My pristine, looks like it just came out brand new of the box GL-2 which has never given me a serious problem before, decided today while I was shooting a worship service to quit.

My best guess is that some part of the tape mechanism or heads are malfunctioning.

In short the tape functions of the unit will not function at all whether in recording or playback mode.

The "no tape" tape red flashing icon blinks continually.

When I put in a tape, after it sucks it in and locks it into position, immediately triggers a message telling me to eject the tape. The tape will not play, reverse or fast forward. All one can do is to it immediately. Once outta there, the tape is physically out of its housing and all twirled up curly cue style! So the mangled tape has to be hand manipulated and put where it should be via a pencil.

The above process happens regardless of how many tapes I try.

So, it looks like this is going to Jamestown, NJ which probably will be very expensive.

My questions are these:

1) What is the current minimum bench charge at that facility?
2) Is there a reliable, less costly alternative which may save some $ especially since I'm unemployed very long term and naturally am not eager to shell out alot.
3) Has this happened to you ( or something clode to it) and how much did this end up costing in your case? Worse case what sort of bill am I potentially faced with?

Any helpful pointers,suggestions,advice or feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

Expect at least $250 to crack it open and take a hard look. More if parts are needed. It's an old warhorse, and these things simply wear out over time. It's POSSIBLE (thought not probable) that a really good cleaning of the tape path will be all that's needed - but I doubt it. Still going to run about $250 if that's the case.

Best bet - call Canon and see what their comments are.

Last year I sent my GL2 for repair (it got dropped) I don't remember which service center, but it was an Official Canon ctr.

$400 minimum charge :-(

It cost $425 with "$0" for parts and the whole sum charged for "labor".

They fail to respond to e-mails but if you can get a video tech on the phone you can actually get some questions answered.

Mine wasn't even out of my posession for 1 week including round trip shipping.

Must have had time on their hands or it was a easy repair.

Theoretically it's now back-up to full "factory specs."

Time will tell if they did a good job or not.

Ciao

Bruce,

Canon has always given me fine service. When I messed up with my gl2 by jogging back and forth (I knew better) I got the same problem; two years ago it was a 250 dollar charge.

I wonder how one becomes a camera repair man?


dale

Sounds about right. I'm using a GL1 along with 2 GL2s as my 3rd cam for events and it is now at Canon's Service Center. Weird thing is the zoom on the GL1 has a mind of its own. It just zooms in and out all by itself.

Price: $415 :-(

Edit: Well, I feel a little better. I see that when replacing the circuit board, (aka main board), it could run as much as $700......... Whew... That's what they say they are doing to my GL1. Golly, what if it's the $25 rocker zoom control......... :-)

Well, if it makes you feel any better here's the story on my other GL-2 which as you will see was/is still partially crippled as a result of an accident. This occured about 7 years ago. I had only had the GL-2 for a few weeks and had it outdoors on a blustery,windy fall day here in New England.

It was set-up on a pod & I unthinkingly walked away for a few moments.

What happened? A huge gust of wind knocked the whole thing over. The unit hit the ground with such force that sand was lodged/embeded in the metal seams, etc. Imagine how sick I felt as it was still pretty new at that point!

The lens/optics + the onboard mic was spared however it destroyed the main AV circuit board which Canon said it would be $800 or greater to repair.

To this day it was never repaired!

Canon is defintely profit oriented & the dollar increasingly buys less and less.

Well, it's important to realize that they're no different than any other camcorder manufacturer in this regard. Repair rates -- whether they are perceived as unreasonably expensive or not -- are pretty much equally consistent among all of the major camcorder manufacturers. Canon is no more or less guilty of high rates than the others.

Since I've only owned Canon camcorders during my lifetime I can only speak for that manufacturer.

Consider the cost for dealer work on a car. Shop rates run what $125 per hour or more, not counting parts, and cars are a bit lower tech and looser tollerances compared to a camcorder.

The $400 implies 2-3 hours on the bench and return shipping. It does include a cleaning and alignment check as a minimum if work is authorized, and covers the overhead of all the estimates given that did not result in repairs.

Thanks everyone for your comments..... I like what you are saying. I figured that someone might say something negative about me keeping the GL1..... and not going to HD. For our purposes, the two GL2 cams and the GL1 are great.

SD is definitely not dead yet as it's a personal matter of what your needs are.

