Why is it.....

[evinsky]

That Canon insists on making a camera that disregards the needs of the shooters that it intends to switch from the DVX? I admit it, the imaging from this camera is outstanding, clean, sharp especially in low light. 16:9 is awsome. But I have a question... Didn't the DVX have a 35mm equiv. wide lens? Oh you can put the 3x on the XL2 and get 24-70, but no stabilizer! Didn't the DVX have a 4" LCD Screen? Oh the XL2 has a 2" finder you can use in a pinch. Didn't the DVX have a smooth ramping iris control for on the fly exposure adjustment? Oh you can fit a manual lens and get that, but again, no stabilizer! And finally wasn't the DVX a small camera you could take just about anyware? Well....
I really want to like the XL2, infact I think I will have to get one just to stay competitive, 75% of my income comes from shooting 24P DV. But I can't help but be pissed off that such basic things as a smooth iris control or image stabilization have to be sacrificed.
DV comes into it's own because it's small, Light, inexensive nature allows production in situations where normal crews or budgets are not fisable. I own a 100A and I am not going to sell it. I'm going to need both, and that sucks! My only hope is that Pany will come to the rescue before I book a show that want's to use the XL2.

[Guest]

Century Optics makes a wide angle adapter that you can put on any of the XL lenses except the wide angle and 20x lenses.
I don't think it works on the fujinon lens though.Though i think the Fuginon is pretty wide.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=183523&is=REG

[J.R. Hudson]

That was his point I think.

[scharky]

Actually, the Lens on the DVX is closer to 32mm and the LCD screen is 3.5in, but sure, I see your point. However, I don't think canon was making the camera to cater to the DVX user market. I thinkt they are catering to the XL1* user and to new camera users. IT is true that there are some inconvieniences, however, this goes for any sub $10,000 camera. Both cameras, DVX and XL2 have their advantages, it is important to choose your camera according to how those advantages will serve you best. I see myself holding on to my DVX, but possibly renting an XL2 for future projects.

[J.R. Hudson]

it is important to choose your camera according to how those advantages will serve you best.

That is probally the most common sense way Ive heard it put yet.

[Antoine_Fabi]

The Fuginon fits the XL2 ?

[Guest]

thats what I heard

[evinsky]

Don't be fooled, Canon lost big time to the DVX. Panasonic sold over 250,000 of them and completely captured the DV cinema market from the XL1. They are gunning right for us. But they "Improved" on things that the XL1s did right, like the iris control. I just don't understand. Maybe when I use it I'll get it and like it but at this point I just can't understand it. The lens issue is by far the biggest for me. I shoot TV shows in 24P and the squeeze mode on the 100A using a .7 Century optics lens. These are totally broadcast quality tools. But if I go XL2, sure I get a cleaner image but I would have to keep switching lenses between the 3x and 20x in order to get the range I already have with the .7 Century. I just don't have the freedom in run-n-gun to do that. Maybe
Canon will revize the wide lens to 10x and add image stabilization? and maybe monkies will fly out of my butt!

[Guest]

Like I said you can put a wide angle adapter on the 16x Full Manual Lens and you won't have to switch. As for stabilization, that's what the shoulder mount is for.

[skippyfetus]

The wider the shot, the less you need OIS. It's most important for tele shots.

[evinsky]

I don't mean to be mean.... But seriously, that's obvious. What I guess is not so obvious is that you need to be able to shoot both wide and tele in one lens and have the option of stabilization for both. I would have gladly given up 10 of those 20Xes just to get a smidgen of wide angle out of a lens with stabilization. But even if you are only shooting wide, stabilization can make the difference between a good looking shot and an unusable one. For instance on a lightweight jib arm the stabilizer does a great job of adding just that extra smoothing and making the shot pro. These cameras are not the 30+ pound Arri's they put on rigs, they don't have the inertia to be inherently stable, a Betacam does and dosen't need a stabilizer, an XL2/DVX/HDV does and not just for hand held. And I don't want to set 20LB shot bag on top of the thing to get a smooth shot. I had to do that once before with a XL1+14x Manual.

[skippyfetus]

you need to be able to shoot both wide and tele in one lens and have the option of stabilization for both.
Why do you need to shoot both wide and tele in the same lens? Do you really plan on going from 32mm to 500mm in one shot (in 35mm terms)? I can't think of a single instance that I NEED to go from a super wide angle to super telephoto in a single shot...

instance on a lightweight jib arm the stabilizer does a great job of adding just that extra smoothing and making the shot pro. I've always heard that you shouldn't use the stabilizer with a camera support because when the lens doesn't have anything to stabilize it can have adverse effects.

