Jeff Donald

Pete, don't put words in my mouth, please. I did not say the 3X lens is not sharp on the XL1. I said detailed landscapes are soft. And I said this is true of all wide angles on DV cameras. The 3X WA is fine on interior shots and close-up. I will reserve judgment on the 3X lens and the XL2 until I can shoot with it and can determine if it is suitable for my needs and the needs of my clients. I would think you would want to do the same. Your method of determining needed resolution is flawed. You might want to search Google for Nyquist theorem and DV resolution and you'll find some excellent articles and discussions that should aid your understanding.

Pete, I don't think you can just add 40% plus 20% and multiply by 540 lines to determine the needed resolution. It just doesn't work that way. American Cinematographer reviewed the XL1s and did several lens tests with resolution charts etc. They determined that several lenses had superior resolution (the two manual lenses, if I recall correctly). I think it may be safe to say the two manual lenses should be adequate for the XL2. They are what an idie would wnat to use anyway, for the extra control. The 16x stock lens (white lens that came with XL1) is weak on the new chips, hence the new 20X. The 3X wide angle show the limitations of the DV format. Detailed WA shots (landscape) are not very crisp. But it is a fairly well corrected lens and if used close shows suitable resolution on the old chips. Until the new camera ships I'll reserve judgment. Wide angle is particularly troublesome on the DV format. The Leica lens on the DVX shows too much barrel distortion at the wide end when used on interiors (at least my clients say so). I would go so far to say that there isn't a good wide solution on for the DV format, except wide primes on the P + S Technik mini 35.