I have been looking at DV camcorders to film a short movie and some commercials i am working on so far the XL1S seems to be the front runner then I came accross this DVX100 oh so many camcorders so little time ! lol anyone know if the DVX100 is a better camcorder for filming then the XL1s ? any comments are welcome.
Thanx.
Randy.

Randy,
You've asked a question for which there is no single answer. Each camera has features the other lacks. The DVX100's claim to current fame lies largely in its ability to shoot at film speed, 24 frames per second. The XL1s' most prominent feature is its modularity and interchangeable lenses.

Take some time to browse through this forum and the XL1s forum to get a good perspective on both. Be sure to look through the main DVInfo site (http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/index.php) as well as through the Resource reference thread in this forum.

Hi Ken I have searched through most links XL1S , PD 150 , GL2 , and now the AG-DVX100 let me give you an idea of what i will be filming and maybe you can give me your advise thats all i ask I am going to be filming national TV commercials , Music videos , and short films for tv probably local I was hoping to get the best bang for my buck seems everyone is for the XL1S - PD 150 I dont need all the lenses the XL1S has available so I was going to opt for th PD 150 being is has DVcam also then i noticed the AG-DVX100 and it sound like i would get a better film quality then the others , im sure there are alot of things to take into account and one is my lack of experiance if you were me what camcorder would you get being you have some hind sight i dont please any advise :-) iv been looking at camcorders for 3 weeks now and still cant make up my mine :-(
Thanx again Ken

DVCam compatibility may be a plus for working with broadcasters. "Film quality" may not matter much for that work. They'll want good audio and broadcast-safe footage. The PD-150 would be the safe choice there, although you can make any of these cameras fill that bill. I've never used a DVX100 so all I really know about it is what I read from others' experiences.

I guess I'd ask myself which camera is most likely to help me eat and pay the bills.

As for the original poster's question....I have owned an XL1 for three years now, and just bought my DVX100 about two weeks ago. I've got to tell you, from my experience the DVX100 wins hands down, as I am now selling my XL1. Don't get me wrong, the XL1 is a great camera, it's just that the DVX just outshines it in a good number of areas. About the only area where the XL1 wins in my opinion is if you want a larger footprint to impress clients. People do think you mean business when you show up with that thing.

However, many of the add ons on the XL1, are already standard on the DVX, although maybe not as gussied up. For example, to be able to do any sort of accurate rack focus on the XL1, you either got to have the patience of a zen master for the standard lens, or get the manual lens. On the DVX, there is a numerical reading of 1-100 of your focus position in the viewfinder/LCD screen. Maybe not the most accurate method of adjusting focus, but it beats the hell out of guessing with your eye only as on the XL1 standard lens.

As for negatives of the DVX, the way they did their internal 16x9 leaves me cold compared to the XL1's method. On the DVX it's a simple crop mask, and on the XL1 they crop the signal, stretch it out to fill the screen, and then record it. I'll be using the 16x9 lens on the DVX anyway, but it just seems they could have done it the crop and stretch method, rather than just the crop method.

Onto the audio section. The DVX comes standard with XLR inputs with optional phantom power. This wins hands down over the XL1's RCA inputs, which no matter how you dress them up with a mixer, Canon's XLR inputs, or any of the the others, you're still using an unbalanced connector to unbalanced inputs. You may as well just be buying a $10 XLR female to RCA male convertor from your local guitar store. Canon really missed the boat on their audio section, as have most DV cams. The DVX is actually the first DV camera I have used where I haven't felt a need for an external recorder. It sounds just as well as my old DAT recorder. I'd be curious to see Jay Rose over at DV put this cam through the same audio tests he did a few months back where he determined that in most cases minidisc sounds better than DV audio.

And there are little things as well. The reason I bought the camera is I am getting into doing legal video, and the XL1 cannot separate date/time from SMPTE time code on output during both record and playback, while the DVX can. See in legal video, a client needs a date/time stamp on their copies, but I couldn't very well send them copies that had all my information (SMPTE, f-stop,etc) on them as well.

If you'll notice, I haven't even touched on the 24P or the Leica lens aspects here, 'cause I'm sure you've heard that already. Let me just assure you, DO BELIEVE THE HYPE. It's just that good. Hey, and if I haven't convinced you, wanna buy my XL1?

