Can you give me some more details on the mode your in (aperature preferred, manual etc.) are you using the ND Filter, what is the gain set to? That may help me give you a better answer.

Jeff

Sure...

I'm in Auto, no ND filter (didn't ask for one), and no gain (according to Canon, you can only access gain in maual).

Does this help?

Thanks,
H

Heidi, look at the bottom of Page 80 in your manual. It refers to the flashing icon. It seems to indicate that there is not a problem and that even with the icon flashing it is better than the auto WB mode. For those of you without a manual follow this link http://www.canondv.com/downloads/manuals.html and view the GL-2 language manual of your choice. You can also just go to the Canon.com web site and go to products/downloads etc to find the manual.

I think the the idea posted a few replys back was a great one, have some other eyes review your settings.

I have a friend who thinks that every food is better with some cilantro in it----- no one goes to her house much for dinner anymore :-).

I feel for you because I've finally ground thru my entire GL-2 manual after a week of reading and experimenting. Now that I've stopped obsessing on the controls I've started having a great time shooting, the GL-2 really is a joy to use.

Regards, John V

John,

Thanks -- I did see page 80.

The thing is, I'm wondering why the icon is flashing when I WB to blue/cyan when, IF in that same location of the room I can successfully "set" the wb on a white card.

Oh yes, I definately am having other eyes look at it. My best friend is a TV editor and my hubby, a former graphic designer, look at all these tests. They are excellant judges because they can see the "real" color of the things I shoot, and they both have an excellant eye for color...

(My editor friend owns a VX2000)

-H

Heidi

Sorry, I was gone for a few hours...there's been a lot of posting overnite!

I think the light room/Dark room issue is probably more of an issue with the color of the light in each of those rooms, versus a comparison of a light levels...photographing a color patch under different light levels is a completely different thing than shooting different percentages of blue, cyan etc..as it is the saturation and hue of the color that is critical in adjusting white balance. You've described your room as bright, but with indirect lighting...without seeing it, that sounds a lot like a very blue light source...(which may be the source of your color problem altogether). My readings were done under diffused sunlight, which has proved to be very close to calibrated daylight. Also my color patches are printed out on a very accurate postscript printer, so it still could be your printer causing the problem...are you printing on plain paper, or a photo paper..a plain paper can cause significant color gain. And while I agree with jeff about the reproduce-ability of the using an incomplete color field, it maybe worth a try to print a pattern of squares in 3% cyan and white to see if you can get it in range of the camera.

Regardless, you need to do your white balancing in the lighting where you are shooting...If this technique doesn't work...It maybe because the camera is borderline out-of-spec, or it could be that your lighting situation is beyond the reach of your camera...typically video cameras have more range to move in the opposite direction of where you are trying to go...ie. for correction of incandescant and flourescent sources.

When I suggest "that's all there is", I mean that you've reached the end of the correction range of the camera...and as the previous poster mentioned the flashing icon just means it was not able to fully correct the light...it has, however probably warmed the light considerably...You should shoot some stuff with the flashing icon on, and see how you like it. Also try doing the blue card white balance in direct or diffused sunlight to see if it's your camera thats causing the problem, or if it's the color balance in your room.

If none of this works.. I think the next avenue is to try the custom preset adjustments, and then a warming filter like an 81a, b or c as per my earlier post. Or it maybe that you camera is just out of spec, and it needs to be returned to Canon for service.

good luck

Barry

Thanks, Barry.

Especially after an all-nighter...

So I've been playing with this (and still am) and I've found that

1. The custom presets still look a little blue-ish, not-warm, too neutral (not sure how to describe it) to me

2. The blue (100% of cyan and 50% of magenta) looks pretty good.

The fact that I can't get the wb to "set" notwithstanding...

I'm really bummed though because I'd way rather use a custom preset then white balance each and everytime I shoot in sunlight.

Hm.

-Heidi

Heidi

a couple of questions...

When using the custom preset, Did you adjust the color PHASE to the red, as far as it would go, and it's still looking blue?

