Stupid comparison but.. XL2 vs DVX100? at DVinfo.net

Rob Onekea · July 17th, 2004, 10:38 PM

Ok, here's my dilema... I have a project to shoot 2-3 music vids within the next month or two and I want as close to an MTV look
as possible without using film. (i know, before you start flaming "you want film, get film)

I have 2 XL1's and an XL1s right now but have heard raves about the DVX100 being rather solid in that area. Now that the XL2 is available (not sure when street date is) should I hold off or go with the Panasonic for now?

Haven't seen any captures as of yet but we're having a Vegas seminar next week that DSE will be having, I know he'd got a few.

thanks guys

Aaron Koolen · July 17th, 2004, 10:43 PM

Well, the xl2 isn't out so we can't see much from it. Initial blurbs on it's performance and discussion on some of the design decisions (<1/4" CCD for 4:3) aren't super impressive (If it was, we'd be hearing about it for sure). You know the DVX is pretty well solid and well tested and the results are good. Just go DVX.

Aaron

Jean-Philippe Archibald · July 17th, 2004, 11:13 PM

Stick with your XL1s for this shot. The XL2 will only be available in 6 to 8 weeks, and the price will be high. You already know how to operate your XL1s, the camera is the least important factor to acheive a specific look. Instead of bothering which camera to use, perfect your lightning techniques, practice your camera movements, improve yourself. You already own an amazing camera.

Rob Onekea · July 18th, 2004, 12:38 AM

Yeah, but you know how it goes, been there, now what can I do to improve the whole project. I pretty much have the whole package. (10ft. jib, steadycam, lowell lighting kit, CREW!)

Only other thing I was considering would be different lenses, car mount, and different camera.

Young-H. Lee · July 18th, 2004, 07:50 AM

hey, check this site out, it was shot with DVX100

VERY film-like

http://www.arkhamfilms.com/california_large.html

Rob Onekea · July 18th, 2004, 02:50 PM

That is awesome! Very cinematic look. Exactly what I'm looking for! Thanks Young.

July 18th, 2004, 06:09 PM

Rob, great work, excellent color. What did you use for this project? DVX100 or DVX100A? Anamorphic? Magic Bullet?

July 18th, 2004, 06:10 PM

Sorry, I meant great work Young! I'm sure your work is good too Rob.

Stephen van Vuuren · July 18th, 2004, 10:00 PM

I'm currently considering the DX100a vs. XL2. I owned an XL1 which I sold a couple of years ago including all lenses etc. I owned a couple of DVX100's for about a month before a financial scam forced me to sell them.

While both are great cams (at least the XL2 looks so far), here's my take after reading extensively:

Bottom line is, unless you are heavily invested XL1 user, is native 16:9 & long telephoto worth several thousand dollars more?

The DVX costs $3500. The XL2 is $4900. Or body only at $3900. You need the 3X lens to get as wide as the DVX. Plus you need a second lens, either 16x manual or 20x OIS.

The glass on the XL2 looks nice, but the manual offers no OIS, yet the DVX offers OIS and smooth manual feel with focus display and has a manual focus adaptor (CO).

Certainly nature or event users that need huge telephoto ranges benefit with the XL2, but I'm dissapointed Canon does not make a more useful wide lens for the XL2. You still have to slap a WA on front of the 3X to get wider than 32mm (35mm equivalent), identical to the DVX.

Native 16:9 is very compelling - but the dollars are steep, too steep I think. And $800 gets you native via anamorphic on DVX, albeit with an adaptor on the lens and tricky operation.

The CCD block overall and few test shots look excellent. But the combo CCD/viewfinder is not exciting nor do I care for the shoulder mount, heavy design (I direct and DP).

But I think for "bang for the buck" the XL2 falls short. If either the price were lowered dramatically or the lens offerings were better for wide and normal focus lengths and/or it offered HDV or SDI output or some factor that would make a dramatic, not subtle difference in image quality, I'm don't see the value for new camera buyers, only for existing XL1/s users.

Kind of analogous to the Mac G5 - compelling upgrade for existing Mac users, but not much bang for the buck for most PC user to switch platforms.

I don't see the XL2 being a big threat to DVX100a at the current price levels unless the XL2 pulls some magic out of the DV format image quality that I don't think it technicially possible.

Rob Onekea · July 19th, 2004, 03:21 AM

thanks for your take Stephen. After viewing the clips and videos at the site posted above, I'm getting a DVX100. Looks way too solid! Thanks for all the input though from everyone!

Rob Onekea · July 19th, 2004, 03:21 AM

oops... double post.!