I don't want to rehash old ground. None of the cameras are perfect. All have their strengths and weaknesses. I have commented on several factors the DVX100 has that cause issues. The Leica lens has noticeable barrel distortion at the wide angle setting, the video is delayed from the audio (causing problems for some users) and the plastic construction is flimsy (as noted by many users).

The XL1S (not XL1, there is a difference) is getting old, it's expensive when you add in accessories and support equipment.

Sony PD150 also has audio issues.

I would look for a good deal on a used XL1S or Sony PD150. If you want new then go with the Panasonic, as long as the audio sync and other issues are not a big deal for you (I'm assuming you'd be recording audio separate, for your National spots and syncing in post).

Todd,
I am also interested in DVX100 but as you said it can record date/time seperately from SMPTE time code. Do you mean you can record and playback the date/time information only on tape? Or you can also download the footage with date/time only into PC/MAC through IEEE1394 port? Thanks for your experiences.
Johnny Ai

Randy,
Here's a simple answer to your question. For music videos and commercials the Panasonic is by far the best choice...I got one so I could accept some lower budgets in town and it has twice paid itself off in a month...I just shot a video for an artist on Columbia (Daredevil Soundtrack) for a test and Sony went absolutey nuts...The DV8 Label owner called me and said their 10,000 dollar video got a standing ovation at Sony...I'll post it as soon as it's hosted...Good Luck!

I ordered the GL2 after looking at prices I found one for 2100.00 and am going to buy a accessorys kit for about 300.00 with some of the things im going to need I read some of the reviews on all these cams and found the GL2 has gotten some really good reviews and the panasonic has some problems with it guess they still need to work the buggs out iv been told the GL2 will do the job and i can ajust it for a warmer softer look also some little tricks can be used for getting the movie look , I do wonder if after making the commercial the company or corp. will be able to use it in a national commercial spot being it was made with a low end prosummer cam ? I have until monday to make up my mind cc hasnt been charged yet ! ;-)

OK...so basically your asking us if you should buy a camera that does strictly interlace video (the canon) or one that does interlace AND progressive (DVX100.) Why would you want a camera that is limited to just interlace video?

You probably would want to shoot with something that does have larger chips than the GL2 (3x1/4"), like the DVX, XL1, or PD150 (all three are 3x1/3"). That said, the definition of "broadcast quality" is extremely dependent on content and being color safe, and less and less so on what camera you shot it on. Also I have successfully cut together GL1 and XL1 footage, and although I could slightly tell the two apart, my wife, and my client for that matter, could not. What type of spot is it? A car commercial? Are you planning to shoot it interlaced or progressive (video look or film look)? Are you sure this isn't something that you shouldn't just rent a 16mm film camera or Varicam for? Perhaps if it's a national spot, you may want to look at that as something that is outside the capabilities of the DV camera you're going to purchase, and instead base your purchase around your short film, and other smaller paying shoots.

found this review about the chip size Oxenburgh on 03-Feb-2003 09:03:04 am
I've had the GL2 for a month now and it's awesome. The quality of the images is outstanding. And it's interesting how the test shots I made on the superior chip sized Sony VX-2000 were no match for the smaller chip GL2. This is one time where size is really no indicator of quality. The Sony should have blasted the GL2 off the map with its larger chips. The GL2 also simply handles better and once you get used to the menu it's very easy to set up. Manual focus is easy and adjusting aperture is just a flip of a switch away.

Hey you "DVX100 is the best miniDV camera ever" guys, maybe you should check out the movie discussed in THIS THREAD (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6445)

:)

Dylan,

As an owner of an XL1 for three years, and an owner of the DVX for four weeks, I have respect for both cameras, however in most aspects, the DVX wins out for me (that being the operative, "for me"). It's like guitars. Sooner or later people are going to realize that all this quibling about cameras that are in the same ballpark makes about as much sense as saying I think the Les Paul is a better guitar than a Stratocaster. Well, not for Jimi Hendrix or Eric Clapton and so on and so on.

It's all nonsense. Whatever your purposes are, there's probably a camera out there to suit your needs. I can only speak from my own experience and perspective as to what is the BEST camera for me. Our original poster may be very happy with the GL2. I however would not be, as if I were given the same budget, I would get a used XL1 (maybe mine, please!!!), or holdout a while for the DVX. My camera needs, however, probably don't match our original poster's needs. And just as the DVX and XL1 are akin to the Les Paul and the Strat, the difference between the XL1s and the GL2 is about the difference between the American made Strat and the Mexican made Strat. You can rock on either one if you know how to play.