What are you viewing the image on?

You see a difference when white balancing on 5 or 10% blue, versus 100% blue (100c 59m) even though both are giving you the blinking box?

Barry

GL2 color tests (questions)
 

Hi Barry (et al.!)

"When using the custom preset, Did you adjust the color PHASE to the red, as far as it would go, and it's still looking blue?"

Nope, I didn't try it all the way... I went 3 bumps up...


"What are you viewing the image on?"

A TV monitor with lots of color, etc. controls... The same one I watch lots of video footage (for work) on...So I'm kinda familiar with it's "look."

Any thoughts???


"You see a difference when white balancing on 5 or 10% blue, versus 100% blue (100c 59m) even though both are giving you the blinking box?"

Hm, I haven't tried 100% blue, wouldn't that be too much blue?

Incidentally, along these lines, I did try balancing at the sky, but the same thing happened -- the icon kept blinking.

I also tried 5% and 10% blue outside (in all areas of our yard -- ranging from sunlit to sort-of shadow) but to no avail. I only got blinking.


So, after my tests today, I've discovered a few things:

1. My taste preference is approx. 10% blue (100% of cyan and 50% of magenta) but I can't get it to work (can get the icon to stop blinking) much of the time...

Oh, and by the way everyone, it appears to me that if the icon is blinking slowly, a new white balance has NOT BEEN set. Not even sort-of, as the manual suggests.


2. My second taste preference is white balancing to white.

3. I can't get the custom presets to look good (so far).

Oh, here's a question, do/can the custom presets work at the same time as adding a manual white balance?


4. And, in general, the GL2 really tends to have much less saturation then the VX2000, and in general, runs cooler -- IN NATURAL LIGHT.

Now, having said this, I think the auto white balance on the GL2 (out of the box, so to speak) works great in indoor, incandescent light.

I guess the GL2 was made with this, rather then natural light, in mind.

Now, just to add a little credibility here, my hubby, who prefers a cooler look and knows his colors..., also thinks the Canon runs cool.

Also, let me say at this point, lest you think I have no taste... I really don't care for over-the-top warm footage. And, am really not trying to emulate (in anyway) Speilberg. I just like to err on the warm side and the GL2 seems to like to err on the coolr side...

For whatever it's worth -- at this point, I'm feeling really bummed that I may buy this camera and never be able to get it to really look the way I like. And, to get as close as possible to my preferred look, I'll need to white balance to blue, but am not be able to (so I'll have to white balance to white, by default).

I have been testing the VX2000 -- and while I kinda prefer the color and picture quality over the GL2, there are other reasons why I may default to the GL2 (i.e., my husband wants me to buy a smaller, lighter camera, the white balance on the VX2000 is really poor -- everything looks overly yellow/pink).

Two other questions on the GL2 though, if I may:

1. Is there a way to get a running timecode to appear on the outside of the camera? In the viewfinder?

2. When in TV or AV mode, is there a way to see what the dafualt setting is? For example, if you are in TV and adjust the shutter spped, can you read, somewhere, what the f. stop is that has been set?

I'm pooped...

Thank you again, everyone for your help.

I"ll keep reading!

-H

Dear Heidi,

As I mentioned before, I suggested your cam was busted. Now I know it for a fact.

Proof: You say that when you press the WB button and it goes to continuous flashing, you get NO adjustment. This is wrong. You will get immediate and even dramatic adjustment (depending on what you're aiming at) when you press that button and it continues flashing slowly thereafter, just as the manual implies.

Your unit is defective. It is a lemmon. These things happen. Take it back.

Best,

Blake

Follow up
 

Ok, so when I wrote that last post, I was half asleep...

First, as for the TV monitor, I didn't mean to imply I use it for work, just when I bring things home to screen...

Next, I'm really wondering about my trouble wb'ing on blue. I'm not sure why I can "set" the wb on white (which I think of as lighter/brighter then blue) but not on blue.

Any thoughts?

