mini-35 vs. 35mm lenses for xl-2

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Guest
I'm in this boat of deciding between buying an xl2 and a dvx-100a. Will be shooting a full-length feature that is very cinematic and therefore very in need of a 'film-like' look.

My question is this. I was going to buy either the dvx-100 w/ mini-35 adapter or the xl2 WITH the mini-35 adapter and then rent/buy a set of lenses. But then I hear that you can just buy that canon lens adapter for the xl2 and that allows you to add 35mm lenses to the camera straight up. So my question is, if both these options allow you to add 35mm lenses, why would I pay to buy the extremely expensive mini 35? I guess my more specific question is: Is the depth of field difference between an xl2 rigged with a mini 35 and a canon with its own 35mm lens adapter substantial enough to warrant paying that extra $$? Thanks much.

chris.

p.s. Someone once told me that you could get a wide-angle lens for the dvx100. But I thought it didn't have interchangeable lenses. Was this conversation a figment of my imagination?

p.p.s. I'm not that knowledgeable about this world, so speak slowly.
 
Re: mini-35 vs. 35mm lenses for xl-2

-The canon 35 mm adapter gives you the ability to mount a canon EOS lense to the XL2. BUT the focal length is multiplied by 7.8 (or something). This means that all the lenses are EXTREME telephoto, and you can't get a wide angle with them at all.
-The canon 35 mm adapter doesn't change the depth of field in the XL2. You still get the same 1/3" miniDV depth of field. The size of the frame is still only about 5 millimeters.

-With the mini35, there's a ground glass, where the image coming from the lense, makes a picture about the size of a 35 mm frame. This picture is then shot by the XL2 sensor. This results in the shallow DOF, and the focal length of the lense is not changed, and you can still use the lenses as wide angle.

-The DVX doesn't have interchangeable lenses. But there propably is a wide-angle adapter for it. There is also a wide-angle adapter for the XL2 20X lense (but I'm not sure if it's available yet.)

-The speed of my speech is only affected by the speed you read the text I'm writing.
 
Re: mini-35 vs. 35mm lenses for xl-2

The century .6x wide angle adapter works great on the XL2. The only problem is that it is not full zoom through. But for a controlled shooting environment that shouldn't be a problem.

One of the major advantages of using the mini35 on the XL2 over the DVX100(A) is that it doesn't absorb the extra stops of light. In other words one of the requirements of the adapter on the DVX is that you have to zoom in all the way. That forces the DVX down to 3.2 or something like that. Form what I understand the Lenses that you will be using with the adapter also absorb a stop or two. So you really, really have to overlight everything to compensate. On the XL2 you are taking one of the lenses out of the equation therefore allowing more light to make it to the CCD. In theory.

The other benefit is the apparent resolution boost from the extra pixels on 16x9 mode on the XL2. But we need to see some actual footage to prove this one.
 
Re: mini-35 vs. 35mm lenses for xl-2

I asked the same question at dvinfo and the consensus seemed to be that the 35mm adapter (for the xl2) was unusable for film use do to the extreme magnification mentioned above.
 
Re: mini-35 vs. 35mm lenses for xl-2

I works good if you want to pick out a centepeed on a branch from 500yds :D
 
Re: mini-35 vs. 35mm lenses for xl-2

The XL2 lens adapter doesn't magnify anything, it doesn't change anything at all about the focal length of the lens AS USED ON THE VIDEO CAMERA (ignore what the lens looks like on a 35mm camera).

So if you zoom in to 24mm on the XL2, and then you take the XL2 lens off and put on the EF adapter and a 24MM EF lens, you'll get the same picture.

The mini35 changes the field of view to match what a 35mm movie camera would deliver. So on the mini35, that 24mm lens would deliver quite a wide field of view.

Short answer: if you want cinema-like footage, the mini35 produces outstanding results. The EF adapter does nothing to the footage to make it more cinema-like. The EF adapter would be most useful for a nature photographer wanting to use long 300mm-500mm telephoto lenses, for example.
 
Re: mini-35 vs. 35mm lenses for xl-2

[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=XL2;num=1097227371;start=0#5 date=10/08/04 at 11:05:26]The XL2 lens adapter doesn't magnify anything, it doesn't change anything at all about the focal length of the lens AS USED ON THE VIDEO CAMERA (ignore what the lens looks like on a 35mm camera).