Todd

Just trying to rattle your beehive. :)

Seriously though, a camera is just a paintbrush. You do need the right one for the right job but overall, it has very little effect on the overall picture.

Todd & Dylan,
Indeed, within a range of cameras the practical distinctions are truly small. Yes, each has its unique features and limitations. But in many cases camera owners never take the time to thoroughly learn how to best use what they have. Some new camera always seems to have a feature that they believe will improve their work.

BZZZZZZ!!!! (follow by snake sounds).....

Dylan & Ken,

Mos def. It IS the person and NOT the camera, and it seems that so much emphasis is placed on the camera on all of these boards, rather than the dedication, work (yes, work), and creativity, that it actually takes to make a film, whether it's with a Pixelvision camera or the brand spanking new Dalsa. Both ya'll hit it right on the nose. I used to come to these boards to hear about everyone's new tricks that they had discovered with their cameras, and I would share mine as well.

Those days are long gone, and rare is it that I actually feel as though I've come away with something new. This can be atributed to exactly what you are saying. People aren't learning their camera's manuals inside and out,and saying "What If?". It's just the same old "my dad is bigger than your dad" thing over and over. Is it because there ARE so many more kids doing this now that these boards have become over populated by them, relegating those of us who don't have anything to prove, and are working professionally, to boredom? I WANT SOME NEW TRICKS!!! Someone please tell me about something adventurous and new they did with their camera!!! ANYONE?!?

Todd

I actually have been playing guitar for 20 yrs and yes you can play on both models but im telling you a good les paul beats the hell out of a off brand cheapy sound is better from the pickups also intonation is not off like on those cheap copys warped necks etc. and if thats what the GL2 is i better stop the order ! buying a dv camcorder is like pulling teeth ! after all the scum iv delt with in new yord like 5starelectronics ! told me the GL2 was in stock sold it then call me the next day to sell optics etc then tell me its on back order 4 weeks lol what a bunch of pukes ! i found a JVC GY-DV500 i think im going to buy it for about 2500.00 used enough of all this debating whats better every one has a different opinion in this forum and only confuse me more then i already am :-( how many of you here work for the Canon or panasonic or jvc or sony company just here to get people to buy there product ? gotta wonder after so many conflicting opinions ! grrr

Randy,
None of us work for manufacturers. You asked for opinions, you got them.

Good luck with your new camera and endeavors.

sorry ken didnt mean to say you did , just cant seem to get a strait answer but i guess thats the world of dv cams :-/ if you ask someone that works with lets say oh anything other then dv cams you get most to agree on one or 2 items that are the best to get for what you want it for for an example i repair or used to repair appliances i can tell you hands down maytag washers out do all there compatition or if you are an auto machanic you would say toyota for sport utility vehicles etc. if you men and women work in the field and have gone through the bull sh** with these things i figured you would say something like well the GL2 is realy only for the consummer any pro wouldnt be caught dead with it and at the least a pd 150 thats the lowest end model or XL1S you will see a camera man using for lets say cnn or fox news and that the GL2 can't do what these others do its a prosummer model only has a 1/4 CCD what did you expect ? to make a speilburg movie with it ? lol well get some more money or use the GL2 and make a movie but expect to have to remake the whole thing if you find a corp that likes what you have they will spend the bucks to do it right ! if you want to sell to pbs then get a 1/2 to 3/4 CCD model then you have a chance otherwise you may find yourself remaking what you have spent a month or 2 filming with a camcorder that most pros would look at as a joke ! dont waist your time and money on these prosummer models they are for the guy that wants to be speilburg but doesnt have the $$$$ or something like that :-)

Get a room full of people together and it's hard to get a consensus on anything. How about what to eat? You want Italian, I want a hamburger, you want Pepsi, I want Coke. Video is even worse. To a very large degree it is art, not science. It is very subjective. The cameras you're looking at all have subtle differences. Not night and day differences that laymen find easy to agree on.

Truth be told, the camera you choose will have very little to do with the success or failure of your projects. Your editing skills, quality of script and actors, music score, lighting ability etc. are far more important than the camera you choose. Nor did I mention brand of computer, brand of tape, brand of filter, brand of microphone etc. We all have different opinions on all of the brands.

