Can it use existing XL-1/2 Lenses?

[Hse Kha]

Sorry if this question has been asked before, but will the XL-H1 be able to use the existing 3x Wide Angle Zoom Lens (for the XL1/2) and others accesories like the EF adapter and 1.6x extender?

Thanks.

[Chris Hurd]

Yes. See http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxlh1/xlh1skinny.php#newlens

[Alan Porter]

Do you think the HD lens will call for updating one's arsenal of 72mm Century Optics adapters and the like? Not that I will ever be able to buy this new camera, but right now I'm trying to decide whether to buy the (current) 3x wide or a CO 0.6x.

[Tim Durham]

Originally Posted by Alan Porter

Do you think the HD lens will call for updating one's arsenal of 72mm Century Optics adapters and the like? Not that I will ever be able to buy this new camera, but right now I'm trying to decide whether to buy the (current) 3x wide or a CO 0.6x.

Hi Alan,
I have one of the Century 0.6x adapters that I am going to be selling. If you are interested, e-mail me at timjbd@yahoo.com

Thanks. Sorry for the interruption.

[Meryem Ersoz]

"Although the standard definition 20x L IS lens and other Canon XL video lenses can be mounted on the XL H1, Canon recommends against this practice as those lenses will not properly resolve for HD."

Chris, can you elaborate on this statement at all? I've read this a coupla times now, trying to figure out the lens issue, and I'm not at all clear on what it means...does it mean, yes, you can mount them but they'll look like crap, or yes, you can mount them with a loss of resolution? Or what? Do I understand correctly that 35mm Canon lenses will do well with this camera?

I've read everything I can about lens compatibility and still don't get it...maybe this is a case of having to wait until the camera is released and see what actual users discover?

[Chris Hurd]

The short answer Meryem is that SD lenses do not resolve sufficiently for HD... you can use them on the H1 but you'll suffer from a softer image that won't improve no matter how much sharpness is applied... just what degree of softness won't be known until the H1 camera ships to customers who already own standard def XL lenses. Then we'll all find out from user reports.

[Kevin Wild]

What will be interesting is if you can use an existing wide angle adapter to the H1 if IN DV mode and it works. Softening HD makes sense, but I wonder if using it in DV mode will be fine.

Just curious.

KW

[Peter A. Smith]

Originally Posted by Kevin Wild

What will be interesting is if you can use an existing wide angle adapter to the H1 if IN DV mode and it works. Softening HD makes sense, but I wonder if using it in DV mode will be fine.

Just curious.

KW

Kevin,

I'll try my best to answer this one for you. I estimate that on average the minimum resolution these HD prosumer camcorders will resolve and capture is 700 Horizontal TV lines of resolution. Usually SD DV cams will typically resolve 400 lines of resolution (I believe the XL2 can do 600). So unless the wide angle adapter (or any adapter in fact) horrendously cuts down the resolution in half (which I doubt), there won't be a problem using it in DV mode.

[Mike Tesh]

Something tells me this is just marketing hype to get everyone to buy the new lens. I can't understand how for years Canon can build film quality optics, which are being used nowadays on 12+megapixel DSLRs and suddenly when it comes to the XL series lenses they can't resolve a 2 megapixel resolution.

Maybe I'm wrong but it just sounds fishy to me.

[Thomas Smet]

What is interesting about all of this is that on the DVX100 and the reel stream adapter they can get HD by using the pixel shift. While this is a pixel shifted format of HD the lens on the DVX100 is still an SD lens but samples from the reel stream product are producing some very amazing HD images. While the came is still sampling SD when you have a set of chips that have pixel shift the chips are configured 1/2 a pixel from each other so in fact the light does have to hit 1440x960 detailed points of light.

1/3" HD chips should use pixels that are about as big (for the light to hit) as a SD pixel shifted half way.

The image may be slightly softer but may still look just as good as images from the reel stream product.

I will be very interested to see how well the current XL manual lens works with the XLH1 when the camera finally comes out. I'm sure there is somebody out there who already has this lens that will be trying it out.

[Heath McKnight]

In case this wasn't mentioned, don't use an XL-1/2 lens when in HD mode. SD, no problem.

heath

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Heath McKnight

In case this wasn't mentioned, don't use an XL-1/2 lens when in HD mode. SD, no problem.

heath

It's been mentioned .. what hasn't been explained is exactly WHY. As someone else alluded, it seems odd that reasonably priced zoom lenses have been around for years for still cameras and 16mm film cameras that give good, sharp results with media capable of resolving far more detail than the highest definition HD video around yet somehow this seems unattainable at reasonable cost when the mount is changed to a video camera mount.

Perhaps the question should not be why lenses for HD cameras have to be so much better than what's on the market for SD now but rather how they've been able to get away with apparently such poor quality SD lenses compared to what has been offered for 35mm still photography for years at a fraction of the price. At 2 kilobucks or more for the lens, I would have thought that a run of the mill XL2 lens would be capable of resolving far more detail and sharpness than any video camera imager on the market, especially what what seems like an optically superior still camera lens can be had for less than an eighth of the price..

[Tony Davies-Patrick]

I can understand that my Canon 16X black manual lens may not work well on the new H1, but I would think that my range of extremely sharp Pro Nikon Nikkor ED lenses that I use (via an adapter) on the older XL body should also work well with the H1.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Steve House

Perhaps the question should... be why... they've been able to get away with apparently such poor quality SD lenses compared to what has been offered for 35mm still photography for years at a fraction of the price.

I think the reason is because the SD image size itself is only a fraction of the 35mm photo image size. A one-third inch standard definition video lens doesn't need anywhere near the resolution provided by a 35mm still photo lens. Compare the SD video size of 720x480 to the 35mm still photo image size... it's a mighty big difference... most still photo lenses resolve well enough to give you a very nice 8x10 inch print. If you were to print an SD video frame, it wouldn't even amount to 3x5 inches. In other words, 35mm still photo lenses make a much bigger image than SD video lenses do.

Most all 35mm still photo lenses are "HD ready," because 35mm still photography already involves resolution requirements far beyond that of HD video.

Standard definition video lenses, especially the Canon XL series, resolve only to SD requirements primarily to keep the cost low. All those older Canon XL lenses cost much less than $2000, which is considered dirt-cheap in the broadcast video lens world. Plus they're made for SD, during the watershed days of SD, therefore they didn't need to be any better than SD, because why pay for what you can't use. It's just like the old Hi-8 days and the Canon L1 and L2. You couldn't use those lenses with the XL1 nor would you want to; those Hi-8 lenses couldn't resolve for the 720x480 of SD digital video.

Neither can SD DV lenses properly resolve for High Definition.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Tony Davies-Patrick

I can understand that my Canon 16X black manual lens may not work well on the new H1, but I would think that my range of extremely sharp Pro Nikon Nikkor ED lenses that I use (via an adapter) on the older XL body should also work well with the H1.

That's right, the black 16x manual lens will look a little soft on the H1, but your Nikons will be tack-sharp.