Jim Giberti · July 19th, 2004, 10:14 AM

<<Kind of analogous to the Mac G5 - compelling upgrade for existing Mac users, but not much bang for the buck for most PC user to switch platforms.
>>

Like the XL2, unless you've worked on a G5 running Panther and integrated with the high end suite of FCPHD, LiveType, Shake and DVD Studio Pro you really have no idea how powerful/productive/creative an environment you're missing...there's simply nothing like it in the PC world. that's a fact, not conjecture.

The XL2 offers a level of professional control (we're all waiting to see real test footage and really run it through it's paces) that simply goes beyond the DVX line and all others under 5k (and many significantly above, if native 16:9 and 24p, cine gamma etc. are part of your creative canvas.)

Like a G5/Panther suite, you have to look at what it's concept and integrated strategy is all about. Both have a specific tarrget of creative professionals and high end amateurs who need the creative strength and flexibilty and integration that they offer.

It's more an issue IMO of deciding whether you want/need to step up to another level. Honestly, if you're doing work at the level that either provides...an extra 1-2 k isn't a big issue. If you're a student film maker, or someone who wants a simple all in one design more for the masses tool with it's inherent lack of flexibilty and growth options for various professional situations...the DVX is the tool.

If your of the other stripe, there should be little question that the XL2 is the right tool.

Jim Giberti · July 19th, 2004, 10:15 AM

<<Kind of analogous to the Mac G5 - compelling upgrade for existing Mac users, but not much bang for the buck for most PC user to switch platforms.
>>

Like the XL2, unless you've worked on a G5 running Panther and integrated with the high end suite of FCPHD, LiveType, Shake and DVD Studio Pro you really have no idea how powerful/productive/creative an environment you're missing...there's simply nothing like it in the PC world. that's a fact, not conjecture.

The XL2 offers a level of professional control (we're all waiting to see real test footage and really run it through it's paces) that simply goes beyond the DVX line and all others under 5k (and many significantly above, if native 16:9 and 24p, cine gamma etc. are part of your creative canvas.)

Like a G5/Panther suite, you have to look at what it's concept and integrated strategy is all about. Both have a specific tarrget of creative professionals and high end amateurs who need the creative strength and flexibilty and integration that they offer.

It's more an issue IMO of deciding whether you want/need to step up to another level. Honestly, if you're doing work at the level that either provides...an extra 1-2 k isn't a big issue. If you're a student film maker, or someone who wants a simple all in one design more for the masses tool with it's inherent lack of flexibilty and growth options for various professional situations...the DVX is the tool.

If your of the other stripe, there should be little question that the XL2 is the right tool.

Robert Mann Z. · July 19th, 2004, 10:54 AM

<-- The XL2 offers a level of professional control (we're all waiting to see real test footage and really run it through it's paces) that simply goes beyond the DVX line and all others under 5k -->

is this based on any facts or is just what you feel, if this is based on fact please educate me on how xl2 "professional" control goes beyond the dvx or pd170 for that matter...

after reading many posts here it simply comes down to what you have invested in the xl line, if you need interchangable lenses, if you will shoot 16:9 and finally if you prefer a body style...except for the 16:9 most of those are very subjective reasons to get an xl2...

i have been fortunate enough to own an xl1 xl1s an dvx, also have been lucky to try out a preproduction xl2...let me say the xl2 is a wonderful piece of technology, simply put the output is excellent, but the reality is i did not see any significant increase in resolution on my xl2 footage vs my dvx, i read somewhere that the dvx and xl2 share the same ccd, if this is true then that makes sense

i'm still undecided on getting an xl2 or getting another dvx, i think my decsion will be based on my wallet, if i can get the same picture out of camera thats 1,500 less then i think i may go that route, either way i know i can't go wrong...

Peter Moore · July 19th, 2004, 10:57 AM

I don't think it's a stupid comparison. There's a clear winner feature-wise (XL2) but when price is considered, the decision becomes harder.

XL2 has true 16x9. No one will be filming in 4x3 in a few years so 4x3 performance is irrelevant. It has interchangeable lenses. It's a Canon so it's going to have gorgeous PQ.

The DVX100A lacks true 16x9 (But you can get an anamorphic lens) and it lacks interchangeable lenses. It's also much much less money. How many of us need interchangeable lenses?

So, again, not a stupid comparison.

