I know this has been asked 100's of times, but I'm going to ask again.
I have narrowed my search down to these two models.
I would like to hear from users what they like about them, what they don't like, etc.
I have gone and played with them in the store and like both.
I know the Sony wins in low light.
What do users of these two think about them??

Haven't used VX 2100.

Bought 2 XM2s - yeah?

Grazie

What do you like and dislike about them??

Dave you really should tell us first what do you plan to film with them?
More narrative movies or more events and weddings?

Mathieu,
Good idea.
I plan do do most everything with it.
I am going to be filming a lot at home. (Kids)
I plan to shoot some sporting events. (High school basketball, football, etc)
I will probably try to make money filming school events. (Sports, plays, etc)
I am probably going to stay away from weddings, but not sure. (It's a possibility)
I would like to make short films. (Not looking to make a blockbuster, more for fun than anything else)

For events I think the sony would be better, because of the low light. It has bigger chips too.

But the GL2/XM2 has a very nice colour rendition, very good fluorite lens with big optical zoom (20x) and I personally (as many others) like the ergonomics of the Canon because it's very handy because of where all the buttons are placed, and it's not all hidden in a menu or something.
For narrative films it would be a bit better maybe.
You also have a fake progressive mode on the GL2 (30p) and 25p on the XM2 (PAL).
And you have a very good 'easy' mode on the GL2/XM2 too.

Maybe, I don't know if that's possible in your case, where you live etcetera, you could go to a store and try both out, or if you know people who have both or one of them. See what you like best.
I like Canon a bit more (I only want to make narrative film), but both are very good cams, and they both have their pro and cons.

OK! Interesting .. .

I plan do do most everything with it. Eh . . right? Everything?

I am going to be filming a lot at home. (Kids) XM2 is small and powerful. Get the Wide Angle lens - it is a must in tight corners! The XM2 is small enough to look like a real consumer camera.

I plan to shoot some sporting events. (High school basketball, football, etc) XM2 external colours and adjusts are gorgeous; You got one 0.9ND on board, apart from reduxing the IRIS you may want to contemplate a series of filters, not necessary, but will expand your techniques and getting BLUE skies!

I will probably try to make money filming school events. (Sports, plays, etc) OK, school events .. hmm .. AUDIO will be king here ( or even hear! ) you do have the XM2s superb AUDIO controls and monitors - 2 dials one for EACH channel! If low light then you are gonna have to accept some gain grain. Then again IF the stage is being lit you get loads to play with - until things go moody! The audio on this camera is astonishing - well I think so. I;ve had Sony buffs comment "positively" on my audio.

I am probably going to stay away from weddings, but not sure. (It's a possibility) - Weddings are great fun! The only issue I had with my XM2 was low, and above low light. But by the time the disco had knocked in - hey! DISCO lights! Failing that you slap on a 20/30 watt and light up them faces!

I would like to make short films. (Not looking to make a blockbuster, more for fun than anything else) OK .. now this IS the serious bit .. pay attention at the back there!!! The XM2 for me has soooo stretched my abilities that I can now get half decent shallow DoF - not like the movies but quite acceptable; I can dial in most everything manual and get some kool footage;

The XM2 will stretch your abilities: BUT what it doesn't have is native 16:9 . . I repeat, it doesn't have a native 16:9, the chip is for 4:3 .. Sooooo if you are thinking of experimenting with TRUE 16:9 I'd plump for a 16:9 chip . ..

. .and finally .. . sorry . .. . this is the real thorny one . . . .. .

There has to be a XM2HD coming soon . .PLEASE Mr Canon!?!?! Now, if this hits the shops then I can't imagine it NOT having native 16:9 - it'd be nutz not to. This being the case you got 16:9 PLUS all that razor sharp footage too!

Sooooo.... to stretch out your indecision further, there is the spectre of HD and all that is needing to make THAT happen. can you wait till then? Could you pick up a cheapo 2nd-hand authentic XM2 for the moment? Yah never knows!

Hope this hasn't confuzed you further?

Grazie

Thanks for the replies. Very helpful.
I guess I have to take that back, I don't plan on doing EVERYTHING with it.
I plan on using it for a lot of different purposes. (The ones I stated.)
I know the successor to the GL2 is rumored, but it has been for 3 years now. I could wait until the NAB, but I'm sure if a new one comes out it would be closer to $3000 anyway.
In any case, do you think I would be ok with football/basketball games??
I know plays and stage productions can have some low light, but do think it could handle that??
I'm sure it would be great at home, so I'm not worried abou that.

Hire each . and find out for yourself! - Best I can come up with.

G

Darn you and your good advice.
I thought of buying both and keeping the one I like better, but I was trying to avoid that.

I own a GL2 and love it. Yes it is not an HD and yes it is not $3000.00 either. With the $250.00 rebate that came with it I got a good deal. I do a little everything. couple of family weddings.. that came out good!,fishing trips to Canada, outdoor vids of wildlife deer,turkey and some hunts. High School Graduation and many other family events. Yes low light may not be thebest but low light is going to give you crappy footage what ever camera you use. But people overlook I think is the photo option you have with the GL2.

