why no difference in price?
 

Hi, I'm about to buy a cam to produce an ultra low budget film and I really want 16x9. I'm very much interested by the A1, but how come there's almost no difference in price between the XL2 and the A1? Barely 300 bucks?
Larry

They provide different feature sets besides native 16x9. In essense, apples to oranges.

Well, One difference is the detachable lenses which I think makes a huge difference to some cinematographers. While it is only SD this is still a big feature to have IMO.

I think if you will be doing a lot of "cinema" shooting, the XL-2 would be the best bet for the price. As Josh said, the interchangeable lenses are huge benefit.
It may only be SD, but the images it produces are wonderful.

There are only 2 lenses available other than the standard--a wide angle zoom and a manual lens, which is nice. If you get an adapter to use still camera lenses, they're not really too useful except in instances where you might need a really long one. A 50mm, for example, would act like about a 350mm lens on a 1/3" chip camera.

With Sony's 1/3" chip interchangeable lens prototype they had at IBC, that will make 3 different 1/3" chip cameras with interchangeable lenses--the Canons, the JVC and soon the Sony. So maybe more lenses designed for these cameras might not be far behind.

To answer the original questions, the XH-A1 is about $2000 cheaper than it's closest competition.

When you say you are doing a film, does this mean it will be shown in theaters, either digitally or transferred to film? If so, the XH-A1 is the best bet in my opinion.

If the film is for internet delivery only, I suppose a SD camera would be fine. However, for DVD now or for HD DVD in the future, I would still choose the XH-A1 in this price range.

If you are looking for something cheaper, you could do a very nice job in 24p (24f) with the HV20, again, considering your delivery.

Anyone who buys an SD camera for the ability to change lenses should consider whether this feature is actually going to be used and whether it will add anything that couldn't be accomplished with the XH-A1.

Thanks
 

Ok, all good points.
Jack, I'm going to shoot a film and I have no idea what will happen to it. Of course I don't have a distribution deal. I was just wondering why a 5 years old cam, the XL2 shooting SD is the same price as a 2007 HDV cam shooting progressive. I guess I got some answers.
From what I understand, tell me if I"m wrong, but the A1 is NOT really, fully progressive. The Xl2 is. COuld that be the justification, in addition to the fact that the Xl2 has interchangeable lenses?
As for the XL2 being capable of shooting beautiful images, sure, but no more than the DVX100B. OK, the Xl2 is 16x9 native, but so is the A1. I think somebody might have something here, the A1 might be underpriced.
Larry

The XL2 boasts shoulder-mounted design, it comes with a PHENOMINAL lens (20X) and, frankly, probably cost more to manufacture than the A1... times have changed, profit margins haven't. Hell, GL2 still costs $2200.

The XL2 is not five years old... more like coming up on three.

24f is the exact same as 24p (also 30f and 30p)...

Yup, camera was announced in July, I ordered from ZGC and got one out of their first batch of inventory on September 10th, 2004.

-gb-

Actually, including rebates, there appears to only be $50 difference:
XL2
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...idescreen.html
XH-A1
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...Camcorder.html

They both have native 16:9.

They both have 20x lenses, and both are good (though the XL2 is removable).

The XL2 has native progressive chips, but in SD, and I believe the progessive scan modes of the XH-A1 give true progressive scan frames (though the issue
of how diminished the resolution is over full HD is debated hotly).

The XH-A1 has a picture that is more controllable I believe.

The XH-A1 is HD, which at this point has many adavantages, I believe, and HD DVD is just around the corner, I believe. Even in SD delivery, the consensus seems to be that HD downconverted is superior to SD cameras.

The XH-A1 may have more options for creative use and mounting due to it's slightly lighter weight and form factor. For example, can be used on a Merlin, whereas the XL2 can really work well there. The XH-A1 is easier to mount on cars. The XH-A1 is not a shoulder mount camera, but there are many mounts available. The XH-A1 is fairly wide and has a low cost excellent wide angle adapter available.

I believe the XL2 is difficult to focus manually. The XH-A1 has outstanding iris, zoom and focus controls on the barrel of the lens.

I have an XH-A1 and am inpressed with it. I really think it's a better choice today than the XL2.

I also have and HD-110 which is true progressive and has removable lenses. But we're talking about a lot more money than the XH-A!, especially if you get a better lens than the stock lens.

The Canon 24f has proven itself to be good quality, and I don't think the XH-A1 can be beaten in anything close to its price.

<end of commericial>

Nice post
 

Jack,
basically from what you say there's no point in getting a Xl2? I might have to agree with this.

If you people will, would you mind pointing me in the directions of articles that talk about the progressive capability of the A1?

This is what I've read elsewhere: " Canon's 24F "fakes" progressive scan by slightly offsetting the vertical readout of the green CCD from those of the blue and red, generating a frame with 1.5x the lines of the 540-line field, or 810 lines, albeit ones using spatial rather than temporal interlace. As a result, the quality question arises: Do Canon's pseudo-progressive frames look the same as a true progressive frame or does one see artifacts?"

What do you think about this?

I owned an XL2 which I sold to buy an XHA1...

Both are great and I wish I still owned my XL2. It had a 'wow' factor when you pulled it out. Looked very pro. I liked the focusing and zooming more than the XHA1 and I thought that the manual 16X lens for the XL2 was one of the best video lenses ever made for a 1/3 camera. Period.

Great cam, not that old, too expensive, but still a decent tool in one's arsenal.

There are no artifacts from Canon's 24F mode, and you can see lots of clips on line to verify that. It's a true 24 frames per second, no pulldown. It's not fake--they simply get there in a different way. There is some resolution loss, but the initial resolution is so high that you can afford the loss and still look great. I think it's more important to look at footage than speculate about how they achieve 24p.