Hi, I'm new here, and have got back into making films, so I'm alittle rusty on the times. Recently, a new slew of cameras came out while I was out of the hobby(when I got out the PD150 was just coming out) and I've heard good things about the Sony VX2100.

Well, here's my dilema. I'm looking for a medium range camera in the $2,000 and it's really boiled down to either the Sony VX2100 or Canon GL2. Now, I've never owned a Canon camcorder, but I have owned a Sony camera, and I've heard good things about both.

I want to make short films and spend my money's worth on the sharpest looking best bang for the buck camcorder. Which one would you recommend? I've already found something I don't like about the GL2, which is when you need to use manual focus you have to hold the focus button down while turning the dial. I like how Sony has theres better. So, would it be wise to stick with the tryed and true GL2 or go with the new Sony VX2100? Your opinons please.

I have a VX-2000 and the 2100 offers some nice incremental upgrades. With bigger chips and better low light than the GL-2 I think it's a good choice, although the Canon has some nice things like frame mode.

To further complicate things, you might check out the Sony PDX-10 and Panasonic DVC-80 and DVC-30. All of these are in the same cost ballpark. The PDX-10 has most of the features of the PD-150; XLR's, short shotgun mike, DVCAM recording, BW viewfinder, and also possibly the best quality 16:9 mode of any of the prosumers. But it has smaller chips so low light performance suffers some. I also have one of these and like it a lot.

The DVC-80 is discontinued but probably still available and gets enthusiastic user reports. It also has XLR inputs and is sort of an ENG version of the DVX-100a. The DVC-30 is new, and similar in size to the PDX-10, also with smaller CCD's. An XLR box is available as an accessory.

Tough choice in this price range, but it's nice to have choices! Why not spend a little time reviewing our forums for each of these cameras, the topic has come up often in the past.

<<<-- Originally posted by Boyd Ostroff : I have a VX-2000 and the 2100 offers some nice incremental upgrades. With bigger chips and better low light than the GL-2 I think it's a good choice, although the Canon has some nice things like frame mode.

To further complicate things, you might check out the Sony PDX-10 and Panasonic DVC-80 and DVC-30. All of these are in the same cost ballpark. The PDX-10 has most of the features of the PD-150; XLR's, short shotgun mike, DVCAM recording, BW viewfinder, and also possibly the best quality 16:9 mode of any of the prosumers. But it has smaller chips so low light performance suffers some. I also have one of these and like it a lot.

The DVC-80 is discontinued but probably still available and gets enthusiastic user reports. It also has XLR inputs and is sort of an ENG version of the DVX-100a. The DVC-30 is new, and similar in size to the PDX-10, also with smaller CCD's. An XLR box is available as an accessory.

Tough choice in this price range, but it's nice to have choices! Why not spend a little time reviewing our forums for each of these cameras, the topic has come up often in the past. -->>>

Thank you for the feedback! I have read many reviews and done some research, and I still at the same spot again. Either the Canon GL2 or the Sony VX2100. All the reviews I've read have praised the Sony VX2100 for it's great low-light shots and overall good performance. It's newer also, and it sounds like the Canon is slacking behind. I'm almost postive that I'm going with the Sony VX2100, unless somebody convinces me not to. Thank you for your help!

Also, do I need to worry about Sony or Canon releasing a mid-range camera right after I buy one, like a GL3? That would be a bummer.

>It's newer

I own a vx2000 and chose it over the GL2 for the indoor, lower light performance. While I like the camera, the VX2000 is an,
ahem, established model. The VX2100 is a nearly negligible upgrade on the vx2000, thus it is also "tried and true"

<<<-- I've already found something I don't like about the GL2, which is when you need to use manual focus you have to hold the focus button down while turning the dial. -->>>

I don't really understand this statement. To activate manual focus, you just press the button and that's it - no holding it down at all. You just focus using the excellent large rubber sleeve on the lens.
Oh, and the pictures are really sharp as well.

Robin

here's an older but similar thread... your should read it :)

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25714

Arr, you guys are making it even harder to decide. It seems alot of people are 50/50. Sounds like the GL2 has a better layout and also extra optical zoom, and the VX2100 has better low light picture. I guess what it boils down to is which one is comfortable to me. I've already played around with the GL2, but I need to go play around with a VX2100.

