I have just returned from my first trip to B&H, and wow...words cannot express...i was like a kid in a candy store, but anyway, I have been wrestling with myself for a while whether to buy an XL2 now or wait for Canon to get off their haunches and go HD, i was not even considering the FX1 or Z1U because I (up until i tried the sony's out) i was a die hard canon fan. Now i dont know whether to wait for canon to get a move on or to get an FX1 (the Z1U appears to me to be a waste of an extra 1500 for the ability to use the LCD and viewfinder simultaneously, please tell me if i am wrong)

For those of you who own any of these your input would be incredibly helpful, I dont need to buy anytime soon but i will be filming some events(weddings stuff like that) to help pay it off and film some independant films and documentaries on my own to let you know what i need out of it

PS...does anyone know where i could get some test footage from the FX1?

Canon makes good lenses, but their cameras are far inferior to Sony's.

Also, you can only shoot on Mini-DV, not DVCAM or HDV.

The audio on the XL2 is sub-par. Even if you switch to line-level input on the back, your audio will still be too hot. I always have to use an in-line attenuator whenever mixing to an XL2.

Also, I wouldn't get an FX1, but a Z1U. It can shoot on DV, DVCAM, or HDV. It has a good lens and a better audio section. Plus, you can offer to shoot weddings in HD. You're more marketable that way. I would just shoot everything in HDV, then downconvert. Your picture will look sharper, even in SD.

The XL2 is too prosumer for my tastes, but it's your choice.

Noah,

As far as the Sony FX1/Z1U differences go, there are plenty. Around 46 if my memory serves correctly. The Z1 can switch between NTSC or PAL, can output to firewire without delay as the FX1 does, and many other things.

The XL-2 produces some beautiful SD images in 16:9 format, can run at 24p, 30p or 60i. Many were disappointed with Sony's 'cineframe 24' mode because it isn't true 24fps motion capture like the Canon XL-2 and Panasonic DVX100 cameras. It all depends on what you intend to shoot, how soon you need it, and what your delivery format will be/must be.

The Canon XL-2 is not 'far inferior' to Sony but of course it doesn't do HDV which is a format with its own inherent drawbacks. You should also ask yourself if you are ready to shoot and edit HDV format material.

There are some other new cameras just on the horizon so you might want to wait a few months if you can in order to see the new Panasonic and JVC cameras.

Happy shopping!

-gb-

Yes, that's true.

The Panasonic DVX100A is a good choice. It's also quite popular for some television and corporate shoots.

I have used the XL2, and it's okay, but in my opinion, doesn't perform quite as well as Sony or Panasonic. Also, I would get a better, fully manual lens. It has better glass and more control.

But, in the end, buy what your clients ask for. Why do I shoot BetaSP? That's what the producers want. Why would you shoot Mini-DV? That's what a corporate client asks for, or, you're going to DVD for a wedding video, so you want to keep a digital workflow, etc.

Buy what's best for you. All three of the aforementioned cameras will do the job, some just do it better than others.

Yes Jacques,

You may recall that I had my then brand new XL-2 at the Majestic Theater shoot back in Nov '04. I do run it now with a 16x manual and FU-1000 b/w v/f and am very pleased with the stuff it produces. No doubt about it, the Sony's have a good looking picture, especially wrt skin tones. In fact, a couple of us discussed the Sony look at a local eatery after that shoot you were at. I actually have 2 XL-2 cams now and run the stock 20x lens on lockdown shots while I grab handheld stuff with the 16x manual and b/w vf. But the picture tweak options on the XL-2 are numerous and you can get many looks out of this camera, including skin detail.

Sure was nice though with the 20x being able to do an ECU of the drummer from all the way back at center mezzanine level. That's an awesome theater!

-gb-

Canon makes good lenses, but their cameras are far inferior to Sony's.

Compared to the CineAlta? Sure.

The XL2 is too prosumer for my tastes, but it's your choice.

Any of Sony's HDV offerings are to consummer for my tastes. I'd take a prosumer XL2 before I took anything short of a DSR570, unless I was going for a sharp video look.

Canon's XL2 is their top camera, records 25 Mbps. Sony top camera costs 1/4 million USD, with lens, recorder, processor, etc., records 880 Mbps. Top Panasonic camera records 100 Mbps. Canon makes SLRs, lenses, Panasonic makes vacuum cleaners, rice cookers. Sony makes neither. Each company is totally different.

Top broadcast company is Sony, followed by Ikegami, Panasonic, Thomson, Hitachi, last comes JVC. Canon not make broadcast cameras but supplies lenses, togethwer with Fujinon, for all broadcast makers. There are other lens makers but Canon and Fujinon have largest share of market.

Radek

[QUOTE=Jacques Star]Canon makes good lenses, but their cameras are far inferior to Sony's.