I did not buy the GL2 for the photo but works great I have a lot of good photos with the 1.7 MP. If you were going to do a lot of indoor yes maybe you would want a better low light camera if you are in it for the money, but the weddings I did had plenty of light. Maybe a big wedding with candle lit church with low lights and alot of oher glits maybe a GL2 won't work. But a 20x lens, auido control, price , easy to use mode ,manual mode great color and footage I would buy another. I have some good photos send an email and you can have a look.. Good Luck Steve

I've just replaced a five year old XM1 which died in the antipodes (must be that reversed gravity which makes the water go the wrong way down the plug-hole) with a new XM2, and it is amazing!

No native 16:9, I admit, but most of the folk who view my works have 4:3 TVs: so what!

The extra pixels on the CCD mean that you can use some of the digital zoom without loss of resolution; the autofocus is faster, and more accurate; the low light performance in incomparably better; etc.;etc.

There might be an XM3 this year, maybe next; it may have native 16:9, it may be HD; but two things are certain, it will be a LOT dearer, and I have my new XM2 now, not this year, next year, maybe.

Oh dear! Reading this I think Graham must be infectious - I hope it is not the bird flu!


Edit: Third paragraph - should read "without unacceptable loss"

Thanks for the replies everyone.
What do think would be an example of when the low light footage starts to get grainy??
Say a 10x10 room with one 100 watt bulb, one 60 watt bulb, two of these bulbs, etc.

In these conditions? Without an on-camera light? I'd be at .. . hold on . .just experimenting . .. brb














. .yup, 100w 10x10 couple 60watts . . I'm at 6db with the zoom on wide and the IRIS wide open I get the exposure scale pointer kinda midway to 1/3.

G

See this post and thread for more discussion.
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?p=428643#post428643

I've only used the Sony VX1000 once, so I can't comment much on the Sony line.

On the other hand, I own 3 GL2's, and I think they're great. It sounds like most of what you are doing is for fun, so I would go with the GL2 simply because it performs so well AND costs a lot less. The money you save will allow you to purchase a nice tripod, the wide angle lens, a bigger battery, some filters, maybe a monopod as well. In your case, that's what I'd do.

Regarding the GL2 on low light, I've found that using the manual settings you can film in pretty low light situations without grain. It takes a little extra effort, but it's not that hard. I had a wedding just this past December that had a reception dance floor that was BARELY lit, and I still got good footage from it. My assistant, using semi-manual settings, got brighter footage, but it was also grainier.

I also shot a band last night that was lit by red and green LED lighting, and some REALLY minimal house lighting. Upon viewing the footage today, I was very happy with the results. It took me about 2-3 songs to get the look I wanted, but it worked.

I go with GL2's and get yourself some accessories with the left-over $$$.

Regarding the GL2 on low light, I've found that using the manual settings you can film in pretty low light situations without grain.

Travis? Please post here your Low Light recipe for success. I go Manual and to have no GAIN-GRAIN my exposure range is waaaayyy low.

And yes! Spot on Travis! The budget difference will offer some necessary accessory - $ $ $ - headroom!

Grazie

Nothing magical, but here's what I used last night:

Shutter: 1/30
F: as open as possible, usually 1.6 to 2.2
Gain: 0-6DB

It should also be noted that I removed the wide angle lenses from both cameras and avoided zooming in. It wasn't candle-light, but then again, pretty much any digital camera is going to hate candle-light. d:-)

You've got to know that the VX is quite a bit dearer than the XM for pretty good reasons Dave. Superficially they appear somewhat the same and there's no denying that the Canon is a great camera at a great price point, but Sony know their stuff and their market.

The bigger chips, twin ND filters and faster lens (though it has less zoom) means dof on the Sony is easier to control. Both share the same VAP Steadyshot mechanism which is good, but the PD170 parentage shows just how tough and war-ready the VX is, as underneath it's exactly the same camera of course.

I dispute Alan's claim that digital zoom on the Canon doesn't degrade the image (it does), but if at all possible get to handle each camera. I would say this though - you'll be delighted with either camera, that's for sure. Both are pretty long in the tooth as neither shoots 16:9 very well, but they're both big sellers for good reason - they perform beautifully.

tom.

I just wanted to point out that with a 20x lens you shouldn't need to be messing with digital zoom anyways. In my opinion, digital zoom is more of a novelty feature on ANY camera.

Good points, btw, Tom.

Tom,

I really did not mean to say that digital zoom does not degrade the image. Of course it must do - the laws of physics see to that! Blame it on too much New Zealand wine and the hour.

What I did say is that it is usable in the XM2, whereas in the XM1 it is not. Even so, it is only usable up to a point, before the image degradation becomes unacceptable, maybe 1.5X, certainly no more.