Sennheiser is the favorite microphone brand here, I use Audio Technica. PC's are the favorite computer, I use a Mac. Sachtlers and Bogens are the favorite tripods, I use a Vinten. Does that mean that I can't produce quality programming? No. It just means that creative people are all individuals and have different opinions.

So, how does one pick a camera? I call it the Zen of camera buying. Pick up the camera and play with it, get the feel of it. Do you like the view finder? You'd better, because your eye is going to be glued to it for a long time. Is it comfortable? It better be because your going to be using it for ten hours a day or longer when you shoot. Do you like the quality of the image? You'd better, or how else are you going to stare at it for sixteen hours a day when your editing it? Pick the camera that is right for Randy and not the huddled masses. After all, who's making your movie? You, or them?

Thank you Jeff , my whole purpose of posting was to get an honest opinoin its not going to take a 10.000.00 dollar camcorder to get good results ! if i do a good k=job with the GL2 ill be able to sell my product :-) it will work for mtv or vh1 or pbs it has everything they need to put it on tv or HBO if its a short movie ! why spend 10.000.00 if i can spend 1/4 of that and still get good results exceptable to main stream media tv / HBO / CNN / PBS / etc. thats all i wanted to know and thank you for being Honest and blunt :-) my skill with the production is where it counts ! not that im going to use less then the GL2 id feel real stupid making a music video with a 300.00 dollar jvc or something lol :-) .
Randy.

Randy
If you can't make a good looking movie or a commercial with a GL2, you won't be able to make one with a digiBetacam or a 35mm rig either. All of these rigs (PD150, GL2, XL1, DVX1000) are excellent cameras. Granted, most "pros" wouldn't be caught dead using anything less than a Betacam. I'd put up $100 that you and most people here (including me) couldn't tell which was which between the footage of a GL2 and a Betacam shot side by side in optimal conditions.

"I'd put up $100 that you and most people here (including me) couldn't tell which was which between the footage of a GL2 and a Betacam shot side by side in optimal conditions."
---------------------------
I guess it depends on those "optimal conditions" ;-) Now that I've learned what to look for I find DV footage pretty recognizable when I watch something like the Discovery Channel, CNN, etc . There's a certain look that the compression gives to detailed parts of an image, and often the edges look over-enhanced and contrasty. Maybe the inexpensive lenses on our DV cameras also contribute to this look?

But it is true that with a little work and planning you can minimize these differences or even make them disappear.

from what i have read in the last 3 weeks on this forum you can make almost any 3 CCD camcorder look good with the right adjustments low light problems make adjustment and you will get the same look as the sony or maybe the you want the movie look etc. make adjustment and you will get the look you need all you need to do is use the abilitys of the camcorder and shazzam there you are ! not only that iv even heard that for a good movie look spend money on a good filter or try the nylon sock cheap movie look over the camcorder and wow it works ! or atleast iv read that wont know till i get the dang thing ! :-)
Randy.

>>The cameras you're looking at all have subtle differences. Not night and day differences that laymen find easy to agree on.<<


Jeff, I respectively disagree, simply because there is a night and day difference between INTERLACE video and PROGRESSIVE video, and we all know that the DVX100 is the ONLY prosumer camera to do progressive (and interlace.) And then there is the fact that the DVX100 is the ONLY prosumer camera to do 24p, and that is definitely another “night or day” example.

Glenn, the DVX100 is a good camera, no doubt. I've used it and the 24p does provide a nice image. The DVX100 has it's faults like any other camera and I outlined it's faults in several of Randy's posts. Night and day is in the eye of the beholder and it's an opinion. There are advantageous to it's use if you're going to film with your project. But NTSC is 29.97 frames per second and in that realm it only offers a different look. Day and night difference from the XL1S or PD150? Not in my opinion. If given a choice between a great script and a DVX100, the choice is obvious.

Randy,

I've been playing guitar for twenty years as well. Perhaps a more fair comparison between the DVX and XL1s would have been between the EPIPHONE Les Paul and a $500 range Fender Stratocaster. As for the JVC, hmmm, let me think, a Yamaha? Or maybe ESP? Definitely not Dean and Paul Reed Smith. Or for that matter a Gretsch or Rickenbacker. I really can't speak to JVC's gear, other than my 'ol trusty rusty SVHS deck, especially since I don't work for THEM. Just kidding!!! The best advice anyone has given you so far is to try it out and see if you like it, just like the days I remember when I used to stroll around the music store and play "Stairway To Heaven" on every guitar there. If you live anywhere close to NY, a trip to B&H may be warranted in helping you make an informed decision.