So, really my last question would be..

What camera should I choose for the best total performance and best picture to make films?

Thanks everyone!

There's nothing wrong with the control layout of the VX. The VX will give you more latitude, with it's larger chips. This means more to me than longer zoom or frame rate. For me, there is no question of which is the better camera.

we all have our own preferences... before I bought my GL2, I went out and tried both units... I liked the GL2 better... and since I mostly shoot outdoor scenes, the low light performance of the sony VX didn't affect my decision... maybe the bigger CCD's of the VX will give u higher resolution, but then again it is useless on my application... I needed a lighter, smaller, and one that I felt has a better control layout... and I liked the color of the GL2 too... it won't absorb as much heat as the VX while shooting under the sun...

that decision depends on you alone Jake :)

I have the GL2 and love everything about it...except it's low-light performance. It is definately lacking in this area, and you notice it. But other than that I love the camera. Its lay out is wonderful, has great features (frame mode, adjustable audio channels, 20x zoom -- I love this one, the list goes on) and its also a little smaller and (I think) easier to hold/manage than the VX.

Just my $.02

<<<-- Originally posted by Gerald Yuvallos : we all have our own preferences... before I bought my GL2, I went out and tried both units... I liked the GL2 better... and since I mostly shoot outdoor scenes, the low light performance of the sony VX didn't affect my decision... maybe the bigger CCD's of the VX will give u higher resolution, but then again it is useless on my application... I needed a lighter, smaller, and one that I felt has a better control layout... and I liked the color of the GL2 too... it won't absorb as much heat as the VX while shooting under the sun...

that decision depends on you alone Jake :) -->>>

Put the pressure on me now! :P

Ok, well Optical zoom isn't has important to me. So, I'm still leaning toward the VX2100. Now, they really both have the same picture quality correct? Just the VX2100 has slightly better low-light picture quality correct? But, it doesn't have a lofty optical zoom up to 20X and is alittle bit more heavey then the GL2. Well, I don't know what else to say. :) I'm just going to go to my local store and try both of them out and see which one is the most comfortable. Thanks for all the help everyone!

To maybe complicate your choice futher, I have just bought a PAL Pana DVC30 and it rocks ;)

It has a VERY strurdy metal construction, when the GL2 is plastic, and has as many and more features.

I think the 30 is the DVX's lil' brother. It has frame mode like the GL2, but also Cine Gamma which adds to the 'film look'. I have tried this cam over the past few days and am quite glad I didn't buy an XM2/GL2, although it was a bit less cash.

I had wanted to get the vx2100 for its low light capability, but the DVC30 has other features like frame mode+gamma which can't be achieved in the same way on the Sony.

You should seriously look at the DVC30, as it is in this general price range. Obviously, it all depends on what you want the camera for, if you don't want film look, but need low light, get the Sony, but if you fancy a 'film look' go for the GL2 or DVC30 - or the DVX100a for true progressive if you can afford it ;)

Dave.

I second Dave's remarks. After using and breaking parts off a GL-1 and GL-2 I swore I would never own another all plastic cam again. I must admit the places I go are demanding on a cam and I am not the most careful person in the world. However, my old 35 cameras with their dings and scrapes have lasted 25 years. The DVC30 is built like a fine 35 mm camera. I have had mine for about 3 weeks now. The performance is really good. I too was looking hard at purchasing the vx2100 and probably would not have been disappointed if I had. However, the DVC30 really intriged me and I think I made a good choice. The only question I have about my cam is its durability over the long haul as no one knows yet.

Regards,

Mark

My head is spinning right now with all the choices! :P

So, the GL2 and DVC30 will give me a more "film" look then the VX2100? I thought the VX2100 and GL2 really had the same performance and looked the same in picture basically? I'm not really siked about the "frame mode", so it doesn't matter if the camera has it or not. Thanks for your feedback!

Jake,

My experience is the DVC really excells in the 60i 4:3 mode. I have used both the GL-2 frame mode and tried the movie mode on the DVC last night. I really don't see what all the hoopla is about. Don't care any for 24p on other cams either. In my opinion the 60i 4:3 on the DVC30 is better unless you are going for a stylized look and you can get that also with the DVC30.