Over the nxt few days I'm going to try wb'ing on white and blue for every shot and see if I'm relatively happy.

-H

Heidi,

Based on your replies, I believe your camcorder has a mfg. defect also. The camera should still be adjusting the color (WB) very noticeably even if the icon is blinking slowly. Contact the dealer or make arrangements with Canon to return the unit for repair. I went into a dealer yesterday and played with a GL2 for 30 minutes and tried some of the things you have been trying. The display unit worked much differently than how you've described your camera. I was able to get large color adjustments with 10% and 20% Cyan. Barry's experiences seem to support the same conclusion. I would not continue to attempt to adjust your camera because the information you learn will not be valid for a properly working model. It's going to lead to a lot of frustration later on. Sorry for the bad news.

Jeff

Heidi, I think your experiences and the attempts to solve the problem have helped make us more aware of the things of which we all have to be concerned when taking a new and complex camera out of the box.

It would appear that there is an internal fault in your GL2. I would not consider sending it in for repairs, but would return it to the dealer for an exchange or refund. I believe you said you had until Thursday to return it, anyway. If you get another GL2, it would be very informative to see if it behaves just the same or has a better WB function. You might compare the serial numbers of the two units, to see how close they are to each other. If they came from the same batch, made and adjusted by the same people, who knows what you might find in another one's performance? I hope you don't get soured on the GL2, because of one that didn't have itself in good form
for its first workout with you.

As a side note, I got a price quote on the GL2 from Zotz Digital a few days ago, for $2,300. B&H wants $2,500. for it, OneCall, $2,460. and Camera World, $2,800.

Steve McDonald

Heidi

I think I'm in agreement with jeff and steve here. The only other test would be to shoot a neutral test chart, and pull a still that could be evaluted in photoshop to be certain it isn't your monitor (but it sounds like you've ruled that out).

I've spent much of the weekend out testing a new microphone, and I shot several hours under a big variety of lighting situations, and the gl2 consistently produced images that were extremely neutral and accurate. The only time I saw anything significantly cool was when I did a custom white balance under some dimmed incandescants (actually I was amazed at how it cleaned up the usually impossible-to-correct reds in this situation). Additionally, I white balanced off a blue card and shot some footage around town, and the results came out significantly warm.

Take it back to the dealer, and let them know your problem. Most likely they will exchange it for you.

Barry

Folks, at this point our thread here has reached the status of being one of the longest, and certainly one of the most interesting on the board. Let's try to keep our responses from here on focussed on the matter at hand and not allow such a lengthy discussion to stray off topic. Please limit any more additions to a strictly technical nature.

From jdcameraworks... this sums it up nicely:

"The only way real professionals find what they want is to ask alot of questions concerning the equipment they will be using on an average day. If we didn't, manufacurers would just sell garbage. Video, and for that matter film and how we percieve a "look" is all in the operators, directors, D.O.P's and eventually the viewers eyes. By all means ask questions but don't be unwilling to go back to the dealer to see if other units exhibit the same traits as your camera. It really does sound like you have a malfunctioning camera. Good luck!"

Appropriate responses will concentrate primarily in a helpful and substantially contributive manner. Many thanks,

Chris Hurd
 

Chris,

I assume you are referring to my posts. Frankly, I believe my posts are technical and "helpful and substantially contributive." Athough I'm not really sure what you mean by this. Those who have responded to my questions have been infinately helpful!

Without first having asked the questions I did, I wouldn't have known how to use the camera properly, going back to the store only came about from these questions... Furthermore, as I teacher, I can tell you, there is real learning value in listening to another person's questions/problems AND the solutions!

Lastly, for what it's worth, for years I was a moderator for an early and well-known online discussion group, and I truly have no idea what your problem with this one, is.

Please explain yourself further. At this point I will have to think twice about revisiting this site, about recommending this site to anyone else, and purchasing equipment from any of the recommeneded sponsors.