Glenn,

While you and I may be able to tell the difference between the DVX's 24P and the XL1's frame mode in a heartbeat, I don't think any of my clients would ever, after looking at frame mode footage, stand up and exclaim, "That's Pixel Shift Technology. I know it when I see it!!!"

Interlaced footage and progressive footage are two different birds, you are correct, but the fact is the Panasonic is NOT the only game in town for progressive footage. Especially when you consider that most progressive footage you see from SD cams is actually post-processed interlaced footage. Me personally, I prefer the DVX, but that doesn't say that you can't shoot with a PD150 a get good results deinterlacing with one of the various available methods.

Todd

It will be interesting to see if any projects from a DVX100 make it to Sundance and do well. Films post processed with Magic Bullet seem to be the favorites for the last couple of years.

my 2.0 cents:

I also play rock guitar and keyboards and my wife is an accomplished classical gutairist and teacher.

Per instruments, which applies to cameras, in my view.

For unskilled players, they can't make a $5000 hand made classical guitar sound any better than $150 Yahama. But in the hands of experienced guitarist, the Yamaha will sound dramatically worse when played hard.

Classical guitarists, especially in a concert environment, often play without amps. Volume, tone, clarity, action (to prevent buzzing and fret noise), comfort in long hours of playing and practicing are critical in allowing them to play music and express themselves exactly the way the want to.

Sure, they can still play Via Lobos on a $150 Yahama, but none of them choose to.

Per cameras, Jeff does not think 24p and true progressive scan sets the DVX100 apart from all other miniDV cams.

I think he's quite wrong on this point. As a storyteller, interlaced video is rarely the medium of choice unless you doing mocumentary. 24p progressive is the storytelling medium of our time. Sure, Kubrick, Tarkovsky, Kieslowski, Zucker/Zucker/Abrams, Fincher, etc. could make killer storys on a $200 VHS camera. But they don't.

In fact, I challenge anyone to name a great non-fiction feature or short that was seen interlaced. All the dogma stuff ended up on film at 24p. If you can name just one example, then maybe, the DVX100 is not a special camera for non-fiction people.

I agree the camera is not the important thing - I would have bought 24p miniDV made by JVC, Sony, Canon, Goldstar or ACME. But 24p is important and thus the DVX100 is special.

This thread was about DVX100 vs XL1s for movie shoots. To me it's simple. Movie = 24fps = DVX100. If you shoot XL1s, be prepared for lots of post time in Magic Bullet etc. to get a rough approximation of what DVX100 gets on tape. You add Magic Bullet etc to DVX100 or go out to film and you are getting close to Super 16.

Music and imaging are different. By your analogy only 8 X 10 view cameras can make great pictures. After all Ansel Adams used an 8 X 10 view camera, so what else could there be. By your analogy a Polaroid could never make great images. Yet Ansel Adams used Polaroids, even did a book on it.

Can everyone make a great picture with a Polaroid? No. Can everyone make a great picture with a DVX100? No. Or a XL1S or PD150? No. A camera is just a tool to reach an ends. Just like a hammer is to a carpenter. If your a good carpenter, the hammer really doesn't matter. The DVX100, PD150 and XL1S are just cameras and in 5 years they will just be footnotes in history. It's what you make with it that has permanence and can last for generations.

By your own argument, why did Ansel Adams not take pictures with a cheap camera?

Poloraids have been around for awhile.

Ansel Adams did some work with a Diana camera. Cost was probably under $5 and it had a plastic lens. Ansel Adams once said "People have sharp lenses, but fuzzy concepts."

Cameras are just tools.

"Some work" - which photographs?

I'm not saying you need expensive tools to be a great artist, but you need to be in total harmony with your medium of choice to be a great artist.

If you medium is large lanscape photography printed at large sizes of American National Parks, it's unlikely you will shoot with a 320X240 $10 digital camera.

If your medium is narrative storytelling, it's unlikely you will shoot interlaced video (unless transferring to film).

If your medium is Via Lobos played in a concert hall, it's unlikely you will play with fisher price guitar.