[alpi69]

one seldom needs from 32-500 in one shot. but there are times when the setup needs to change quickly. if you then start screwing around on lenses and making sure they are packed nicely again etc you might waste minutes at a sunset/sunrsie or another situation. a cam without wideangle is simply bound to cause holdups in the shooting progress. and it even gets worse if you need it in a run and gun situation.

we had a standard lens on one of our Betacams once and it started at around 45mm (35mm equivalent) like the XL2 and it was such a pain to call for the second cam often to get the shots in tightplaces, interviews, architectural shots etc.....
i would say you need the 32-42 from the DVX about 4 times more often than the 320-1000 the XL2 offers.

[evinsky]

OK. First off 32mm (Equiv.) is not super wide, it's barely wide. 20mm (Equiv.) is considered by most as the begining of super wide. But I'm not even asking for that, I'm just asking for 32mm. And I don't need super telephoto either. 320mm would be fine, hey, Isn't that the exact range of the DVX? I guess it's not impossible to engineer a lens people actually want. Nobody really needs a 1000mm lens (XL2's 20x), unless of course your filming your nextdoor neighbor's hemroids.

On a different note...
Normally you do not want to use OIS on a tripod, (Maybe if your at full tele) but small, lightweight jibs and rigs can introduce movement and vibration because they don't have much mass, so it's usefull to have OIS to compensate.

[Kidster]

Guys, Getting a huge corporation such as Canon to think and engineer their products to suit these requests did not happen intentionally. Canon was in the lens business way before they ventured into the camcorder business. Canon didn't make the stock lens on the XL2 to accomodate every shooting situation for the oldest reason in the world. MONEY. They want more of it, and they are going to get it. Albeit, not from as many DVX owners as they would like however, the XL2 was not made purposely to open up the wallets of DVX owners. It was like stated earlier, for existing Canon XL1 owners and anyone who is in the market for a good quality 1/3CCD camera that shoots contentiously the best picture on the market. If Canon had made the stockl lens, with good manual control as well as keeping the OIS and was as wide as the DVX but still maintained the 20X telephoto, they would lose millions on sales of their other lenses. So what were their options? Make this do it all lens stock and charge an absurd price over $5000. I think five grand is already pushing the limits for 1/3 CCD SD video as it is.

So if you are shooting 4:3, I think the DVX is probably the best solution. If you want 16:9 that is hassle free and looks as good as it gets, then the XL2 is the answer.

I really don't believe that many DVX owners will jump ship. I can see a few, mainly the people who hate the frustrations of shooting 16:9 with the adapter.

I was a bit dissapointed when we didn't get to see the XL2's 4:3 capabilites from Johnnie's montage. Because that's a big issue. What if the XL2's 4:3 is significantly worse than the DVX. One things for sure, his 16:9 stuff looked fabulous.

[joachim]

I might add something on the telephoto capabilities of the DVX:
We went to a gamepark in South Africa recently and I had the DVX with me.
The guy next to me in that truck that was driving us around had an XL1 with the long lens and he wanted to know how on earth I would shoot all these animals that are so far away...
It turned out that in 90% of the shots, the telephoto range of the DVX was more than enough, but what really sucked for the Xl1 guy was when that elephant bull attacked our truck and I got all of it on the wide end of the DVX and he got nothing but the wrinkles on the elephants trunk...

[evinsky]

16:9 is harder to do than 4:3. I'd guess that other than the FOV hit, the imaging looks good.

[J_Barnes]

Canon sells around 7 lenses for still photography that each cost more then the XL2/lens package's total list price.

This whole notion of huge mega-corperations plotting evil slavery schemes over prospective purchasers is getting a bit far fetched. Sure we want everything we can get for the cheapest price we can get it for, but you have to take a realistic look at Canon's business to understand why you're not getting the world's perfect lens.

Canon does servo controlled lenses. That's what they do, and it's what they've done for well over a decade. There are plenty of photographers out there who love using their glass and don't mind an infinately spinning lens ring. (I hate the servo ring, which is why I'm a nikon guy)

The camcorder market is a side business for canon, and the prosumer cam market is even more marginal in terms of their earnings. Why would canon devote engineers to develop a XL2 mated lens that uses a non-servo based mechanism that they don't really persue in their photo business?

