Anybody out there own both a GL1 and an XL1? Car to comment on the relative performance, etc.? I have an XL and am thinking about a GL for second camera or on shoots where size, portability, conspicuousness etc. is a factor.

Thanks!

I used both cameras on a shoot recently, and have found that video from each matches together very well, seamlessly in fact, as long as the lighting is good.

We use both of the camera's. We shoot alot of Paintball events, the GL-1 is great because of it's small size as we like to get in the field but under the flying paintballs. The image stabilization isn't as good as the XL-1. As far as image quality goes, I can't honestly say I can tell a difference.

-Brad

The GL1 image stabilization *should* be as good as the XL1... it's the exact same Canon optical image stabilization technology.

I believe you may be wrong.
This is straight from Canon's website:
Until now, optical image stabilizers have used solely a gyro sensor to detect camcorder vibration (the data from which controls a vari-angle prism that continuously corrects the path of the incoming light). SuperRange goes one step further by examining the image after it is received by the CCD, and detecting low-frequency vibrations missed by the gyro. This data is fed-back to accelerate and refine the movement of the vari-angle prism. This greatly improves performance for low frequency vibration, resulting in the most advanced optical image stabilization available today.

In either case, if you're not using a tripod, the shouldering of the XL-1 seems to provide a more stable shot than hand holding the GL-1

Well, I'll find out for sure from Canon next week at COMDEX. I'll be helping out in their booth, and the Director of Video Technology will be there, so I'll ask him if the OIS is the same in the XL1 and GL1. I really think it is; don't see how it could differ.

Sounds good, have fun out there.

The XL1 has the "image movement vector" listed as part of it's OIS, the GL1 does not. Thus I believe that the GL1 lacks the very low frequency shake stabilization of the XL1. A quick test would to see if the GL1 has the same amount of lag in a pan as the XL1 when OIS is enabled.

I had both and they mach very well ti I sold my XL1 to get the XL1s and they are way off. The XL1S looks like grap.

I have really enjoyed the GL-1 and as most people was just waiting to make a few extra bucks to upgrade. Bought the XL-1S and have not really seen anything worth the price difference. Currently having a problem that I am working with Canon on, but I have posted a couple samples from both cameras on a website. Feel free to check'em out.

http://www.azuho.com/waveform/camtest.html

Anyone else done any comparing of the GL-1 to either the XL-1 or the XL-1S?

Should never have gotten rid of my old JVC KY-27, but Christ! Try lugging that into the field for an 8 hour day of quail hunting. Swear that thing loaded was 30 pounds...well it felt like it.

I own an XL1 and GL1 and have noticed a nice level of similar quality shots.

However, I have noticed that I can increase the quality of the shot with the XL1 by using the manual lens. It seems a bit crisper.

I wasn't a fan of the manual when we first got it but a little use and you can notice a clarity difference.

Other than that, the GL1 is a great, lightweight alternative for on location filming. I use it as my backup camera just in case anything should happen to go wrong with the XL1.

I had the XL1s and the GL1. Found the images to be so very close, that the footage could be blended back and forth, no problem. The only snag, was if they weren't both white balanced to the exact same source. Then you would have some differences in the picture.

I have the xl1, xl1s, gl1 and the gl2 . The gl1 and gl2 has a sharper image and does very well in low light conditions. I feel the gl2 and xl1s seem to have a richer colors versus the older models. I shoot mostly weddings and I use the gl1 and 2 from the back because you can zoom in more and have a clearer picture versus the xl1 and xl1s which has a softer image. I also shoot everything in frame mode so it has a documentary look to the video and if you white balanced the camera correctly, they are very similiar in looks.
I just added the dvx100 and I am still playing with it so can't really comment yet on it.

Well, after all that, I went ahead and got the GL (pretty good price because it was being discontinued) and so far its footage intercuts beautifully with the XL. Obviously white balancing them to the same light. Often I'll leave the XL on the sticks locked down on the stage or podium wile I run around doing B-roll, audience reaction shots etc. with the GL.
Clearly the GL lacks the professional features, but it brings "run & gun" to a new level. I can pull it out of its PortaBrace and cram it into my soft-side briefcase and make discreet entrances to media-shy venues.
Can't wait to try out a GL2, but then that new Panny is awfully tempting for just a few bucks more.

Michael Rosenberger, I liked your comparo-shots and am all the more convinced the GL was a good buy. LOL about the old 30 Lb. JVC! I'll have to look you up next time I'm in AZ.

I know you've already made your decision Mike, but a couple more comments....

I've found the GL2 to be quite a bit better in low light than the XL1.

Also, if you're shooting for DVD's, the GL2 fill the frame instead of leaving black bars on both sides like the XL1.

I'm still amazed a camera as small and inexpensive as the GL2 can perform to the level it does.

Mike Avery

Well, Mike, who knows, my XL1 is getting on in years and hours, and lord knows shlepping it thru airports is getting old (to say nothing of lack of space in the overhead bins on some of these commuter aircraft that I sometimes have to take to get to the smaller cities) so my next acquisition just very well might be a GL2. Or a Pana....
never can tell.