Anyone who wants to contact me directly can reach me at heidi@media.mit.edu

-Heidi

Heidi

I don't think Chris is referring to you (and the nature of the discussion that we've all been having for the past few days). I think he's referring to one post, which was followed by your defense, and then someone coming to your support...etc. etc. You are new to this board, and you'll note that we stay away from these types of conversations, as they have a curious way of shutting down the REAL discussion. As you can see this one already has.

Posts of this nature--including this one of mine...are a waste of everyone's time.

Barry

How's the camera situation?

Heidi

I was referring to the meta-discussion banter that evolved around someone's "humorous" post. The jokes, etc. have been removed because they contribute nothing of value to the technical conversation. I would prefer that we all concentrate instead on providing straightforward answers to the questions you've raised about the cameras.

I hope that's clear enough, except now there are two more posts, mine and Barry's, that are still off-topic. I'll probably remove both of these later, so for now, please, let's get back to discussing the technical questions that you and others have raised. Hope this helps,

New Thread
 

To All:

Yesterday I started a new thread with Heidi's new questions at:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3260

I encourage the party to move to the new bar. First round of beverages is on me!

Thanks for the info. I have been seeking the answer to this question for some time (xl1 vs. gl2) since I can get a used xl1 for the price of a new gl2. Based on your site, I have the answer. However, I cannot download the clips on your site. I can only view them in a browser in Quicktime. Is there a way to post the files so I can see them at full rez.

Thanks,

Tom

Tom

Unfortunately, due to the constraints of the .mac site, the movies are resized to fit the .mac templates. You'll need to invest in QT pro ($30) to download them...or you can take a look at the stills on the "New gl2, xl1s..." page, which are from the clip.

Barry

Yes there is an exposure wheel
 

You say: "Users of the GL1 will find that most things are where they expect them, although when I first got the camera, Iwas at a loss to find the Exposure Mode dial."

A photo of the GL2 at http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0208/cameracorner.htm clearly shows the exposure dial in exactly the same place as the GL1

Neil

The exposure mode dial, from the gl1 (and xl series) is the larger dial used to change exposure modes or programs, not exposure. Canon has chosen to move this feature to an on screen menu (actually a switch, green box > program, and then a menu). It's not that big a deal, it has its own separate "entrance"..you don't have to browse through a menu hierarchy...and it works fine...although I think I like the dial better.

Barry

It's disappointing to learn that the Exposure Compensation feature on the GL2 (more properly labeled the "Auto Exposure Level Control" on earlier Canon Models), is entwined in a Menu system. My digital cam is in the shop, so I fired up my L-1 Hi-8 yesterday, which has the ± dial out in easy reach. It is so easy and important to good shooting, to be able to quickly touch that dial and nothing else, to tweak your exposure, but still stay in Auto. I feel so much in control of my camera with the dial at my command. I compare having to go into a menu for essential controls, as trying to scratch a chronic itch wearing ski pants and 2 layers of longjohns. It seems the manufacturers are compelled to throw in a few missing features on even their best models, in order to save some buying incentives for the next upgrade.

I agree that analog dials are a better facility for many, if not most, features than electronic menus. But, if I had to choose a control to place into en e-menu the AE shift would definitely have been one of my choices since it's not used frequently my most shooters.

My disappointment, small though it may be, is that tiny exposure adjustment wheel carried over from the GL-1. It's just too tiny and has too mushy of a tactile feedback to give you a feeling off confidence. I think it would have been a master stroke to place this adjustment on the lens as a ring (roughly the location and width as the iris ring on the XL1s' 16x lens is). Clockwise rotations increase, counter-clock decreases. In Tv it adjusts shutter speed, in Av it adjusts aperture.

Steve

Actually the AE shift, while not on the body, is available as a custom key, which makes it pretty easy access...I agree it would be nice to have it on the cam body, but in practice the custom key is almost as quick.

Barry

<<<-- Originally posted by barrygoyette : Tom

Unfortunately, due to the constraints of the .mac site, the movies are resized to fit the .mac templates. You'll need to invest in QT pro ($30) to download them...or you can take a look at the stills on the "New gl2, xl1s..." page, which are from the clip.