July 17th, 2004, 10:38 PM	#1
Rob Onekea Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Way Out West Posts: 27	Stupid comparison but.. XL2 vs DVX100? Ok, here's my dilema... I have a project to shoot 2-3 music vids within the next month or two and I want as close to an MTV look as possible without using film. (i know, before you start flaming "you want film, get film) I have 2 XL1's and an XL1s right now but have heard raves about the DVX100 being rather solid in that area. Now that the XL2 is available (not sure when street date is) should I hold off or go with the Panasonic for now? Haven't seen any captures as of yet but we're having a Vegas seminar next week that DSE will be having, I know he'd got a few. thanks guys

July 17th, 2004, 10:43 PM	#2
Aaron Koolen Trustee Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 1,727	Well, the xl2 isn't out so we can't see much from it. Initial blurbs on it's performance and discussion on some of the design decisions (<1/4" CCD for 4:3) aren't super impressive (If it was, we'd be hearing about it for sure). You know the DVX is pretty well solid and well tested and the results are good. Just go DVX. Aaron __________________ My Website Meat Free Media

July 17th, 2004, 11:13 PM	#3
Jean-Philippe Archibald Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Saguenay, Québec, Canada Posts: 1,051	Stick with your XL1s for this shot. The XL2 will only be available in 6 to 8 weeks, and the price will be high. You already know how to operate your XL1s, the camera is the least important factor to acheive a specific look. Instead of bothering which camera to use, perfect your lightning techniques, practice your camera movements, improve yourself. You already own an amazing camera. __________________ Jean-Philippe Archibald http://www.jparchibald.com - http://www.vimeo.com/jparchib

July 18th, 2004, 07:50 AM	#5
Young-H. Lee Regular Crew Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 44	hey, check this site out, it was shot with DVX100 VERY film-like http://www.arkhamfilms.com/california_large.html __________________ It's the perfect time to be a filmmaker.

July 18th, 2004, 10:00 PM	#9
Stephen van Vuuren Space Hipster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Greensboro, NC Posts: 1,508	I'm currently considering the DX100a vs. XL2. I owned an XL1 which I sold a couple of years ago including all lenses etc. I owned a couple of DVX100's for about a month before a financial scam forced me to sell them. While both are great cams (at least the XL2 looks so far), here's my take after reading extensively: Bottom line is, unless you are heavily invested XL1 user, is native 16:9 & long telephoto worth several thousand dollars more? The DVX costs $3500. The XL2 is $4900. Or body only at $3900. You need the 3X lens to get as wide as the DVX. Plus you need a second lens, either 16x manual or 20x OIS. The glass on the XL2 looks nice, but the manual offers no OIS, yet the DVX offers OIS and smooth manual feel with focus display and has a manual focus adaptor (CO). Certainly nature or event users that need huge telephoto ranges benefit with the XL2, but I'm dissapointed Canon does not make a more useful wide lens for the XL2. You still have to slap a WA on front of the 3X to get wider than 32mm (35mm equivalent), identical to the DVX. Native 16:9 is very compelling - but the dollars are steep, too steep I think. And $800 gets you native via anamorphic on DVX, albeit with an adaptor on the lens and tricky operation. The CCD block overall and few test shots look excellent. But the combo CCD/viewfinder is not exciting nor do I care for the shoulder mount, heavy design (I direct and DP). But I think for "bang for the buck" the XL2 falls short. If either the price were lowered dramatically or the lens offerings were better for wide and normal focus lengths and/or it offered HDV or SDI output or some factor that would make a dramatic, not subtle difference in image quality, I'm don't see the value for new camera buyers, only for existing XL1/s users. Kind of analogous to the Mac G5 - compelling upgrade for existing Mac users, but not much bang for the buck for most PC user to switch platforms. I don't see the XL2 being a big threat to DVX100a at the current price levels unless the XL2 pulls some magic out of the DV format image quality that I don't think it technicially possible. __________________ stephen v2 www.insaturnsrings.com

July 18th, 2004, 12:38 AM	#4
Rob Onekea Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Way Out West Posts: 27	Yeah, but you know how it goes, been there, now what can I do to improve the whole project. I pretty much have the whole package. (10ft. jib, steadycam, lowell lighting kit, CREW!) Only other thing I was considering would be different lenses, car mount, and different camera.

July 18th, 2004, 02:50 PM	#6
Rob Onekea Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Way Out West Posts: 27	That is awesome! Very cinematic look. Exactly what I'm looking for! Thanks Young.

July 18th, 2004, 06:09 PM	#7
Guest Posts: n/a	Rob, great work, excellent color. What did you use for this project? DVX100 or DVX100A? Anamorphic? Magic Bullet?

July 18th, 2004, 06:10 PM	#8
Guest Posts: n/a	Sorry, I meant great work Young! I'm sure your work is good too Rob.

