|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
September 16th, 2005, 10:54 PM | #16 |
New Boot
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 15
|
Thanks for clearing that up. So how much better is the new lens as opposed to the previous iteration?
|
September 17th, 2005, 12:38 AM | #17 |
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 423
|
I never owned the original lens that shipped stock with the DV500, I bought a slightly upgraded Canon 16x instead. I heard the Stock Fujinon on the DV500 was pretty poor.
This lens on the HD100 doesn't sound too bad, but there certainly seems to be room for improvement, hence the wide angle lens option which sounds like it will be priced at more than the XL H1 itself. Thats the price of quality HD glass though. Even if Canon have put more into the optical quality of this lens than Sony and JVC, for what you are paying, it still has to be a compromise. Luckily, like the HD100, you can swap lens, but thats only if there is a good enough lens to bother swapping too, and you can afford to buy it in the first place. Last edited by Guy Barwood; September 17th, 2005 at 12:39 AM. Reason: spelling |
September 17th, 2005, 07:03 AM | #18 | |
Wrangler
|
Quote:
Although you can put the older lenses on this camera, Canon doesn't recommend it because the current XL lenses aren't sharp enough to resolve HD. I believe this was stated on their website. =gb= |
|
September 17th, 2005, 02:37 PM | #19 |
Obstreperous Rex
|
The older XL lenses are usable on the XL H1 only when shooting standard definition DV.
|
September 17th, 2005, 08:22 PM | #20 |
New Boot
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 15
|
Did they set it up so the camera will only shoot in DV resolution with the old lenses and not work if you try to use them in HD? I'm a bit dubious that these lenses won't have the resolution needed. It seems like a way to get us to fork out more money for new lenses.
I'd at least like to see some tests. Perhaps one of the members of this community who buys the XL H1 might try both 20x lenses in a side by side test. |
September 17th, 2005, 08:25 PM | #21 |
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 414
|
I'd rather see a test with the 3x... 20x is 20x, but if the 3x could pull it off (though I doubt it, since it's always been known to have been a little soft...)
|
September 17th, 2005, 08:27 PM | #22 |
Obstreperous Rex
|
Oh, you can run an H1 with an older XL lens attached... but the image will appear to be... err... a bit soft. The 3x wide especially, I mean I haven't seen this, but I'm willing to bet you a six-pack of Shiner Bock that it'll be noticeably softer. The next chance to find out will be at Canon's next trade show, which is... Govt. Video Expo? I think... in November.
What the XL H1 needs is a full manual wide angle lens, about 10x or 12x, and hopefully costing less than an arm and a leg. |
September 17th, 2005, 08:29 PM | #23 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 414
|
Quote:
|
|
September 17th, 2005, 08:33 PM | #24 |
Obstreperous Rex
|
Apologies for the off-topic post, but surely you can find Shiner in Chicago if you dig deep enough Kevin! The next time I'm up there, let's meet up for a pub crawl. I'll bet we can locate the right bar, or at least have a good time trying.
|
September 17th, 2005, 09:18 PM | #25 |
New Boot
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 15
|
|
September 18th, 2005, 05:11 AM | #26 |
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 414
|
Well, even though Shiner's site says it's a no go... I'm always up for a good pub crawl... Look me up when you next grace Chi-town Chris.
|
| ||||||
|
|