I'm not saying that me playing a hand crafted guitar is better than LA Guitar Quartet playing fisher price guitars. They could play the spoon better than anything I can play.

But, for some strange reason, they play expensive handmade guitars.

And I don't shoot with a $200 VHS cam, I shoot with a DVX100. Strange that it does matter.

For the purposes of this thread and other which camera should I buy, it boils down to.

(1) Choose the right tool to enable yourself to express yourself as well as possible.

For this thread specifically, for movies, DVX100 is the cam, end of story.

Frame Movie Mode is a bad mistake for DV movie makers because DV-to-Film transfer houses will tell you that Frame Movie Mode and 35mm blow ups just don’t go together. Now I understand that the majority of DV movies will never see a 35mm print, but why would you want to adopt this defeteatest attitude and lock yourself out of any possibility of going to 35mm?

The second thing is that post processing for interlace footage does not create flawless progressive footage, only shooting on an original progressive camera can do that. Slapping together interlace images to make 24p is not only problematic because the original medium was fields, but also because the more one processes 4:1:1 25mbps footage, the more one introduces artifacts to the footage itself.

As for the argument that the camera is merely a tool…I can only say that everyone should know this. BUT, if I am looking to buy a DV prosumer camera, why would I buy an old out dated one that only does interlace when I can buy one that does both interlace and progressive? The low budget movie maker will already have numerous odds against him or her, so why should he or she create more “hog-ties” for themselves?

No Prosumer camera is going to be perfect, but I think it’s time we all admitted that the DVX100 is better then the PD150 and XL1s. Even if you don’t like Panasonic, you could at least admit to this to force Sony and Panasonic to come out with something better then the DVX100. Why encourage Sony and Canon to just stay right where they are (especially when they don’t deserve it?)

<<<-- Originally posted by Glenn Gipson : Frame Movie Mode is a bad mistake for DV movie makers because DV-to-Film transfer houses will tell you that Frame Movie Mode and 35mm blow ups just don’t go together. -->>>

That's what I thought until I saw the movie 28 Days Later.
Check out this thread (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6445) Shot in Frame mode.


If you guys think the DVX100 is the best miniDV camera, you probably haven't got to use an XL1 with a mini35 adapter and a set of REAL lenses. It makes the rest of the miniDV cameras look like a big joke and puts an end to this discussion. It's time we all admitted that the 4 year old XL1 is still the best miniDV camera for film because of the mini35 adapter. ;)

Anyway, regardless of features, I'll say it once more.... It's just a paintbrush, the picture is up to you.

Give a newbie a DVX100 and give an experienced cinematographer a 10 year old VHS camera, and see who makes a more watchable film.

I'm not saying the 24p is a bad feature, because it's an awsome feature. I'm just saying it doesn't matter in the least whether you have a camera that can do it or not.

Howdy from Texas,

<< Frame Movie Mode is a bad mistake for DV movie makers because DV-to-Film transfer houses will tell you that Frame Movie Mode and 35mm blow ups just don’t go together. >>

Incorrect. There are different processes for tape-to-film and some transfer houses prefer Frame Movie mode shot on a PAL camera (see this three-part article (http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/articles/article55.php) for more details).

<< why would I buy an old out dated one that only does interlace when I can buy one that does both interlace and progressive? >>

Important to understand the Frame Movie mode on the XL1S *is identical* to progressive scan... the same results, but by different means. It's a 30P mode; always has been. It doesn't matter that the camera does not have progressive scan CCD's; what matters is the output, and it is indeed 30P. That's the appeal of Frame Movie mode.

<< I think it’s time we all admitted that the DVX100 is better then the PD150 and XL1s >>

It's safe to say it's newer than the PD150 or XL1S; but not neccessarily "better," which is a word that is highly relative and superfluous. It may be better for you; but not for everyone else. There are some serious limitations with Panasonic's 24P implementation including poor low-light sensitivity and lack of auto-focus. Granted it is the first prosumer 24P, but at a cost of certain feature sets.

In some ways, each specific camera is "better" than its counterparts and at the same time "worse" than its counterparts. The question becomes one of which trade-offs are appropriate for your own shooting requirements.

<< Why encourage Sony and Canon to just stay right where they are (especially when they don’t deserve it?) >>

New product always has been, always will be in development. None of the major manufacturers ever rests on their laurels. Some take longer to rev their products than others, but none ever "stay right where they are." To me it's amazing how fast all of this development occurs. Hope this helps,

What's always interesting to me is how a thread called (DVX100 vs XL1s for movie shoots) ends rarely answers the camera.