Barry -->>>
Downloading the QT files saving $30 !!
Is it a PC or a MAC you are useing??
If it is a PC then you can try to find it in C:\WINDOWS\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\HQEZIWI1
and is it the file with Brian shamefully admitting his convertion to the MAC it will be named : brian%20switch2[1]

Thanks
 

Dear Barry
I'm Roy Foster from Beaconsfield, England, writing to thank you for your detailed and enlightening review. Based on your review, I managed to track down the Canon XM2 (your GL2) and Sony TRV 950 in the same store. Although a novice to the camcorder, I have been a keen stills photographer for the past 35 years. I am therefore familiar with shutter speeds, apertures, and, in the case of the camcorder, gain. I am hoping this knowledge will help me to become a decent videotaper.
I ran side by side trials in the store of the Canon and the Sony. In my opinion - bearing in mind that these were brief videotaping tests not exhaustive and comprehensive trials and reviews like your own - the image quality from the Canon is quite stunning in its stability and transparency. It left me in no doubt that the Canon was the camcorder for me, despite the fact that I had on my arrival at the store been heavily biased in favour of the Sony, perhaps for all the wrong reasons. The Sony is in my view by far the more desirable of the two in terms of aesthetics and indeed to some degree in respect of control layout. But I felt the Canon had better image quality, and it was a noticeable difference for me and indeed for the assistants in the store.
I hope this small contribution will help those who, like me, seek to get info about these two camcorders with a view to deciding which may be right for them. It's important in my view for anyone considering this level of purchase - the Canon is retailing for around £1800 in the UK - to be as sure as they can. But I can say, however, and I think your review echoes this, that all those considering the TRV 950 should at least give the Canon XM2/GL2 a trial before making up their mind.
I'm new to DVInfo and am very much enjoying the companionship and the excellent help and guidance. Any tips you can offer an aging chap who seeks to become a good videotaper will be gratefully received. Currently I am investigating tripods, mikes, etc. for the Canon.
With best regards

Roy Foster
(royfosroyfos)

Say wha'?
 

Royfosroyfos claims the GL2, "quite stunning in its stability and transparency".

-I'd say that description itself, is quite stunning in it's obfuscation.

I tested the GL2 and the 950 as well, and there was certainly no clear-cut obvious superiority of overall picture quality for either. The GL2 makes a fine picture, and does see down in lower light (along with a Lot more grain), but the Sony showed a somewhat cleaner (free of artifact) picture through most of it's range than the GL2, and resolves at least as much fine detail as the GL2, sometimes a little more.

I saw neither having poetic advantage of any stunning "transparency" visible in their video, a quality I've seen earned by a few very elite optics, imaging to Film that can actually capture all that rarified resolution.

As to "stability", if this refers to the camera's image stabilizers, I wasn't immediately struck by either one's being altogether much different than the other, but they both do have very effective OIS systems.

I went for the Sony for it's much smaller size and unobtrusiveness, and better LCD. The GL2 had a slighter more magnified viewfinder image which I'd normally prefer, but since the cameras share the same size .44" vf of equal # pixels, that advantage became a wash w/it's slightly coarser image. -Both could use better.

See the haru web comparison page for some impartial framegrabs from these cameras:
http://www4.big.or.jp/%7Ea_haru/temp020829/0208_3CCD.html

While it is harder to tell some of the diffs there, as opposed to viewing actual video, you can see that quantum leaps in quality are not generally the order of difference.

<<--"psurfer1": As to "stability", if this refers to the camera's image stabilizers, I wasn't immediately struck by either one's being altogether much different than the other, but they both do have very effective OIS systems. -->>

That makes sense, since I believe Sony still licenses Canon's image stabilization technology for its consumer and prosumer cameras.

So you "...went for the Sony" WHAT? TRV950? VX2000? PD150? (I gather the 950, but you "obfuscated" a bit on that point. <g>

Re: Say wha'?
 