I use my 2 GL-2's every week, several times a week in church video ministry including the crippled one still which shoots video just fine.

About 2.5 years ago or so, for a month or two, I had 2 Canon XH-A1's. However, despite being a fantastic camcorder, they were returned for full credit because the lens/optics required more light than the venue/location (a church interior/sanctuary) had to give/produced.

So I returned to using the GL-2's to this very day as the "fit" for the location was right.

When Canon replaces the A1 with a solid state unit this year I may reconsider my personal equipment needs.

Continuing to use a GL1 or XL1 these days is a business decision. If they meet your needs there is no reason to upgrade other than personal preference or as a start on developing HD or a stronger 16x9 capability.

For the last 3 months I've tried to help an AV team (which only has 3 GL-1's) improve their production, I quickly came to the conclusion that there is a lot more out there that blows GL-1's away!

Personally, I think the picture Q of that particular model is fair to middling at best.

No way, I'd do a serious shoot with one of those!

They are way past their prime and dinosaurs at this point.

Wait a minute.... are you the same Bruce P. that just posted at 10:50 am ????? Wow....... You are suggesting that the GL2 is much superior to the GL1 ??

Hi Tom,

I shoot in a very large church where the cameras (both GL-1's and 2's) due to circumstances are positioned a good distance away from the platform & puplit.

Please keep in mind that the GL-2 has about 50% more pixel power then the GL-1 and it shows when shooting especially at a greater distances.

In this situation the clarity,color,sharpness,definition and video output that the GL-2 produces outshines the GL-1's performance by a wide margin.

All I can tell you that comparatively speaking, The GL-1 picture suffers because at that distance its capabilities are stretched so thin it can't handle the task effectively. At some point, its deficiency in the # of pixels has to show and it does.

I also noticed in low light the image of the GL-1 is softer.

The above is based on very long term personal experience with both units whether they were mine or belonged to others.

In the GL-1's case it's been around 8-9 years.

Thanks Bruce, I appreciate the explanation.

I too do a lot of video work at our church. I've had the two GL2 cams for about three years now.

Wow, kinda wish I had talked to you earlier. I just assumed that the GL1, with 3CCD and the same lens would be very similar in PQ to the GL2 cams. As a third cam in our group, I assumed that I could set up the GL1 in the tech booth and just use it as a remote. I'm using anamorphic lens on my two GL2 cams, but I can mix the 16:9 and 4:3 very well. I sure thought that the video coming from the GL1 would be very similar to and would mix very well with the GL2.

Of course most of the rave reviews I read were posted 8 years ago..........Well, live and learn.

Thanks again, Tom

Hi Tom,

I want to be absolutely fair.

At considerably closer distances the GL-1 is capable of reasonably good output especially for taking audience close-ups if placed in the front towards the audience & in the hands of a skilled operator.

Where it deteriorates is at greater distances and IMHO rather quickly.

In my situation, I have no doubt that if the GL-1 camera was 25 feet away from the action instead of 100+, then the results would be appreciably better & certainly acceptable.

I hope all goes well in your service and ministry.

Please take care Sir!

Unless you are using the digital zoom .. how does shooting at a distance matter re: quality between the GL1 and GL2? Assuming that the lighting is sufficient in both instances.

The lower pixel count of the GL1 can make images with a lot of fine structure look less sharp. A shot that is head and shoulders of one person will look better than a full body shot of a group.

The GL1 (I have one) is long in the tooth, but can produce decent SD video in the hands of a good shooter and editor. One has to be aware of its limits and stay within those bounds.

.............

Tks Don. I agree with your comments. This rather confirms, in a way, what Bruce wrote earlier.

I've noticed even with the GL2 closeup shots, either by zooming in with the 20x lens or moving the cam closer, are much sharper than long shots.
I guess this is a given with most SD cams in this price range.

Got the GL1 back from Canon and it does great with mid to close shots. IMO, long shots are not very good. However, as a third cam, it will do great. I'll use it mostly with my Glidecam and monopod for close B roll shots.

Thanks Don for your explanation . Never thought about that reason.

It boils down to how many pixels are available to resolve the detail in the shot, and how much detail does the eye/brain need to think the image is sharp and adequately detailed. A head and shoulders shot provides more pixels to rsolve the face than a full body shot with the same camcorder, so it gives the impressionof being sharper.

The other factor is the effective bandwidth of the image - the lines of resolution and how quickly the contrast falls off on finer details.