Jake,

If your not really bothered about frame mode or gamma, and just want to shoot straight interlaced video in 60i, then... well this basically doesn't narrow it down, because all these cams can shoot great interlaced video.

If I had wanted to film events or documentaries I would have probably gone with a vx2100 for its better low light reach. But because I want to shoot some nature/landscape work, and some short experimental films, it was between the GL2 and the DVC30 (as I could not afford a DVX100a). Both the GL and the 30 have a better zoom range than the sony, and they are lighter as well. I ended up going for the DVC30 for its rugged metal build.

You really need to try out these cams in a shop, so you can see which one is right for you. While we are on the subject of choosing a camera, there are other contenders such as the Sony PDX10 - which has the best 16:9 in this price range, XLR inputs and B/W hi-res viewfinder - but doesn't have great low light.

Before getting a GL2, you might want to wait till July, because many people think there will be one or two new cameras announced from Canon around mid way through the month - GL3 and XL2 perhaps? ;) - then again they might not...

Thanks for all the feedback everyone! Ok, so I mainly want to use this camera, which ever one it may be, to shoot my short films etc. And I want it to have as much as possible the "film" look. Would it be smarter to go with a camera with frame mode etc, if I plan on using that camera for films only and want a more "film" look?

shooting in frame mode will save you some time in post... since you are going for short films and I assume that you will have sufficient lights around your scene the I'd suggest the GL2 or the DVC30 for their frame mode capabilities... DVC30 will save you some more time with its Gamma :)

Ok. Thank you. Well, now I may just wait it out, considering it's very likely Canon may announce it's new line of products. Do think it's likely they will annouce a GL3 and not just a XL2(or whatever it may be called). Think Sony and Panasonic would soon release new products also? :) So many choices, so little time. ;)

Lots of good info in this thread already, but I just thought I'd add some thoughts on "Film Like" shooting.

The look of film is based mainly on three features/limitations (depending on how you look at them) of film stock.

The first is frame rate. At a standard 24 fps each frame gets exposed for long enough that noticeable motion blur occurs in moving objects. This helps the eye believe that the motion is fluid and not jerky as video often appears.

The second is frame size. Professional film cameras (ie non super8) have an image size which is significantly larger than the dimensions of the CCD's in current presumer camcorders. Thus it is much easier to enhance the sense of depth in the 2d image by making the 'background' drop out of focus while still keeping the subject in sharp focus (Tons of good explanations of this principle can be found so I'm skipping all the technical why & wherefores).

The third is color/gamma. Film's dynamic range is fairly even throughout most of it's range, however traditional CCD technology tends to loose sensitivity at both the bright and dark ends of their range. What cine-gamma and JVC's s-curve gamma algorithms do is to attempt to level out the responsiveness of the CCD so that the image which is ultimately recorded has as much detail in the highlights and shadows as it does in it's mid range. Similarly adjusting the color matrix and/or color balance on a video camera can make a HUGE difference in the 'filmic' quality of an image.

One final element which can never be emphasized enough is that you will NEVER achieve the look of film unless you light your video with the same care as you would take if you were shooting on film.

In the case of the cameras discussed here, only the DVX100(a) does genuine 24 fps capture. The next best thing is probably a PAL camera which shoots at 25 fps. Next best would be any camera which possess a GOOD progressive scan mode, where at least you can reduce the amount of obvious interlacing between one field and the next. I put good in caps because not all of these progressive scan modes are the same. As I understand it Sony's progressive scan is simply achieved by doubling one field off the CCD, where as Canon has some funky trick involving it's Pixel-shift technology (I'd love to see a detailed explanation of how this works). I'm not really sure how the DVC30 handles this, but I know from various reviews and forum posts that there are significant differences.

In terms of depth of field issues, pretty much all of these cameras are going to fall down on this, but as always, the bigger the CCD the better. . . unless you really LIKE having everything in the frame in sharp focus.

Finally, as I mentioned before, only JVC and Panasonic seem to be addressing the gamma issue in their prosumer lines. There's really no good way to make these changes in post, the detail simply isn't there, so by allowing this detail to make it to tape these companies have a HUGE competitive advantage if achieving the look of film is what you're after.

Best of luck,
Alden