<<<-- Originally posted by psurfer1 : Royfosroyfos claims the GL2, "quite stunning in its stability and transparency".

-I'd say that description itself, is quite stunning in it's obfuscation.

I tested the GL2 and the 950 as well, and there was certainly no clear-cut obvious superiority of overall picture quality for either. The GL2 makes a fine picture, and does see down in lower light (along with a Lot more grain), but the Sony showed a somewhat cleaner (free of artifact) picture through most of it's range than the GL2, and resolves at least as much fine detail as the GL2, sometimes a little more.

I saw neither having poetic advantage of any stunning "transparency" visible in their video, a quality I've seen earned by a few very elite optics, imaging to Film that can actually capture all that rarified resolution.

As to "stability", if this refers to the camera's image stabilizers, I wasn't immediately struck by either one's being altogether much different than the other, but they both do have very effective OIS systems.

I went for the Sony for it's much smaller size and unobtrusiveness, and better LCD. The GL2 had a slighter more magnified viewfinder image which I'd normally prefer, but since the cameras share the same size .44" vf of equal # pixels, that advantage became a wash w/it's slightly coarser image. -Both could use better.

See the haru web comparison page for some impartial framegrabs from these cameras:
http://www4.big.or.jp/%7Ea_haru/temp020829/0208_3CCD.html

While it is harder to tell some of the diffs there, as opposed to viewing actual video, you can see that quantum leaps in quality are not generally the order of difference. -->>>

I did compare the XM2 to the 950 and found the XM2 to be optically superior. Also, the XM2 autofocus was superior to the 950, much faster lock-on, no hunting. It's worth adding that I was at the time biased in favour of the 950. Others in the store felt the same about the differences.
I didn't actually buy this particular XM2 but eventually purchased from another store. I am very, very pleased with my XM2. I agree that the viewfinder in the XM2 is superior, I find it a joy to use. The XM2 LCD on the other hand is more or less useless as a recording monitor in sunlight, and the 950 is definitely better in this respect. Again, the XM2 viewfinder is so good, I don't find this a problem.

I have not regretted my XM2 purchase and I stand by my original comments.

royfos

What price superlatives
 

<<<-- Originally posted by royfosroyfos : <<<-- Originally posted by psurfer1 : Royfosroyfos claims the GL2, "quite stunning in its stability and transparency".

-I'd say that description itself, is quite stunning in it's obfuscation.

I tested the GL2 and the 950 as well, and there was certainly no clear-cut obvious superiority of overall picture quality for either. The GL2 makes a fine picture, and does see down in lower light (along with a Lot more grain), but the Sony showed a somewhat cleaner (free of artifact) picture through most of it's range than the GL2, and resolves at least as much fine detail as the GL2, sometimes a little more.

I saw neither having poetic advantage of any stunning "transparency" visible in their video, a quality I've seen earned by a few very elite optics, imaging to Film that can actually capture all that rarified resolution.

As to "stability", if this refers to the camera's image stabilizers, I wasn't immediately struck by either one's being altogether much different than the other, but they both do have very effective OIS systems.

I went for the Sony for it's much smaller size and unobtrusiveness, and better LCD. The GL2 had a slighter more magnified viewfinder image which I'd normally prefer, but since the cameras share the same size .44" vf of equal # pixels, that advantage became a wash w/it's slightly coarser image. -Both could use better.

See the haru web comparison page for some impartial framegrabs from these cameras:
http://www4.big.or.jp/%7Ea_haru/temp020829/0208_3CCD.html

While it is harder to tell some of the diffs there, as opposed to viewing actual video, you can see that quantum leaps in quality are not generally the order of difference. -->>>

I did compare the XM2 to the 950 and found the XM2 to be optically superior. Also, the XM2 autofocus was superior to the 950, much faster lock-on, no hunting. It's worth adding that I was at the time biased in favour of the 950. Others in the store felt the same about the differences.
I didn't actually buy this particular XM2 but eventually purchased from another store. I am very, very pleased with my XM2. I agree that the viewfinder in the XM2 is superior, I find it a joy to use. The XM2 LCD on the other hand is more or less useless as a recording monitor in sunlight, and the 950 is definitely better in this respect. Again, the XM2 viewfinder is so good, I don't find this a problem.

