Calling all Xl2 owners....help! Is my camera defective? samples for you...

[Don Berube]

Marty Hudzik writes:
>>>>>>>>"But I don;t want 16x9 with poor color reproduction and soft images. My DVX (no longer have it) consistently gave sharp clear pictures regardless of the light... I have tried changing settings, tweaking colors and even using gain. IT helps but there is not mistaking that something is off. At least on this camera. And I find it hard to beleive that something that is this obvious to me on the videos I've shot could be deemed acceptable to everyone else... My only thought is that the frame grabs do not properly show the issue at hand. There is a real lack of contrast in most of the footage."

Marty, with all respect. This isn't going anywhere... Seriously. The appropriate procedure for you to follow is to contact your dealer first and allow them the opportunity to work with Canon in determining if your camera is defective. The good news is that you purchased your camera from a very reputable and professional service-oriented Canon authorized reseller. You stated to me today that they have personally offered you an R.M.A. # to quickly return the camera to them so that your isssues can be addressed promptly with a minimum of downtime. Why don't you take advantage of that? That is the only way this can be most effectively addressed. They will take care of you. Trust me on this one. Do not fear that if you allow the camera to leave your hands that the integrity of the camera will be compromised. Holding onto the camera and performing tests comparing the output of the camera against the DVX is not going to solve anything. The issue at hand is whether or not your particular camera is performing as it was designed to. In simple terms, the camera needs to be checked by qualified Canon-authorized technicians. Please do not take this the wrong way, I feel for you bud... been there, done that, you know? Speaking from my own direct experience with the new XL2, I can safely say that it is a wonderful camera capable of handling most anything you throw at it. I took a look at the images you posted. They look under-exposed a bit, yes. The colors look a little on the neutral/ unsaturated side, yes. Is the XL2 capable of producing a much more pleasing image in that environment you set up? Most definitely.

Personally, I feel that you need an eye break, a respit from this ordeal - let's move forward instead of detracting sideways - send the XL2 back so that it can be determined if it is defective.

Please be mindful of jumping to conclusions. That is a very 'reactive' thing to do and the most 'proactive' thing you can do for yourself at this point is to move forward and follow through with the return arrangement offered to you by your dealer.

Everything is going to work out.

Sincerely wishing you the best,

- don

[Rob Lohman]

Good points from all (especially Don now). If you are not happy
take them up on the offer and otherwise get your DVX back.

I can understand why some people might be dissappointed, but
if you've bought the camera you just haven't done your homework
in my opinion. Now this is not to bash anyone, but consider the
following (this is going to sound a bit hars, sorry):

1) if you want the first camera's out of the plant you know it might have problems and you definitely know you can't do any of my points below

2) I would not buy a camera I did not tested myself for that kind of money. At least indoor in the store.

3) Some people complain about money versus features etc. etc. Clearly the camera is not for you. Don't buy it then.

As stated before if you don't want 16:9 then you are probably
better off with the DVX indeed. That doesn't make the XL2 a
lesser camera or over-priced.

What I find funny is that a lot of people seem to want film look
(which means the widescreen look as well) and when a camera
comes out with true 16:9 and 24p this combination is not praised
and people say they don't need/want 16:9. Huh? Now perhaps
these are not the same people (so please don't take offense),
but this feels a bit "off". The only reason I can imagine for not
wanting true 16:9 is when you are doing lots of TV / wedding
work for example. If you are in the business of making fictional
entertainment pieces why would you not want this?

I think a lot of people think that the things that the DVX offers should be considered standard fair now - I mean the camera has been out for years - if you're an indie filmmaker on a low budget. So they expect an LCD of decent size (Cause they can't afford a pro monitor for the set). They expect a good wide angle cause that's popular and very useful indoors (And not have to buy an adapter). They expect good manual control of the lens built in (So they can pull focus etc) without having to buy another lens - and in the DVX case you can't so if that had none of those things they'd be screwed.

I assume you meant to write CAN instead of CAN'T in that last line.

Anyway, you say: "expect an LCD", "expect a good wide angle",
"expect good manual control" and "cause they can't afford a pro monitor"

If you can't afford a pro monitor (which you can get around $500
second hand) you should not get any of these camera's for
fictional work. Period. You can't trust the LCD on a DVX either,
perhaps more than the XL2 LCD, but still not as a professional
CRT monitor. If you can't shell out $500 for that I think you just
bought a too expensive camera. I've never had a problem
critically focussing my XL1S and the viewfinder on the XL2 should
be even better.

You also say people "expect" the other options. That is all fine
and well and those people can buy the DVX. I mean, if someone
who is expecting such options and buys a XL2 they have clearly
NOT done their homework. Simple as well. You don't HAVE to buy
an XL2 or a DVX. You HAVE a CHOICE.

From ZGC you can buy the XL2 *with* the manual lens and a B&W
viewfinder (which is way better than the DVX LCD) INSTEAD OF
the normal items. Yes you will pay more, but not that much more
(for the manual lens).

It all boils down to choice in the end. Basically who cares if
someone is dissapointed with a certain camera (if they haven't
bought it yet!). Get another camera. The camera doesn't make
your movie (great).

Why did you all plunk down $5000 for a camera when you've only
seen footage from PRE-PRODUCTION models and not even some
that you have recorded yourself? Not only that, you are getting
the first batch of camera's for a high price.