I don't the generic and politically correct answer "every camera has it's pro and cons, what really matters is story, acting, etc. etc." If I had a nickel for every time I saw that in a camera thread...I'd be shooting 24p on HD with A,B and C cameras.

For a movie shoot, which cam:

a) DVX100
b) XL1s? A or B?

(C is not allowed as an answer). That's the real choice a camera buyer now faces who plans/dream of making their own movie.

(Full disclosure - I sold a XL1 with all three lenses to get a DVX100)

>>If you guys think the DVX100 is the best miniDV camera, you probably haven't got to use an XL1 with a mini35 adapter and a set of REAL lenses. It makes the rest of the miniDV cameras look like a big joke and puts an end to this discussion. It's time we all admitted that the 4 year old XL1 is still the best miniDV camera for film because of the mini35 adapter. ;)<<

yeah, but how much is that adapter? Like 8,000, or something like that? Plus a high quality lense, another 10,000? This package puts the XL1s out of the prosumer league. The rental price for all of this is comparable to a Sony MPEG IMX camera. And if a shallow depth of field is the best way to make DV look like film, then what about Citizen Kane? Does this movie look like video because it has a WIDE DOF?

>>Important to understand the Frame Movie mode on the XL1S *is identical* to progressive scan... the same results, but by different means. It's a 30P mode; always has been. It doesn't matter that the camera does not have progressive scan CCD's; what matters is the output, and it is indeed 30P. That's the appeal of Frame Movie mode.<<

We have to agree to disagree on this one. Frame Movie Mode is not progressive video. And although there may very well be transfer houses that handle Frame Movie Mode, you still would be limiting the amount of transfer houses that would prefer it over interlace video.

As for the XL1s being better then the DVX100, I’m not even going to argue that because the specs and the reviews speak for themselves. ;-) One can only take the subjectivity argument but so far, especially when one camera has nearly twice the pixels of another. And as for Auto Focus issue, what professional movie shoot uses Auto Focus? I mean, I know that professional shoots don’t use prosumer cams in the first place, but Auto Focus is pretty amateurish by all standards. I believe the Auto Focus issue doesn’t apply to 60I mode anyway, but I could be wrong…

As for me, obviously I’m a DVX100 fan. DV Movie making is my goal and I’ve seen all three cams blown up to 35mm (PD150, XL1s, and DVX100) and the DVX100 is nearly in a class by itself. If you don’t believe me, go to DuArt and ask to see their demo reel.

Sorry, that's Citizen Cane with a C, and not a K

If your medium is narrative storytelling, it's unlikely you will shoot interlaced video (unless transferring to film).

It's too bad that all the narrative storytelling done on video, up to now, is crap. There are a lot of great stories I just won't be able to watch until they are redone by some amateur with a DVX100. That will make it the perfect story, I'm sure.

Like I said, it will be interesting to see what happens at the next Sundance Film Festival. Are the independent film makers adopting the DVX100? Or is it the gear heads and wannabe's?

And although there may very well be transfer houses that handle Frame Movie Mode, you still would be limiting the amount of transfer houses that would prefer it over interlace video.

So the most transfer houses that prefers one format wins? Well, PC's are better than Mac's, more software. GM makes the best cars, they make and sell more. All it takes is one transfer facility to do quality work. Some may prefer frame, others progressive, it really matters none.

Glenn,
I really don't want to dog-pile but I do feel compelled to remark on one of your quotes:And as for Auto Focus issue, what professional movie shoot uses Auto Focus? I mean, I know that professional shoots don?t use prosumer cams in the first place, but Auto Focus is pretty amateurish by all standards.I couldn't agree more. But, at this time, the XL1s' suite of lenses, especially the manuals, offer me the best focus control. If I had to pick focus control -vs- 24p and the other innovative features of the DVX100 I would (and, in fact, do) choose focus.