Its been my opinion that the electronics is the easy part. Just look at all the camcorder manufacturers. But the lens, now that's diferent. Lens making is an art and I feel that the glass in front of the electronics makes a big difference. The other stuff can be tweaked, but the image that reaches the CCDs is what it is and I like it to be the best that I can afford.

Panasonic makes vacuum cleaners, rice cookers. Sony makes neither.Sorry but that's incorrect. Radek, once again, please get your facts straight before posting. One of Sony's very first products was in fact an electric rice cooker. For more information about the Sony electric rice cooker and some early Sony history, see this excellent link:

http://www.sony.net/Fun/SH/1-1/h1.html

A better photo of Sony's rice cooker:

http://news.sel.sony.com/digitalimages/photo?photo_id=131344

But of course, who makes (or made) rice cookers (Sony) and who makes (or made) vacuum cleaners (Panasonic) is entirely irrelevant to this discussion -- if you ask me, it's utterly ridiculous, but we do have a sense of humor here at DV Info Net so it's okay -- as long as it's accurate.

I've never owned a Sony rice cooker; they were made in 1945 shortly after the war, which was before my time, heh. But I have actually owned a Panasonic vacuum cleaner before I was married, which was noisy but ran great. It's still in the garage. I should probably upload a picture of it.

Remember, now: Sony = rice cookers, Panasonic = vacuum cleaners. Hope this helps,

Chris,

thats so funny, in fact LMAO~

Panasonic still make em (rice cookers that is)

Panasonic (National) 5 Cup Fuzzy Logic Rice Cooker
http://store.imperialsales.net/srla10nw.html


I guess they have the market cornered :) , waiting for the P2 version - billions of recipes , no doubt

GO CANON!! I love my XL-2. And until canon comes out with a camera that does not do something I need it to, or it just does not suit my needs I will be with them for life.

If you take the cameras and compare them dollar for dollar, Canon all the way baby.

I've tried sony digital cameras as well as the FX1. I sold them all for the Canon Digital Rebel and the Canon XL2. I love the XL2 and my Rebel. I also use the Canon S500 for my pocket camera.

My dad is a professional photographer and when he goes to digital camera seminars and such the people all consistantly say one thing... "Canon is one of the best, if not the best".

In my opinion, if I could afford a cinealta, then I'd just skip digital completely and go right to film. You just can't beat film yet.

In summary, take your budget, and take whatever money you have and figure out what you need. If it's a tossup between Canon and Sony, I have to say, go with the Canon.

This is my 10th year to shoot DV and I have literally used every camera at one time or another. The problem with the XL series is not quality, picture or sound, it is the learning curve. It is a quantum step up from many consumer cameras but lacks the intuitive control present in broadcast cameras.

I would say in 90% of the cases people downplaying the XL2 are operating it improperly or not using it to its full potential. The XL2 audio is very good, never ever had a single issue with it. Too call it too consumer is really silly, especially in the 1/3" CCD category.

However, we are talking pro-sumer here, not SDX900, CineAlta, etc. I currently own an XL1, XL1s, XL2 and a DVX-100a. I sometimes use the FX1 and Z1 and I find the picture VERY clear but VERY video like. It is best IMHO for nature stuff. I shot a concert with lots of crazy lighting and the Z1 was a disaster.

I will agree that every job is different and you should use the best camera for the job. I say it over and over, but a camera is an instrument, like a guitar. Some songs require a different sounding guitar but not every person who picks up that guitar, can play that song...




ash =o)

well said. :)

Sorry but that's incorrect. Radek, once again, please get your facts straight before posting. Remember, now: Sony = rice cookers, Panasonic = vacuum cleaners. Hope this helps,

I said Sony does not make rice cookers, Panasonic does. That is correct. Fact that one of first Sony products, before became world's foremost electronic company was rice cooker is irrelevant. 1/2 century ago does not count.

Sony makes world's best broadcast products, is best selling broadcast brand. Panasonic makes great rice cookers.

Radek

well nobody can say that sony makes bad cams, they did afterall make the cinealta cams that captured SW epII. (i think...)

anyhoo, if you want HDV I would suggest waiting a little longer and get a JVC GY-HD100U. Unlike the sony units, the JVC records 720p. This is much better than the 1080i standard, if you ask me...

Come on I wish that we could al stop slagging 1 camera from the other, my friend has just got the the XL2 and still likes the picture of his old xl1, infact he buying it back,

I have the PD 170 and the XL1S they are both top class cameras, and I for 1 are going to wait for a year or 2 two see how this HDV works out,

All I can say is that both Sony and Canon make fine Cams, It just depends what you want them for, Wildlife Canon, in you face stuff Sony both do a bloody good job.

The problem with the Cannon XL2 is that it does not shoot in high definition. The problem is that most people think that high definition is just some sort of gimmick. Well maybe color television is just a gimmick and when color television was introduced 50 years ago many people were dead set against it. They were dead set against it because most people do not want to change. It always amazes me that HDTV the biggest advancement in technology since the introduction of color television is treated by many as just being another synthetic snake oil. If people cannot see the improvement in picture quality they must be blind or they turn a blind eye. the quality of HDTV is nothing less than stunning and as such maybe people are afraid of it. One person claimed that it was too radioactive and HDTV causes cancer.