July 19th, 2004, 03:21 AM	#10
Rob Onekea Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Way Out West Posts: 27	thanks for your take Stephen. After viewing the clips and videos at the site posted above, I'm getting a DVX100. Looks way too solid! Thanks for all the input though from everyone!

July 19th, 2004, 10:14 AM	#12
Jim Giberti Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Bethel, VT Posts: 824	<<Kind of analogous to the Mac G5 - compelling upgrade for existing Mac users, but not much bang for the buck for most PC user to switch platforms. >> Like the XL2, unless you've worked on a G5 running Panther and integrated with the high end suite of FCPHD, LiveType, Shake and DVD Studio Pro you really have no idea how powerful/productive/creative an environment you're missing...there's simply nothing like it in the PC world. that's a fact, not conjecture. The XL2 offers a level of professional control (we're all waiting to see real test footage and really run it through it's paces) that simply goes beyond the DVX line and all others under 5k (and many significantly above, if native 16:9 and 24p, cine gamma etc. are part of your creative canvas.) Like a G5/Panther suite, you have to look at what it's concept and integrated strategy is all about. Both have a specific tarrget of creative professionals and high end amateurs who need the creative strength and flexibilty and integration that they offer. It's more an issue IMO of deciding whether you want/need to step up to another level. Honestly, if you're doing work at the level that either provides...an extra 1-2 k isn't a big issue. If you're a student film maker, or someone who wants a simple all in one design more for the masses tool with it's inherent lack of flexibilty and growth options for various professional situations...the DVX is the tool. If your of the other stripe, there should be little question that the XL2 is the right tool.

July 19th, 2004, 10:15 AM	#13
Jim Giberti Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Bethel, VT Posts: 824	<<Kind of analogous to the Mac G5 - compelling upgrade for existing Mac users, but not much bang for the buck for most PC user to switch platforms. >> Like the XL2, unless you've worked on a G5 running Panther and integrated with the high end suite of FCPHD, LiveType, Shake and DVD Studio Pro you really have no idea how powerful/productive/creative an environment you're missing...there's simply nothing like it in the PC world. that's a fact, not conjecture. The XL2 offers a level of professional control (we're all waiting to see real test footage and really run it through it's paces) that simply goes beyond the DVX line and all others under 5k (and many significantly above, if native 16:9 and 24p, cine gamma etc. are part of your creative canvas.) Like a G5/Panther suite, you have to look at what it's concept and integrated strategy is all about. Both have a specific tarrget of creative professionals and high end amateurs who need the creative strength and flexibilty and integration that they offer. It's more an issue IMO of deciding whether you want/need to step up to another level. Honestly, if you're doing work at the level that either provides...an extra 1-2 k isn't a big issue. If you're a student film maker, or someone who wants a simple all in one design more for the masses tool with it's inherent lack of flexibilty and growth options for various professional situations...the DVX is the tool. If your of the other stripe, there should be little question that the XL2 is the right tool.

July 19th, 2004, 10:54 AM	#14
Robert Mann Z. Skyonic New York Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NYC Posts: 614	<-- The XL2 offers a level of professional control (we're all waiting to see real test footage and really run it through it's paces) that simply goes beyond the DVX line and all others under 5k --> is this based on any facts or is just what you feel, if this is based on fact please educate me on how xl2 "professional" control goes beyond the dvx or pd170 for that matter... after reading many posts here it simply comes down to what you have invested in the xl line, if you need interchangable lenses, if you will shoot 16:9 and finally if you prefer a body style...except for the 16:9 most of those are very subjective reasons to get an xl2... i have been fortunate enough to own an xl1 xl1s an dvx, also have been lucky to try out a preproduction xl2...let me say the xl2 is a wonderful piece of technology, simply put the output is excellent, but the reality is i did not see any significant increase in resolution on my xl2 footage vs my dvx, i read somewhere that the dvx and xl2 share the same ccd, if this is true then that makes sense i'm still undecided on getting an xl2 or getting another dvx, i think my decsion will be based on my wallet, if i can get the same picture out of camera thats 1,500 less then i think i may go that route, either way i know i can't go wrong...

July 19th, 2004, 10:57 AM	#15
Peter Moore Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Arlington VA Posts: 1,034	I don't think it's a stupid comparison. There's a clear winner feature-wise (XL2) but when price is considered, the decision becomes harder. XL2 has true 16x9. No one will be filming in 4x3 in a few years so 4x3 performance is irrelevant. It has interchangeable lenses. It's a Canon so it's going to have gorgeous PQ. The DVX100A lacks true 16x9 (But you can get an anamorphic lens) and it lacks interchangeable lenses. It's also much much less money. How many of us need interchangeable lenses? So, again, not a stupid comparison.