DVX100 vs. GL2

Paul Bravmann · February 23rd, 2006, 05:01 AM

would someone who has hands-on experience with both cameras please offer a comparison of the low light performance between the GL2 and the DVX100 in 24p mode?

i'm shooting a documentary - mostly interiors - mostly using available light - and am wondering if "upgrading" to the DVX100 would make sense for me. i've heard that when shooting in 24p mode on the DVX100's low light abilities are drastically reduced. but also that smart use of the gamma settings can compensate on some level.

i suppose it goes without saying, but i'm interested in using as little gain as possible.

much thanks,
phb

Kevin Shaw · February 23rd, 2006, 09:09 AM

I did some test shots on both of these cameras plus some others last week, and based on a quick look at the footage I'd say the GL2 is grainier in low light. I believe the GL2 has a 1/4" sensor while the DVX100 is 1/3", so it makes sense that the latter is going to have better all-around performance including low-light sensitivity. Perhaps someone with more experience with both cameras can confirm all this, but that's my take.

Lyndon Golanowski · February 23rd, 2006, 08:18 PM

i own a gl2 and rent dvx100, gl2 is a piece of crap. especially in low light, the dvx100 is much better in low light, plus it doesnt eat your tapes and start rejecting them after only 30 hours of use. DO NOT BUY CANON PRODUCTS!

As soon as I can afford I am going to light my GL2 on fire and buy the PANASONIC!

February 23rd, 2006, 05:01 AM	#1
Paul Bravmann Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 44	DVX100 vs. GL2 - Low Light Comparison? would someone who has hands-on experience with both cameras please offer a comparison of the low light performance between the GL2 and the DVX100 in 24p mode? i'm shooting a documentary - mostly interiors - mostly using available light - and am wondering if "upgrading" to the DVX100 would make sense for me. i've heard that when shooting in 24p mode on the DVX100's low light abilities are drastically reduced. but also that smart use of the gamma settings can compensate on some level. i suppose it goes without saying, but i'm interested in using as little gain as possible. much thanks, phb

February 23rd, 2006, 09:09 AM	#2
Kevin Shaw Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 2,488	I did some test shots on both of these cameras plus some others last week, and based on a quick look at the footage I'd say the GL2 is grainier in low light. I believe the GL2 has a 1/4" sensor while the DVX100 is 1/3", so it makes sense that the latter is going to have better all-around performance including low-light sensitivity. Perhaps someone with more experience with both cameras can confirm all this, but that's my take.

February 23rd, 2006, 08:18 PM	#3
Lyndon Golanowski Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Edmonton, Alberta Posts: 51	i own a gl2 and rent dvx100, gl2 is a piece of crap. especially in low light, the dvx100 is much better in low light, plus it doesnt eat your tapes and start rejecting them after only 30 hours of use. DO NOT BUY CANON PRODUCTS! As soon as I can afford I am going to light my GL2 on fire and buy the PANASONIC!