the artist next to their work. The only time it didn't work out well was when the work was especially tiny. Then I went back with the 16x. It is also very helpful in getting shots inside cars with several passengers. You can easily pan around and get 2-3 people in the frame inside a car with the 3x. Also in small groups of 2 to 6 people it works out nicely as well. But if it is a larger group of people I tend to stay on the 16x. It would be great if the XL2 yields a better resolution for wide landscape shots on the 3x and, for that matter, the 16x as well. I'm looking forward to hearing some real world observations using all the Canon lenses on the XL2 compared to the older XL's.

July 28th, 2004, 09:15 AM	#13
Bob Safay Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 1,558	I use the 3X for tight inside shots. I videoed the inside of an engine room on a ship and it was fantastic. Really crisp and with great color (being able to turn down the sound was great as the noise level was deafening). I also used it two weeks ago at a wedding reception in Colorado. The clients LOVED the dancing footage that were shot with the 3X. I really feel that the 3X was not intended for landscapes but for close inside or tight places. As I said before, I never realized I needed a 3X until I realized how often I was borrowing one. Bob

July 28th, 2004, 12:39 PM	#14
Yi Fong Yu Trustee Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Vulcan Posts: 1,564	so guys... does this mean that using DV to achieve wide-panning vistas and landscapes similar to 'lawrence of arabia' CANNOT be achieved? that it is reserved for film or HD-only? __________________ bow wow wow

July 28th, 2004, 02:23 PM	#15
Jim Sofranko Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: West Shokan, NY Posts: 217	Depends on your meaning of CANNOT. You can certainly shoot them but they do break down a bit. Test it yourself before coming to any steadfast conclusion as to what you find acceptable particularily for what the eventual distribution of your video may turn out to be. A lot depends on the content of the shot and also how you plan to display your shots. For the small screen, wide vista shots are just on the edge of acceptability IMHO. Much depends on how long the wide shot is onscreen and how interesting the composition is before you begin to notice the problem the format has in discerning small bits of information. For film out it must be much more noticeable although I have not personally tested it yet. The bottom line is TEST, TEST, and then TEST some more! Hope this helps.