Howdy from Texas,

<< I don't the generic and politically correct answer "every camera has it's pro and cons, what really matters is story, acting, etc. etc." If I had a nickel for every time I saw that in a camera thread...I'd be shooting 24p on HD with A,B and C cameras. >>

Like it or not, but that's the reality of the situation. The single most commonly mis-phrased question in this market is "what's the best camera." It should be asked as, "what's the best camera for my purposes." The truth of the matter is that camera selection is a very personal issue, just like choosing a new car, or as Randy Turner put it in another thread, a new guitar. Because each one *does* have its pro's and con's, and all of that must be evaluated. Whether that answer is generic or politically correct is irrelevant... what matters is that it's *true.* The reverse of this is splitting such fine hairs which in my opinion is an even bigger crime than being generic or politically correct. These cameras have far more things in common with each other than any real differences.

Glenn:

I still wonder why few miniDV folks take advantage of the big depth of field available in miniDV.

The shallow depth of field thing is such a silly thing. It's has about as much do with filmlook as does having Mel Gibson in your shot :)

Jeff:

Progressive or frame makes no difference. I shot a lot of frame mode on my XL1 and stopped shooting it do to resolution loss on wide shots. Primary reason I traded cameras.

Also, why do you think all video narrative storytelling has been crap so far?

Ken:

I can rack focus better on my DVX100 with the LCD focus scale than I could with my Canon manual focus lens on my XL1. I think the focus on DVX100 is superior to the XL1. I was worried when I switched, but don't think about it now.

Chris:

"More in common" - that phrase is open to debate. Depends how you feel about progressive scan vs. interlaced. I would argue there's the DVX100 and all other 3-chip miniDV cams. Plus, as an ex-XL1 owner, the lens options do set it apart as well.

My point is I want to spend more time creating and less time fussing.

The DVX100 lets me live in a 24fps world without lots of pre and post production fussing. More time for the fun, creative stuff, less time trying to make stuff 24fps progressive.

<< The DVX100 lets me live in a 24fps world without lots of pre and post production fussing. More time for the fun, creative stuff, less time trying to make stuff 24fps progressive. >>

Well, I would have to call that the bottom line right there, and an excellent way to sum up your decision to choose the DVX100.

As for myself, someone who doesn't need 24p, I've been giving serious thought to the DVC80. But that's for another thread.

<<<-- Originally posted by Glenn Gipson : >>If you guys think the DVX100 is the best miniDV camera, you probably haven't got to use an XL1 with a mini35 adapter and a set of REAL lenses. It makes the rest of the miniDV cameras look like a big joke and puts an end to this discussion. It's time we all admitted that the 4 year old XL1 is still the best miniDV camera for film because of the mini35 adapter. ;)<<

yeah, but how much is that adapter? Like 8,000, or something like that? Plus a high quality lense, another 10,000? This package puts the XL1s out of the prosumer league. The rental price for all of this is comparable to a Sony MPEG IMX camera.
-->>>

That's an easy one to answer. If you are shooting with the intention of transfering to film, and you can afford to transfer to film, then you can also afford to rent a mini35.
If you aren't planning on transfering to film, or can't afford it, then the DVX100's 24p function is irrelevant.


So to answer Stephen's question:
a) DVX100
b) Canon XL1

I pick b) because of the mini35. Way more useful than 24p.
If a mini35 is not in the budget then neither is a film transfer negating the 24p, so I'd say the pros and cons of each camera balance out evenly. They are both pretty good.

PS, stuff that can be duplicated in post shouldn't really count as a feature, since it can be done with any camera.

On the other hand, if it came right down to the picture itself (from an out of the box camera), I think the DVX100 has a significantly nicer and more "filmy" looking picture than the XL1. IMHO anyway.

Howdy from Texas,

<< I think the DVX100 has a significantly nicer and more "filmy" looking picture than the XL1. >>

This has a lot to do with the camera's digital signal processor. Each manufacturer has a certain "flavor" of video (the "sony" look, the "Canon" look etc.). A significant advantage of the DVX100 is the six internal scene-store files over the two in the XL1S.

However I would have to agree with Dylan that if you have the budget or the backing for a transfer to 35mm, then the cost of renting the P+S adapter and cine lenses should be a non-issue.

<<<-- Originally posted by Dylan Couper I pick b) because of the mini35. Way more useful than 24p.
If a mini35 is not in the budget then neither is a film transfer negating the 24p, so I'd say the pros and cons of each camera balance out evenly. -->>>

Many indie people shoot on the hope of getting money to transfer to film, most don't have film transfer or many either items in the budget.

Plus the mini35 adaptor only marginally improves the sharpness on the XL1, it's only useful for shallow DOF which some of us think is overated.