I'm just wondering why you guys bought the camera. Everybody
knows problems can crop up in the first couple of shipments,
prices will be high and you didn't get a change to see footage.
That's a pretty big gamble with $5000, especially if you need to
shoot for a client right away for example.

I appologize if this offended people. I'm just expressing my
questions and thoughts on this matter. It is not directed at
anyone in particular.

I don't know if the XL2 is good or not. I wouldn't recommend it
to anyone yet myself. I would encourage to check it out at a
store to see how it is. But that's always good to do.

Three things to perhaps get this resolved:

1) work with the company you bought it from, as indicated above they should help you in resolving this "issue"

2) the previous remark on PAL versus NTSC is an interesting one

3) how about viewfinder settings? On the XL1S I can focus the viewfinder. Perhaps this is off resulting in a blurred image? (focus with a black background (lens cap) on the white text)

What I think is key to posting ANY material with either the XL2
or the DVX is the mention of the EXACT settings used to shoot it.
The default settings on both camera's might be off. I know cine
settings may greatly improve images. There are so many settings
to change on each camera that it really becomes important to
tell exactly which settings you used (mode, shutter, iris, gain,
matrix, color balances, sharpness levels, black/white levels etc.)

[Aaron Koolen]

Rob I think your points are valid, but I think the points of others are equally - it depends on your feelings of how you think this sort of market should operate. Sure, if we don't like it don't buy it, and if we don't want to fork out more $$ for the other bits, don't buy it - But that doesn't help the issue of trying to get companies to offer more to the consumer that what they might "want" to. I believe in putting more power in our hands, and less in theirs.

I'm the sort of guy who likes to see innovation. I used to develop computer games and I tried to be innovative in doing so. I loved the Amiga and it's innovative way of doing things (Just let down by Commodore and squashed by the PC behemoth) I'm still a developer and when we look at what new things we want to put into the next version of our software, me and most of the other developers want to put in stuff WAY over and above what we know the bean counters will allow - and it pisses me off that we have to basically cripple our software because of it.

Canon had a prime opportunity to kick arse in this field and I like the style of the Xl series cameras so I was hoping to see some socks knocked off just like Panasonic knocked some off when it unleashed 24p at that price point.

Guess I was naive and expected too much and I don't think any side will win this debate, it's sort of fruitless.

Aaron

[Greg Boston]

2) the previous remark on PAL versus NTSC is an interesting one

Thanks Rob. I was beginning to think my earlier post was somehow invisible. Tomorrow, I will get to test the NTSC XL2 against my NTSC XL1. Something tells me I am going to be pleased with the difference in quality. My only possible pre ownership complaint is loss of the 'wheel' control for iris. A toggle lever would seem to inhibit manual use.

To Don. What is your take on the new iris control? Is it limiting by your standards. BTW, am enjoying the MA-100 and isolator.

regards,

-gb-

[Don Berube]

Greg Boston writes:
>>>>>>>>"To Don. What is your take on the new iris control? Is it limiting by your standards. BTW, am enjoying the MA-100 and isolator."

Heyas Greg,

It is what it is. Same as before with the XL1s. I have no issue with it really- my brain simply adapts, for real.

If you have a need to constantly ride the iris during recording, consider buying the older Canon 14X Full Manual. (still available for sale from some resellers)

Hope to meet you soon at a show,

- don

[Greg Boston]

If you have a need to constantly ride the iris during recording, consider buying the older Canon 14X Full Manual. (still available for sale from some resellers)

Yes Don, been considering that since I now have a CO .6 clamp on which fits that lense. I was doing a shoot a couple weekends ago having to ride the iris quite a lot (filming a bike race). I finally gave in and threw the camera in Tv mode so I could hold a constant shutter speed(required by the guy paying me).

regards,

-gb-

[Marty Hudzik]

Don,
My camera is indeed going back to the dealer. I opened my mind and started tweaking the gain and colors as we talked about yesterday. While I see some minor improvement I still get the feeling that the image is flat or soft or whatever. I hope I get good results from the dealer regarding Canon fixing/replacing....whatever.

I only responded in this thread again as there was a comment that basically stated that all of this is user error. That kindof ticked me off. In ten years in the business I have never found this issue with any cam......Canon AI Digital, Canon L2, VX1000, XL1, DVX100 or PD150. I haven't had any problem adapting to each camera strengths or weakness. I also haven't had the luxury of shooting on a better format like Digibeta or HD. SO all of my reference is in the "prosumer" world.

Maybe from what I have read I expected the XL2 to be a step above prosumer. At this point....mine.....my own......thos one here.....is not showing that. I am not dogging all XL2's.

I have a short video shoot at work today in the plant which is in a well lit area. I have done many commercials here before with the DVX and have a good reference. I am planning on using the XL2 there before sending it back as one last test of its image. I am now just judging the res and clarity and not worried about it's low light capabilites compared to DVX. Only raw image qulaity ....and this is 16x9 so I should see an improvement.

I;ll let you know how it stands up in this environment as opposed to the not perfectly lit environment.

[Richard Alvarez]

Interesting article/editorial in October's DV magazine. It's all about WHY manufacturers don't add the nice things we want to prosumer cameras, when everyone knows they "can". Worth a read, and helps to understand their viewpoint. (Might be online at DV.com??)

[Barry Goyette]

Marty

I posted some new clips with more color. I'm curious to see how they look to your eyes.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=31660

Barry