So if you zoom in to 24mm on the XL2, and then you take the XL2 lens off and put on the EF adapter and a 24MM EF lens, you'll get the same picture.

The mini35 changes the field of view to match what a 35mm movie camera would deliver.  So on the mini35, that 24mm lens would deliver quite a wide field of view.

Short answer: if you want cinema-like footage, the mini35 produces outstanding results.  The EF adapter does nothing to the footage to make it more cinema-like.  The EF adapter would be most useful for a nature photographer wanting to use long 300mm-500mm telephoto lenses, for example.[/quote]

Barry,
Are you trying to say that a 24mm EOS lens on the xl2 will be as wide as the 3x wide adapter which is around 25-26mm? If so this flys in the face of all that we have been told about the xl2. A 24mm adapter will be multiplied by 7.8x so it should effectively become a telephoto.

Can you clarify if I am unerstanding this right? Simething doesn't sound right about that.
 
Re: mini-35 vs. 35mm lenses for xl-2

the 3x adapter is not 25-26mm, it is more like 4mm. You have to remember that there is a big difference in the size of a 1/3in CCD and a 35mm film frame. Since the CCD is so much smaller a 4mm lens on a DV camera will be equal to about a 28mm lens on a 35mm camera. If you look at the Dvx lens, you can see that it says 4.5-45mm. the 4.5 is equal to about a 32mm (SLR terms) lens, whereas the 45mm DVX is equal to about a 300mm lens. So, when you slap on a "wide angle" EF lens say at about 24mm, your equivalent focal length is now about the equivalent of a 180mm (slr terms) lens. It seems confusing but the way that I like to think about it is like this. the 35mm frame gets to use the whole lens, while the dv CCD looks right down the center of the lens. THE Dof at 24mm will be exactly the same, but field of view will have change drastically. maybe I will try and draw out a diagram to display this better.
 
Re: mini-35 vs. 35mm lenses for xl-2

No, the 3x lens is 3.3mm-10mm. It has a "35mm equivalent" of 24mm-72mm when used on an XL1. a little longer when used on an XL2. But it's not 24mm, the lens has a physical actual focal length of 3.3mm to 10mm (compare that against the DVX's lens, which starts at 4.5mm).

So a 24mm EOS lens, on the XL2 using the EF adapter, will be the same field of view as the XL2's lens when zoomed in to 24mm. Let's put it another way, the XL2's 16x manual lens zooms in to about 85mm. So zoom all the way in on the XL2 with the 16x manual lens, then change that out for an EOS 85mm lens on the EF adapter, and the picture will look the same. 85mm is 85mm, whether it's from a still camera or a video camera.

The 85mm EOS lens won't be any more telephoto than the XL2's 85mm lens. There is no magnification going on.

The only thing about "magnification" is if you compare the 85mm lens ON A 35MM STILL CAMERA vs. the 85mm lens on the video camera -- there you will see a big difference. But 85mm from a still lens vs. 85mm from a video lens, when they're both mounted on the same video camera, will deliver the same field of view.
 
Re: mini-35 vs. 35mm lenses for xl-2

hey, original poster here.

thanks for all the info. It takes awhile to process it, but I think I got the gist.

It appears I will now go with the mini-35.

New question then: which camera produces the best results with the mini-35, the xl2 or the dvx-100a?

thanks again,
chris
 
Re: mini-35 vs. 35mm lenses for xl-2

Haven't seen the mini35 on the XL2, but even without seeing it I'd say the XL2 is likely the better camera for it. The DVX does SUPERBLY with the mini35, but the XL2 has the ability to have a more direct connection (through a small relay lens rather than through the DVX's Leica 10x lens) and as such it'll be a good 1.5 stops faster than the DVX/mini35 combo.

Also, if you intend to shoot your video in 16x9, the XL2 is probably the superior choice, since the DVX would need to employ "squeeze mode" to get 16x9 footage, which will result in a loss of res.
 
Re: mini-35 vs. 35mm lenses for xl-2

or you could always get Anamorphic primes :D, then again, if you had that kind of money you wouldn't be shooting with the DVX.
 
Re: mini-35 vs. 35mm lenses for xl-2

We've discussed the anamorphic primes before, and it's not a practical solution, ESPECIALLY on the XL2... on the XL2, you'd have an aspect ratio of 3.56:1!
 
