Bad news for wildlife videographers

Ash Greyson · May 10th, 2006, 03:29 PM

Well if you are saying a $5000 still lens has the similar quality glass as a $25,000 HD lens... then I agree... I used "high-end" incorrectly... I just meant the high of the consumer still market ($500 - $1000)...

ash =o)

Ron Armstrong · May 10th, 2006, 04:45 PM

After using the Canon XL H1 in conditions down to 36 degrees below zero, I have convinced myself that the Canon EF L, FD L, and the Nikon ED lenses all provide enough resolution to do a respectable HDV capture. An Optex converted Canon Super 16 14.5-480mm SD lens ($50,000) was soft, as would be expected.
All lenses I used, which didn't include the Nikons, could be made soft by closing the aperture to F11 or smaller, or going to the long end in some cases and using filters, extenders and/ or adapters.
I think a lot of the different opinions come from different conditions in which the equipment is used.
I also have the opinion the 20X lens provides a slightly better picture overall than the 35mm still camera lenses do. Considering resolution, contrast and color, which can be adjusted.
I have some comments to make about cold weather uses as well; But I won't go there!
Don't get me wrong, I do like my XL H1!!
In fact , I like it so well that my trusty XL1 is for sale!!!

Steve Siegel · May 10th, 2006, 04:53 PM

Sorry for beating a dead horse, but after my little test, I was so P.O.'d at Canon that I impulsively just posted without doing a thread search, especially of Lauri Kettunen's excellent research.
My mistake was assuming that ANY good lens intended for use with film would bring vastly more resolution to the table than could be assimilated by a camcorder's chip, HD or otherwise. Guess I was wrong.

Ron Armstrong · May 10th, 2006, 04:57 PM

I should mention, there are new pics of some of these lenses on the XL H1 on my website.

May 10th, 2006, 03:29 PM	#16
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	Well if you are saying a $5000 still lens has the similar quality glass as a $25,000 HD lens... then I agree... I used "high-end" incorrectly... I just meant the high of the consumer still market ($500 - $1000)... ash =o)

May 10th, 2006, 04:45 PM	#17
Ron Armstrong Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Kent, Washington, USA Posts: 113	After using the Canon XL H1 in conditions down to 36 degrees below zero, I have convinced myself that the Canon EF L, FD L, and the Nikon ED lenses all provide enough resolution to do a respectable HDV capture. An Optex converted Canon Super 16 14.5-480mm SD lens ($50,000) was soft, as would be expected. All lenses I used, which didn't include the Nikons, could be made soft by closing the aperture to F11 or smaller, or going to the long end in some cases and using filters, extenders and/ or adapters. I think a lot of the different opinions come from different conditions in which the equipment is used. I also have the opinion the 20X lens provides a slightly better picture overall than the 35mm still camera lenses do. Considering resolution, contrast and color, which can be adjusted. I have some comments to make about cold weather uses as well; But I won't go there! Don't get me wrong, I do like my XL H1!! In fact , I like it so well that my trusty XL1 is for sale!!!

May 10th, 2006, 04:53 PM	#18
Steve Siegel Major Player Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA Posts: 840	Sorry for beating a dead horse, but after my little test, I was so P.O.'d at Canon that I impulsively just posted without doing a thread search, especially of Lauri Kettunen's excellent research. My mistake was assuming that ANY good lens intended for use with film would bring vastly more resolution to the table than could be assimilated by a camcorder's chip, HD or otherwise. Guess I was wrong.

May 10th, 2006, 04:57 PM	#19
Ron Armstrong Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Kent, Washington, USA Posts: 113	I should mention, there are new pics of some of these lenses on the XL H1 on my website.