You really cannot beat a longer lens, and the XM2 is way ahead on that count - if, of course, your planned use of the camera requires that feature.

Unless you have a stout tripod the extra focal length brings problems of steadiness - the OIS is very good, but it has its limits.

With the XM1 I felt that if one really did need the extra image size it was better to use some zoom in post rather than on the camera.

Nothing magical, but here's what I used last night:

Shutter: 1/30
F: as open as possible, usually 1.6 to 2.2
Gain: 0-6DB



Yeah . . I too would use 6db. But I was getting the point across of NO Gain<>Grain for our friend. Oh yeah, 6 will spruce stuff up!

Graham,

Well, last night I was on 0DB for around 90% of the time. My point was simply that I hear a lot about how the Sony is better in low light, but I think the GL2 performs well enough, especially if you experiment with the manual settings a little. Also, I went for quite a while (on paying jobs) with my GL2's without even getting into manual settings, so for what our friend here is looking to do, I think he's more than fine getting a GL2.

I think with all the great info from this thread that anyone out to buy either a Sony or Canon will find a lot of good advice here. The Sony owners can give their point and Canon owners give their 2 cents or 2 pence. I know the 100x zoom is a selling tool for what ever reason. I have mine set so that I can not over zoom on my GL2.

I would be a Sony owner if they had a 20x zoom. I own a smaller Sony and love it (Hi 8 tho) I wanted the most zoom I could get for outdoor and wildlife footage. If you will be using mostly in doors for events like weddings zoom maybe would not be a big factor, but it came down to the money for me. But like the others have said you will not be sorry with either one you buy. One thing I did do,I bought a small $250.00 DV Canon to use as a playback deck with the money I saved with the Canon GL2 rebate. ZR200 Canon also had a $30.00 rebate.

Steve

I have to say that much as I have liked my XM1, and my XM2, I agree with Steve - if the VX2100 or PD170 came with the 20x zoom of the Canon I would have bought Sony both times, despite the higher cost

I own a VX2100 and a GL2. I've commented about the two in other posts here and at camcorderinfo (where I go by "fretread"). I also have a Panasonic GS200 and I've bought four used Sony TRV22s from ebay for my high school video club. I'm happy to own the great VX2100 and I've used it in a couple of situations where its low light capability gave me better results than the GL2 would have.

But the GL2 is easily a better bang for buck than the VX, IMO. Even if they were the same price I'd have trouble not picking the GL2 for most of my shooting. My only complaint against the GL2 is its slightly pinkish skin tones, but that's correctable in post--when I want to correct. Sometimes the blush is desireable. Anyway, like others, I favor the 20X zoom, the control layout and logic, the audio control, the size and weight, the frame mode, and the overall more romantic look all the above gives the footage.

I shoot a lot of stage stuff, and I've learned that it's best to use the "spotlight" automatic exposure mode at all times with all three of my cams, together with "indoor" or incandescent white balance. The reasons would make for a thread by themselves. At any rate, I like that I can temporarily knock down the exposure of the Canon using the exposure lock dial without having the cam switch out of spotlight mode. The VX does switch out of spotlight mode if I tweak the exposure, and I'm inclined to forget it has done so.

In fairness to the Sony, I have yet to try it with diffusion filters. I suspect that the image would be more to my liking, and still retain the low light and color accuracy of the VX. That would turn my head.

BTW, although its not in the same league with the two discussed above, I consider a used TRV22 to be the BEST bang for the buck in the world.

Finally, someone who actually owns both cameras. Thanks for detailed input, Fred. Makes me feel even better about my purchase of multiple GL2's!

Just a plug for the VX2100 Fred. I'm right with you when you praise the spotlight mode - I find it invaluable when filming stage shows. It's a very intelligent mode, unlike the backlight mode which is like a stopped clock - only correct twice a day.

If you enter the VX2100's custom preset mode you can indeed dial down the exposure level and this - in combination with the spotlight - may be what you need. Maybe not as convienient as the Canon though.

tom.

I have both a VX2100 and a GL2. Here are the advantages of each:

VX2100:
Better low light shooting. At wedding receptions I still get a sharp non-grainy image on the 2100 where the GL2 is dim and muddy.
Colorimetry seems more neutral. The GL2 makes flesh tones a bit ruddy.
The VX2100 feels more rugged.
Battery life (with the NP-970) is better.
Zoom control on lens lens barrel.
Better placement of the ND filter and focus controls. Numerous times I have accidentally enabled the ND filter when I was reaching for the manual focus on the GL2.

GL2:
Really nice 20x optical zoom.
More audio flexibility. You can adjust each audio channel separately without resorting to a Beachtek box.
Separate control of gain and aparture. The VX2100 only brings up the gain if the lens is wide open. Both this and the separate audio channel control are not included on the VX2100 (but are on the PD-170).
Less expensive.

I prefer the VX2100 to the GL2. They are both good cameras, but for what I do (weddings), the VX2100 has the edge.