I have not regretted my XM2 purchase and I stand by my original comments.

royfos -->>>

The adjectives and superlatives I use are not intended to confuse or obfuscate. I believe the value of a forum such as this is to help and advise each other as and when we can. Certainly, I'm enthusiastic about my XM2. By "Stability" I mean the picture is very stable. This may not be good cammyspeak, but I'm sure most readers will understand what I mean. By "Transparency" I mean that the XM2 has a delicate, transparent quality to its image.
I'm sorry if I my choice of words has offended some readers, certainly was not intended.

royfos

Hi Roy

Thanks for sharing your perceptions. I am a generation behind, but have much preferred the image quality of my Canon GL-1 versus my Sony TRV-900. Although, in this case, the Sony's autofocus is better.

I do wonder why people differ so much in their judgments regarding image quality. I cannot imagine anyone preferring MY Sony clips over my Canon clips. It might be just that I have learned better how to use the Canon or maybe the subjects that I shoot are more suited to the Canon.

Clif

Tbanks, Clif!
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Clif Anderson : Hi Roy

Thanks for sharing your perceptions. I am a generation behind, but have much preferred the image quality of my Canon GL-1 versus my Sony TRV-900. Although, in this case, the Sony's autofocus is better.

I do wonder why people differ so much in their judgments regarding image quality. I cannot imagine anyone preferring MY Sony clips over my Canon clips. It might be just that I have learned better how to use the Canon or maybe the subjects that I shoot are more suited to the Canon.

Clif -->>>
I also wonder why our views differ so greatly. I think part of the problem seen from my vantage point is the difficulty in getting to try the various camcorders at the same place and time. I was actually very keen on the 950 and managed to find a dealer who had the 950 and the XM2 and who, importantly, was prepared to let me subject both to a decent trial. Having spent an hour recording from both the XM2 and 950 and then replaying results via a Sony 32" TV, it was clear to me and others who were sharing the experience that the Canon XM2 had a distinct edge in respect of image quality. I know my superlatives have caused one or two readers irritation, but images really did appear more stable. Also, oddly bearing in mind your comments, the XM2 autofocus was faster and more reliable, i.e. no hunting. But clearly, a one-hour trial is not an in-depth study and I would advise anyone considering the XM2 to judge for him/herself. Since my XM2 purchase I have managed to find several areas of dissatisfaction, although I still love the camcorder and still feel it produces great images. Although I am new to cammys I have been a still photographer for many years and have some excellent still equipment that allows me to be discerning in respect of image quality.

Good to hear from you Clif! I'm really enjoying the community spirit of these pages and the opportunity to 'speak' with other enthusiasts like yourself.

Best regards

Roy

Hi Roy

Your comments regarding the GL2's autofocus make me think I will get one in the coming year. Still, I recognize that quality comparisons can be situation dependent. At the present time, I am quite immersed in a project of making DVDRs of Chinese dance performances. I have 10 hours of video from each of my Canon XL1, Canon GL1, and Sony TRV-900. The stage is subjected to lighting extremes. I use spotlight mode on the Canons, but there is no such mode on the Sony, so I adjust the exposure level down. Under these circumstances, the Canon's images are clearly better than the Sony's. I used to have a Sony VX1000, and its images were not much better than those of the TRV-900.

With bright and even lighting, the image quality is about the same. However, I cannot recall ever preferring a Sony image over a Canon image as long as both were in focus. On the other hand, some have reported that the resolution of the GL1 is below that of other cameras. The GL2 is reported to be better than the GL1 in this regard.

