DVX100a or XL2

[Peter Jefferson]

cant wait till the 18th.. hmm.. maybe my DVX's wil start collecting dust..

maybe..

but i love my itty bitty Pannys...

[Ron Guilmette]

I've owned my DVX100 for about a year and a half now (one of the originals) and I love it. Every time I shoot it just gets better and better.
I would agree that if your doing sports type work, the cannon might be better for zooming. aparently the cannon does a better job.
Either way they are both very nice cameras.
Here are a few things I don't like about the DVX:

1.The focus ring does not have much friction so on the fly focusing can be a bit jumpy when you first put your hand on it.

2.The aperture wheel is a bitch to find some times while shooting In a hurry. (could just be the operator).

3. The on camera mic sucks in a big way. but I suspect that most all on camera mics are not that great anyway.

Don't get me wrong though, I absolutely love my DVX.
The video this thing takes was worth every penny.

[Jay Lim]

Question for those who have seen the XL2... is the microphone that comes with the camera connected using XLR? from pictures I see it doesn't seem to be so. does it make a difference to users like you?

also, my professor told me that the XL1's had problems with its sound recording (i believe sampling rate?), and that it didn't record at true 48khz or something. he told me that if he were buying a new camera, and if canon had fixed the XL1's sound problem, then he'd go for the XL2... so did they fix it for the XL2?

[Dean Sensui]

Regarding XL1 audio -- The XL1 series doesn't have "locked audio". In other words, the number samples per frame aren't exactly the same. It's an issue that has to do with the MiniDV vs DVCam format.

DVCam, on the other hand, has "locked audio" or a precise number of samples per frame (generally 48,000 or 32,000 samples/second).

Without locked audio there might be a slight amount of drift, but not enough to render the material useless. In fact, it's hardly noticable unless you're trying to combine audio tracks from a pair of cameras. In which case there might be issues with phase shifting under certain conditions.

Overall, the sound quality is good enough for almost everything. If you use a good mic and place it well, use good cables or a high-quality wireless system, then the results will not be objectionable at all.

Dean Sensui
Base Two Productions.

[Jack Barker]

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : The right one for you is the one that feels best in your hands.

Period. -->>>

Well ya know Chris, that implies that he ought to be shooting narrative film handheld and I'm not sure that's the best suggestion I've heard. If Jay is going to shoot narrative, then he really ought to have some good legs under his cam, not to mention a good fluid head.

I went into B&H in New York and tested both DVX100A and XL2. Let me say up front that just looking at the XL2 filled me with lust before my brain kicked in. It just looks cool - almost like a "real" movie camera. And native 16:9, OMG! The DVX looks like a brick.

I shot the same slow pan on each - back of the showroom to the front of the store. Same closeups, etc. Cine-Like D on the DVX, Cine-Gamma on XL2, 24p on both. Superb results on both, but the DVX had a slightly sharper look that the XL2 when viewed on my TV from a DVD I burned. Better saturation and a more filmic look than the XL2, even though the DVX was in "squeeze" mode and the XL2 was 16:9 native.

Sound recording on the DVX (I had my own Audio-Technica AT897 shotgun with me) was clearly superior.

The 3.5" LCD on the DVX was a real bonus that Canon shouldn't have left off of the XL2.

Jay HAS to get to a camera store where he can do a similar test, even if he has to get on a Greyhound bus to get there.

[Jay Lim]

Hi Jack,

nice, you got to test both side by side :) by the way, does the 16:9 anamorphic on the DVX display as a well proportioned letterbox on the LCD?

lol, getting on a greyhound in the middle of a busy semester isn't going to be wise, but i'm still trying to find a store nearby that carries either of these (the last store i mentioned was only digital still cameras).

[Jack Barker]

<<<-- Originally posted by Jay Lim : nice, you got to test both side by side :) by the way, does the 16:9 anamorphic on the DVX display as a well proportioned letterbox on the LCD? -->>>

Hey Jay, I didn't use the ana adapter in my test at the store, but this is what I know from others' posts. With the ana adapter on the DVX, the LCD shows a tall, skinny image. Someone - Century, I think - makes a "reverse anamorphic" adapter to straighten the image out to 16:9, but I think is for the eyepiece only, not for the LCD. It ain't cheap, but neither is the Panny anamorphic adapter. I am also lead to believe that a professional field monitor would straighten out the image as well, but again, we talking big bucks.