I'd be nice to have a lens for the XL2 that goes from 2mm to 800mm with zero barrel distortion and a constant 1.2 fstop...have it weigh 3 lbs with image stabilization, non-servo controlls and zero battery drain...but we're not getting it.

Canon lenses are expensive, and the more range a lens has to cover accurately, the higher that lens is going to cost for manufacturing and R&D. Take a look on B&H at canon's lens selection and you'll notice that they aren't cheap. Take a look at Nikon's glass and you'll notice that it's not cheap either. Take a look at cheap glass (say sigma for example) and you'll hear constantly how much lower the quality is over the higher priced compeditors.

The cost associated with developing a killer XL2 lens would push the camera far beyond the reach of most of their target market, so instead you get a lens which is perfectly functional and allows you the opportunity to rent/buy other lenses as needed.

Anyone actually consider occasionally RENTING the lens you need rather then bitching about why it doesn't come free with a happy meal?

(obviously this is said in jest to no one in particular)

[Barry_Green]

4:3 is compromised on the XL2, because the XL2 was optimized for 16:9. It's effectively a 1/4" CCD in 4:3 mode.

As for why you want wide and tele in one lens: the whole thing about why you want a zoom lens in the first place is CONVENIENCE. I've got a 35mm camera with about 20 prime lenses... carrying all that gear is a pain. Stopping to change lenses is a pain. Plus when you change lenses you subject yourself to potential dust or other contamination. Prime lenses deliver the sharpest quality, but they're not convenient to shoot with. Zoom lenses are much more convenient, but they're not as high quality.

Shooting miniDV, even with the best of cameras, isn't really, truly about quality: there are much better quality formats out there (DigiBeta, DVCPRO50, HD, etc). miniDV is about affordability and convenience. With the XL1/XL2 cameras, that starts to be called into question. Once you start talking about a $5,000 camera/lens combo, plus - oh, yeah, if I want real manual focus and manual zoom I have to buy the 16x manual lens, plus - oh yeah, if I want wide angle then I have to buy the 3x lens, plus ... oh, wait, if I want autofocus I have to take the 16x manual lens off and put the 20x lens back on, but wait -- I need manual zoom, so I'll put the manual lens back on, and then -- oh, hold on, I need OIS in this shot, can't get that with the manual lens, so I guess I'll put the 20x back on... and you've spent close to $8,000 in gear and lenses, and you're hauling around cases full of equipment... well, it's not so convenient anymore, and it's not so inexpensive anymore, and you start wondering why you didn't just shoot on a better format in the first place.

The DVX solution is nearly perfect: it's ultimately convenient, much less expensive, it provides a usable shooting range (nice wide angle, and an okay telephoto), and most importantly it gives you everything you need in one: auto-iris, manual iris, autofocus, manual focus, true manual zoom, power zoom, and optical image stabilization. If the DVX lens had a little longer reach, maybe a 16x zoom instead of 10x, then there would almost *never* be a circumstance where you'd need to, or even want to, change lenses.

I'd like to see Canon develop a lens like that. If they did, the XL2 would be a much more usable camera, in my opinion. I am tempted by the XL2, but the interchangeable/multiple lens thing looks more like a pain in the patootie (and in the wallet) than I would prefer. Give me one lens that does what I need, and get out of the way! ;)

[Guest]

If the dvx100a had a 16x9 chip setup, instead of having to use that lame anamorphic lens, then there wouldn't be much reason to get the Canon. The dvx100a is brilliant and compact.

I'm hoping Panny (or Sony!) puts out a 16x9 SD cam very soon.

I'm not counting on it, though.

[Neil Rowe]

..why settle for SD? ive got my hopes on HD.

[Barry_Green]

Their 16x9 SD cams are already on the market, the SDX900 and SPX800. I don't really know what to expect regarding 16x9 SD... if HDV takes off (which is already 16x9) it doesn't seem like there'd be much reason to develop 16x9 SD cameras...

[J_Barnes]

I'm waiting on the HD Holographic smell-o-vision cam so we can finally achieve the perfect marriage between cooking shows and pornography.

[nullphonic]

LOL ;D

[Guest]

"Their 16x9 SD cams are already on the market, the SDX900 and SPX800. I don't really know what to expect regarding 16x9 SD... if HDV takes off (which is already 16x9) it doesn't seem like there'd be much reason to develop 16x9 SD cameras... "

I agree. That's why I'm not holding out much hope. On the other hand, I can't believe there won't be any camera's released between now and the "holiday shopping season"

Notice that Sony is giving a 300 dollar rebate on the pd170? ;D

[Guest]

Yeah, as Barry has said Panasonic did a pretty good job with their lens. They listened to people about wanting a wide angle lens and barrel marking and so stuck it on. I just can't see why Canon didn't do that other than the Money.

