some grizzly footage from this weekend

[Chris Fritsche]

ok so here's another question: I am going to be shooting some snowboard and skiing stuff this winter and next , and I need to get the best lens that will get out the furthest fo SD.
It will be used with the XL2, I would love to use the 2X etender, but if I can't that fine as well. Some of what I am shooting will not allow me to be close, we are trying to get full runs, (top to bottom). I will be shooting with 2 cameras, one for the close ups and one pulled back to cut back and forth from.
Has anyone had any experience doing this type of shooting?

[Meryem Ersoz]

when you add the 2x, the focus zone becomes razor-thin, too thin, probably for shooting birds completely in focus. depending on your aperture, the DOF can be so shallow that you can, say, have just the eyes and beak in the foreground in focus, and the rest will be out of focus. you can't shoot a wide-open shutter. close it up and see if that helps. that shallow DOF is cool for photography, where you might have the face sharply focused and the body behind blurred, but it doesn't work for video, which just looks out-of-focus because the image is moving and the photographically-desired bokeh effect is spoiled. these are photographic lenses that you're using, used to deliver these effects, but it doesn't always translate to good video.

interesting discussion, guys. i always like these long lens fireside chats.

[Tony Davies-Patrick]

Canon make the 1.6X converter (extender) for the XL cameras, although I've heard mixed reviews of performance with the 16X and 20X lenses, but its probably the best quality you are going to get combined with the 20X lens.

http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxl2/articles/article10.php

As far as converters go (with non XL lenses), it is best to stick with 1.4X to maintain quality and some, like the Nikkor TC-14C matched with the 300mm f/2 and 500mm f/4 provides amazing quality that his impossible to judge compared to the prime lens alone (although such converters are very rare). Easier to find is the TC-14B that provides high quality performance with telephoto lenses. The newer TC-14E provides even better performance. Some 2X converters do provide good performance, such as the TC-20E.

I haven't tried the latest Canon 1.4X II converter, but it should match well with the 200mm, 300mm, 400mm, 500mm and 600mm L class lenses:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...er-Review.aspx

[Chris Fritsche]

are l class lens the Prime lens?

[Tony Davies-Patrick]

Originally Posted by Chris Fritsche

are l class lens the Prime lens?

What I mean is that the prime lens alone (prime as in the main fixed non-zoom lens in use) gives the best performance, but that some top-class matched converters bayoneted together with the prime fixed lenses can provide image quality that is hard to distinguish from the performance of the prime lens alone. This is rare however, and most converters will deteriorate the image enough to be easily seen in both stills and video footage.

[Chris Fritsche]

So the best bet is to not shot with any extenders, (if I want the best possible picture)? I would rather have quality first, so I applied the settings that were posted earlier, what settings are you guys using for "snow"?

[Ron Armstrong]

Tony;
There are a lot of variables in comparing lenses. However the comparisons I have made include those made with resolution charts indoors and out, with primarily Canon lenses, under reasonable and consistent conditions. and good old every day field use.
You and I agree on the fact that the Nikon lenses may very well produce better results because of the lack of glass in the adadpter. That has yet to be proven, at least as far as I know, but does stand to reason.
The 600 FD lens is not as good as the newer 600 EF lens. Theres a difference of 15 or 20 years in technology.If the glass isn't better, at least the coatings have been improved and different lens configurations have been used.
Atmospheric conditions don't have an affect on the glass, only on the image, and cannot be used to compare lenses. A major difference in image quality can be attributed to the difference in aperture settings required for the still camera lenses. It is difficult to test with the same aperture settings between the 20X and 35 mm lenses without adding filters or increasing the shutter speed.
My comments apply to the HDV format rather than the DV format. I have found that the lenses in question, the 600 FD and the 150 600 FD do not give the video quality that the 20X HD provides. With the added auto features that the 20X provides, it is inevitable that the average videographer will obtain better overall video with the 20X lens.
As I have stated, the FD L lenses are adequate for SD, and the EF or Nikon premium lenses are also adequate for HDV. However, keep in mind that one persons idea of a good image is not necessarily the same as someone else'.
I am convinced that the Canon 70 - 200 mm 2.8 L and the 300mm 2.8 L will provide a better than "good enough" HDV image for my taste. However, it requires considerable control over the lens and the XLH1 to come up with that "good enough" image. It took me a while to convince myself of that!!

Ron

[Ron Armstrong]

Chris; Yea The RONSRAIL is worth it. Start saving. Check out the TESTIMONIALS page on the website.
www.ronsrail.com

Ron

[Mick Jenner]

I have recently been to show in the Uk and picked a promotional DVD by Formatt Filters (www.formatt.co.uk) it featured an artical by Arthur C Smith 111 He uses these filters with an XL2 you can see samples of his work and project here http://www.auroraeducationproject.org/project.html.
The cost of a circular polariser from them here in the UK is £70. They are marketed in the states.
Hope this is of help. His artical on the DVD is very enlightening

Regards

Mick

[Dale Guthormsen]

Chris,

I have the 1.6 plex for my xl2 and the 2x century for my gl2. I also purchased a converter and a few fd lenses.

1. all converters soften the pictures, especially at the end of the zoom.

2. On the fd lenses I have a 35-200, a 300mm and a 150 to 500

I like the 300 best, the 35 to 200 second and the 150 to 500 third (this is mostly because I have found 500 to be almost unmanagable).


A ronsrail is a beautiful piece of machine work, and I will likly purchase one down the road myself.

However in the mean time I have been building my own rail out of a piece of aluminum channel and other pieces of aluminum. I am a builder by nature so I find it a challange and pleasure to make my own.

While the ronsrail may seem expensive, if you know anything about machine work, the amount of work to make one is not something to laugh at!! they are definitely worth the money!!!!!

May sound like a sales pitch, but I do not even own one!!

[Ron Armstrong]

Dale;

Thank you for the compliment!!!

Ron

www.ronsrail.com