I guess autofocus can also be situation dependent. It is easy to see how it might be difficult to focus on dancers spead out across a stage when there is a stationary background behind them to focus on. The Sony TRV-900 handles this better than the GL1, which I use more for closeups. If the GL2 improves upon the TRV-900, the latter might become a tape deck.

I use a Sony Vaio for editing the video. Only once have I been able to capture from a Canon camcorder. I usually copy to the TRV-900 and capture from it. A Video Vegas readme file indicates that there are some "issues" with Sony Vaio computers and state that there is a "fix" that comes on the Vegas CD-ROM. However, I have not found the "fix". If anyone has solved the problem of capturing from a Canon camcorder onto a Sony computer, I would like to know how they do it.

Clif

Isn't it time to retire this thread? (114 responses...here's one more)
 

No offense taken, Roy.
But while it's good to hear that the GL2 performs so much better for you than your previous videocam, I think it wise in this 114-post GL2 "love-fest" to point out that we're talking about prosumer DV, here. The very best of the breed right now still do not even better the quality of well-shot Super-8 film. Since a number of posters seem to have designs on making a feature for potential film blow-up, it seems worthwhile to put things into perspective.

I am not trying to slam the GL2. It's picture is right up there with the best, and it has the real advantage of a wider range of focal lengths. I bought the TRV950, for that same kind of quality in a smaller lower-profile package, w/a larger and better LCD screen. Others enjoy the VX2000/PD150 for it's superior low-light sensitivity. Each one of these cameras has a few other + & - points in it's corner, but the fine distinctions generally that can be made about the differences in picture quality (aside from in low light) between each are really only useful if planning for film blow-up, in which case you're doomed to a really poor film print with any of the three. (Fwiw, the finest details would remain from the TRV950/PDx10's footage...) On the other hand, for broadcast, they could all intercut w/each other, and no one would notice.

So I repeat: Make your buying decision about these 3 cameras based on criteria other than just ultimate picture quality, which has proven to be one of the least significant differences between them.

Last, just to clarify comments about the GL2's viewfinder, it is .44" w/180K pixels, the same as the 950's. Canon has magnified it just a little larger in the eyepiece, but the gain in viewing size (which I'm otherwise all for) is made less useable by the slightly coarser viewing image that results, already "just " acceptible for discerning detail imo, in the 950. Neither wins there. By comparison, the VX2000 has a larger .55" vf panel displaying those 180K pixels, so it's next (slight) step larger finder makes for a somewhat better (smoother) viewing experience. -Here's to hoping that the Next generation of top DV cameras has significant improvement in vf size and resolution over what we're seeing now. Better color viewfinders are possible and deserved. Make sure to write your manufacturer of choice about it if you care about seeing what you shoot clearly.

Psurfer,
 

You make some good points -- but frankly, retiring this thread would be a mistake in my opinion.

There are plently of people (me included) who have and will continue to benefit from this thread...

If you are tired of the discussion, stop reading. Otherwise, this thread is a great place for people to voice and discuss THIER opinions, just like you have.

Bye.

Heidi,
This GL1/GL2 forum, in general, is a platform for discussion of these cameras. Unless someone has specific additional comparative information to add to this thread's topic I recommend that new questions and topics should be placed in new threads to better facilitate our members' topical scans.

Ken
 

I was only responding to the previous post's "Post Subject" which suggested getting rid of this thread. I'm sorry I said anything...

Confusion
 

We certainly would not remove this thread; it's full of much good stuff. I think that 'psurfer1' simply suggested that it not be endlessly extended and meander far off topic...at least that's how I interpreted the post. Sorry for the semantic confusion, if any.

A thread should never be deleted unless it's spam or if off topic to the point it's useless. The GL2 thread is beneficial to anyone that is in the market for a GL2. Discussions that share user insight and information is priceless. To discard info would be a mistake. I can't tell you how many times that I have searched the newsgroups etc and got helpful info that is ten years old. Searchable data archives should be left intact for whatever research someone will be doing at any giving time.

Michael Pappas
Arrival Entertainment