I think Canon will lose out on sales because they're not offering an economical option for those who are on a budget. It won't be a enough to make them change, for sure, but they will lose a few - and not really care.

I think Canon just split their markets into different parts of the camera. Event/nature people were thought of in the lens (Nice tele, don't need barrel marks, need OIS etc) Filmmakers were thought of in the body (16:9 and image processing)

Problem is, Nature people are happy cause they get the lens stuff which is important to them, and some added goodies that they can take or leave in image processing. Filmmakers though are buggered. They get the image proc. but regarding the lens they aren't in the position to just "ignore" the telephoto, cause they *want* wide angle, and barrel markings.

It also struck me as weird that the 16x goesn't have iris control. It's probably the best and most general purpose of the manuals from what I've seen, but it use that stupid digital iris switch is on the camera - it's not built in. Now I'm not sure but I've heard that the iris wheel has been turned into the same style as the XM2/Gl2 - a sort of flick switch. I sure as hell hope it hasn't...That thing is absolutely crap (I have an XM2)

Aaron

[alpi69]

*Once you start talking about a $5,000 camera/lens combo, plus - oh, yeah, if I want real manual focus and manual zoom I have to buy the 16x manual lens, plus - oh yeah, if I want wide angle then I have to buy the 3x lens, plus ... oh, wait, if I want autofocus I have to take the 16x manual lens off and put the 20x lens back on, but wait -- I need manual zoom, so I'll put the manual lens back on, and then -- oh, hold on, I need OIS in this shot, can't get that with the manual lens, so I guess I'll put the 20x back on... and you've spent close to $8,000 in gear and lenses, and you're hauling around cases full of equipment... well, it's not so convenient anymore, and it's not so inexpensive anymore, and you start wondering why you didn't just shoot on a better format in the first place.



that is the reason why many XL1 users do NOT have more lenses. they simply learned to live with the fact, that they have to use their lens as good as they can.
the DVX (and maybe the 1.6 adapter for those extra long shots are easily enough for most shoots).
i do shoot a lot of nature/tourism stuff and the 300mm i have on my stillcam is easily enough as is the DVX with 320mm (eq.).
a longer lens is only needed for animals and paparazziwork if you ask me. if 500mm (eq) is not enough then go to the producer (or client) and get more money to rent another cam for that one shot! it has to be a very special shot and if it is so important for the film it should also allow a bit more budget...

[Barry_Green]

Again, let's remember that DVX's are used for a lot of purposes other than filmmaking... we were shooting a TV show yesterday that involved three different cameras and we wanted wide, medium, and close-up shots. We had to get really close to the stage to get a decent closeup from the DVX. When you've got a live audience, camera placement is much more limited. Just a little more range would be so nice... I'm thinking I might spring for the Century Teleconverter if I can't find a satisfactory package from the XL2. I'm sure wedding shooters run into the same problem. I love the DVX's range, and it's satisfactory for many purposes, and I'd definitely rather have the lens biased towards wide rather than tele, but... there are certainly times when more tele would be very welcome.

[Kidster]

I think I read somewhere that the Century .6 wide angle adapter will work on the new 20x lens on the XL2. I just wonder if it would degrade the image to a point to where it's not a viable option for some situations.

[chi_red]

I think I read somewhere that the Century .6 wide angle adapter will work on the new 20x lens on the XL2. I just wonder if it would degrade the image to a point to where it's not a viable option for some situations.

Yeah, I heard X20 lens works well with Century 6X Wide Angle Adapter, but it has only 8x zoom through.

[Guest]

I would really like to see a survey from people who had XL1's about whether they would prefer tele or wide? They added another 4x to the new xl2 lens...To me that seems a waste, but I guess there must be the market for it.

Aaron

[monster]

[quote author=Aaron Koolen link=board=XL2;num=1093560392;start=30#30 date=08/29/04 at 18:27:03]I would really like to see a survey from people who had XL1's about whether they would prefer tele or wide? They added another 4x to the new xl2 lens...To me that seems a waste, but I guess there must be the market for it.


Yeah, that stock lens is what keeps me from wanting the XL2 very bad. Seems a waste to put an adapter on that lens and also I have heard that 3x wide lens is not all that great plus no image stabilization.