If you're just starting out, I assume you don't have the $50,000 to take you movie to a 35mm film print and that your final output will be on VHS tape or on DVD. If you think your film will be most likely viewed on a TV set, then the DVX squeeze mode will be just fine. If you think you might be using VHS or DVD at a film festival for projection on the big screen, then it's not going to look quite as good, but that's not the fault of the DVX - NONE of the 1/3" chip camcorders look overwhelming on the big screen. On the other hand, several feature films have been made with this type of camera, and outside of this geek community of ours, I haven't heard anyone complain about small chip video blown up for the big screen. The quality of the final product still depends on script, actors, camerawork, lighting, sound and editing. Most everything else is über-geek bullshit.

[Jay Lim]

ok well, either way, if i get the dvx100a, will i be able to transfer true 16:9 from it? like if i set it to anamorphic 16:9, will it transfer as full frame 16:9 onto my computer? i don't really like to have to use letterboxing so :)

[Dan Euritt]

<<<-- Originally posted by Jay Lim :
also, my professor told me that the XL1's had problems with its sound recording (i believe sampling rate?), and that it didn't record at true 48khz or something. -->>>

your prof is exactly right, there was an audio frequency issue with the xl1(not the xl1s) that showed up in some of the editing software at the time... specifically, earlier versions of premiere... but it was fixed a long time ago... you can probably find all the details by doing a usenet search at www.deja.com.

one thing that you can do is rent both cameras for a day... or go to your local videographers group and see if someone will bring 'em in for a demo.

[Jay Lim]

hey, answer me this, anyone.

okay, so the DVX100A has 2 modes for 16:9, letterbox and squeeze. these are my assumptions for these 2 recording modes:

letterbox:

the CCD records a 16:9 image, making the top and bottom parts of the CCD non-firing. the image you see on the LCD/viewfinder will be letterboxed. when transferring to computer for editing, the footage will have the visible letterboxing tops and bottoms.

squeeze:

the CCD records a 16:9 image, making the top and bottom parts of the CCD non-firing. the image you see on the LCD/viewfinder will take up the entire screen, but your image will be squeezed horizontally. when transferring to computer for editing, the footage will have no letterboxing tops and bottoms, and therefore is "true" 16:9 when transferred.

am i right in my assumptions? this is a kind of bummer if so, because i dislike having to see what i'm taking squeezed on my LCD. i don't mind image information being squeezed when recording, but squeezing on my LCD is like telling me to take footage while drunk.

[Rob Lohman]

I can't say how it looks on the DVX LCD, but it ain't "true" 16:9.
What it does is the same as letterboxing, only stored different.
It crops the bottom and top and then vertically stretches the
picture to full height and then storing that to tape and flagging
it as 16:9.

So yes, there is a 16:9 signal on tape which you could call true
16:9 (tape/format wise). But it has the exact same lower
resolution as the letterboxed version so you will not gain much
(you can argue that you might gain a slightly less compressed
signal, but that has yet to be proven to actually increase quality
by a visible amount).

[Jay Lim]

thanks for the info Rob :)

does anyone else who owns or has tried the dvx100a have any info on what i would see on the LCD/viewfinder under these 3 settings?

[Jay Lim]

aaaah bummer. i didn't realize that the XLR microphone that appears in so many pictures attached to the DVX100A was not in the kit!

[Hal Wolin]

Can anyone "bottom line" this for me?

I'm shooting a full length film in the near future on DV.

We currently have been using a Sony TRV 950 and a Sony VX 2000.

We have been looking at the following cameras:

Canon XLS1

Canon XLS2

Panasonic DX100a

Our budget is between $2500-$4000 per camera. We could go a bit more if need be but would like to avoid it. We are currently planning to purchase two of the same cameras.

What questions should I be thinking about or asking of these models?

Any suggestions on what my best route would be?

My Apologies for the lack of information, but I will fill in any blanks requested to get a proper suggestion out of you guys.

tnx

-Hal

[Chris Hurd]

Hal, the XL1S is discontinued. The XL2 is over your budget. The DVX100A is probably your best choice within your budget. The right camera for you is the one which feels best in your hands.