Re: mini-35 vs. 35mm lenses for xl-2

Ok, I just kinda skimmed down the page very quickly and it doesn't seem like anyone has explained the real difference between the two systems. Now, I could be wrong and someone has explained all this, but then correct me... from what I gather:

a) The mini35 system allows you to use super high quality lenses for 35mm movie cameras with the same focal length and depth of field that they would give you on a movie camera. This is so awesome, but if you can afford to blow that much money on a mini35 and a few lenses, you might want to consider shooting film.

b) The canon EOS (or is it EF) adapter allows you to use Canon's lenses for 35mm still photography (not 35mm movie lenses). This adapter doesn't compensate for the smaller sensor of the XL2 and the field of view is cropped by almost 8x making the field of view equivilent to a lens 8x longer. This limits you to extreme telephoto shots, which is almost useless because you can get super telephoto shots with the kit lens.

Now, what I wish Canon would do (and this would be sooo ****ing awesome) if they would come out with an EOS adapter that worked similar to the mini35, giving you an 35mm equivilent focal length and depth of field for their still photography lenses. If they could give you that plus electronic focus and iris control, I don't think people would hesisitate to buy an XL2 and a shitload of lenses. I guy can dream...
 
Re: mini-35 vs. 35mm lenses for xl-2

Oh, and also I don't really think that mini35 on the DVX is the best choice since no matter how high quality the 35mm lens, it still has to be filtered through the DVX lens which limits the quality that you can get. If you're shooting mini35, loose the extra glass and go with an XL2.
 
Re: mini-35 vs. 35mm lenses for xl-2

Ok
As I promised before, I drew up a little diagram to describe why the same lens will give you different results depending on how large the area of the film/ccd is. I think it is pretty self explanitory, so here you go.

http://www.stefweb.net/lens.jpg
 
Re: mini-35 vs. 35mm lenses for xl-2

Now that I look at the diagram, it may not be that self explanitory. the photo on the top left, represents the original, photographed image. YOU will notice that on the top right the different sensor/film sizes are represented by the different color squares. This lens I decided would be disigned for a 35mm, therefore, the 35mm has the full image. the 16mm is the smaller green one, and the 1/3in ccd is the smallest blue one. NOtice that the lens has not changed, just the size of the chip. The image is exactly the same as it is always being projected 28mm from the glass to the film/chip. The Dof will also be exactly the same, however the larger 35mm frame will not looked as zoomed in as the 16mm or 1/3in ccd. IF the 35mm were to zoom in as to match the 1/3in ccd, the Dof would dramatically change becuase the focal length would now be something like 150mm. I hope this diagram, even though not drawn to any scale, helps. I have seen this question asked several times, and though seeing it would help to clear up any confusion.
 
Re: mini-35 vs. 35mm lenses for xl-2

[quote author=Tony Hall link=board=XL2;num=1097227371;start=15#16 date=10/08/04 at 22:35:36]Oh, and also I don't really think that mini35 on the DVX is the best choice since no matter how high quality the 35mm lens, it still has to be filtered through the DVX lens which limits the quality that you can get. If you're shooting mini35, loose the extra glass and go with an XL2. [/quote]
Probably true. XL1 guys used to argue the same thing over why the XL1 was the better choice for the mini35, but in practice it just wasn't true: the DVX looked twice as sharp as the XL1 when using the mini35. The much higher resolution CCD's easily compensated for the additional glass between the camera and the mini35 (and remember, the XL1 and XL2 need a lens between them and the mini35 also! The mini35 doesn't hook right up to the CCD's, there needs to be a relay lens to focus the mini35 down to the CCD's).

But with the XL2 it has the advantage of having competitive CCD's with the DVX, so it really comes down to: is the DVX's complex 10x Leica lens going to transmit the image as cleanly as a simple relay lens on the XL2? Probably not. So I suspect the XL2 will be the better mini35 camera (at least, until I verify it with testing) but the DVX smoked the XL1 when it came to mini35 use, so there may not be *that* much difference.

Even so, just having the 1.5 stops of light back on the XL2 (vs. what you lose on the DVX by zooming in) would probably be worth it right there; and if you want 16:9, the DVX would have to go to squeeze mode, whereas the XL2 could shoot it at full res. So I'm looking at maybe getting an XL2 as a mini35 camera...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top