The problem is that your average Joe Six Pack thinks a bigger screen is all that is need for better picture quality. He would actually pay more for a standard definition 36 inch television than an HDTV 27 inch. What he doesnt realize is that if you blow up standard definition you can see the interlace scan lines and it looks like you are peeking through the venetian blinds. In other words the image looks awfull.

The problem with the Cannon XL2 is that it does not shoot in high definition. The problem is that most people think that high definition is just some sort of gimmick. ....

The problem for shooters is that HD in the camera is only one part of the chain. Moving one's edit suite to high def is quite an expensive proposition. The delivery side of the chain is even trickier - there are no HD DVDs as yet and while they're close to deciding on a standard it's still aways away. Very few of your clients have DV tape players. There is no such thing as HD VHS. So while you may be getting beautiful HD footage from the camera, unless you are shooting for HD broadcast there's no distribution pathway for the finished product from you to your client without dropping it back down to SD somewhere along the chain. I agree we should be ready - our home theatre is a 57" Sony Hi Def screen and we love it so it's not a tchno-phobe speaking here - but it doesn't make sense to invest in an HD camera just yet UNLESS your target audience is, as I said before, HD broadcast or theatrical release (and if that's the target destination, we're not shopping for Canon versus Sony pro-sumer gear anyway). 5 years from now, when HD screeens and more importantly HD-DVD players have begun to make signifigant inroads into the market and your clients will actually be able to view your work in HD it'll be another story. We'd like to think we're shooting gems for the ages but in reality most of the things we'd shoot are rather ephemeral and will be of little interest by the time our clients are able to view them in HD. Also, that's about the time the onrush of camera technology would have many of us thinking about an upgrade for any camera we're purchasing today anyway. Meanwhile, so for now spend the SD-HD dollar difference on a higher quality SD camera, shoot on SD and work on gradually upgrading the edit suite in anticipation of a move to HD a few years down the road.

The problem for shooters is that HD in the camera is only one part of the chain. Moving one's edit suite to high def is quite an expensive proposition. The delivery side of the chain is even trickier - there are no HD DVDs as yet and while they're close to deciding on a standard it's still aways away. Very few of your clients have DV tape players. There is no such thing as HD VHS. So while you may be getting beautiful HD footage from the camera, unless you are shooting for HD broadcast there's no distribution pathway for the finished product from you to your client without dropping it back down to SD somewhere along the chain. I agree we should be ready - our home theatre is a 57" Sony Hi Def screen and we love it so it's not a tchno-phobe speaking here - but it doesn't make sense to invest in an HD camera just yet UNLESS your target audience is, as I said before, HD broadcast or theatrical release (and if that's the target destination, we're not shopping for Canon versus Sony pro-sumer gear anyway). 5 years from now, when HD screeens and more importantly HD-DVD players have begun to make signifigant inroads into the market and your clients will actually be able to view your work in HD it'll be another story. We'd like to think we're shooting gems for the ages but in reality most of the things we'd shoot are rather ephemeral and will be of little interest by the time our clients are able to view them in HD. Also, that's about the time the onrush of camera technology would have many of us thinking about an upgrade for any camera we're purchasing today anyway. Meanwhile, so for now spend the SD-HD dollar difference on a higher quality SD camera, shoot on SD and work on gradually upgrading the edit suite in anticipation of a move to HD a few years down the road.

Acutally Steve, there is a HD VHS format.

Scroll towards the bottom of this (http://www.ce.org/publications/books_references/digital_america/video/vcrs_face_digital_future.asp) page to read the whole story.

Granted, I only know one person who owns one. I don't, and I've had an HDTV for 2 1/2 years now. So client delivery options would be limited on this medium as well.

-gb-

To add to Greg's link about HD VHS, see this one also:

http://www.jvc-victor.co.jp/english/D-VHS/dvhs-e.html

It's the main resource page for that format (I need to bookmark it).

Forgot about D-VHS but you must admit those decks are pretty rare birds.

Forgot about D-VHS but you must admit those decks are pretty rare birds.

I did admit that at the end of my last post. ;-)

-gb-

The XL2 has a problem because it can only shoot in the resolution that 99% of all media is delivered on? It might be a problem in 5 or 10 years... not now.

There are many people who get the XL2 and at first think the image is not as good as the XL1s or XL1. This is because people are not used to seeing an image with detail across all ranges and somehow, to their untrained eye, the picture looks milky or flat. In fact, it is a far superior image with the most flexibility in post production. That being said, you can match the look of just about any 1/3" CCD camera with the XL2, it just takes some skill and manipulation of the custom settings.



ash =o)