Don't worry; we very seldom delete threads. Intentionally, that is... the occasional prairie fire may reach the server shack and wipe out some posts, as it did a few months ago. But Fire Chief Jeff assures me this won't be a problem in the future.

I see no reason to lock up the thread. 115 responses is nowhere near our record anyway. On occasion we may split the thread, as Ken did recently, when the conversation branches off into a new topic.

I wouldn't characterize this as a "love fest" either; we welcome all legitimate criticism as long as it's factually and professionally written without any emotional or passionate overdrive. Hope this helps,

Bass

The gl2 works well in low light situations, but like most other cameras, it does need some light to produce a quality image, so my recommendation would be this. If you intend to shoot with available room light at night, if at all possible change out lower wattage bulbs with higher ones...better to get more light than you need, and then stop down, or use ND to get it to look dark and moody. I've shot a lot in typical rooms lit with 60 watt bulbs, and the camera functions fine, with no gain added. As you increase the gain on the gl2, the grain will become noticeable...you can minimize this by turning down the sharpness, and I've found using this technique, the gl2 has no more grain than the gl1 or xl1s in low light situations, while at the same time it is noticeably sharper, and cleaner color-wise.

I think the zoom on the gl2 is a tad slow. And it certainly isn't capable of the type of rack zoom you would find from a lens with manual zoom. I don't ever notice it, as most zooms I do would be of the super-slow-crawl type, and rack zooming is an effect that needs to be used judiciously...but if you need it...this camera won't do it. On the other hand the gl2's focus ring has a nice mechanical focus feel to it, making it a good manual focus camera capable of relatively accurate cine-style focus shifts.


Barry

Ok I don't know what happened there...I'm responding to a Bass's post and then his post disappeared....I'll go looking.

Barry

Low light ---
 

Thanks for your reply Barry (don't know why my post disspareared by the way).

I agree with you slightly "overlighting" and then manually "underexposing would be the way to go to get somber but clean images.

Thanks for your reply about the zoom.

Is there some kind of shoulder pas for the gl-2? That would be good.

Bassbooster

Your post got moved to startt a new thread..."same old low light question"...

For a shoulder mount. I use an image 2000, and it works fine...Chris likes one from varizoom I think that is a little beefier (and a bit more expensive)...and habbycam makes one almost identical to the image2000, for a few bucks less.

They'll all do the job.

Barry

I'm going to move these replies over to the other thread.

I moved it because the questions relating to low light were a new topic, and not a direct response to Barry's review. As a new thread, the subject is better organized and easier to locate. Will probably pull these last few posts out and move them over later today.

Gl2 lens at 20X
 

Hi Barry,
thanks for the review.
I own a VX2000 which I use with a Sony 1.7X extender for shooting wild animals and birds, but I am not really happy with the combination. You said that the Gl2 lens is extremely sharp. Do you think I would do better with the Gl2 or would I have to go to a camera with an interchangeabe lens in order to really get really good long shots?
Does someone have shots or the Gl2 at 20X ?
Mike

If you really want to step up in sharpness, you'll need to go with the XL1s and the EF adapter and Canon EOS EF lenses. You get an effective bump of 7.2X in magnification and the sharpness factor goes way up. Sharpest 1/3 inch chip image in my opinion.

Jeff

agreed
 

I'll second that recommendation of an XL1S with EF adapter- you'll be amazed at the increase in image sharpness as well as magnification....be prepared to carry a tripod as there's no image stabilization (even IS lenses can't be handheld)...also be prepared to manually focus as AF will not work with an EF lens...aperature will still be controlled via camera and works perfectly....

~~~a few drawbacks I know- but it's the way to go if you want to televideo something from afar- nothing else comes close!

Be prepared to be stunned- from flies and hawks to lions and zebras- the EF adapter will meet your expectations.

great reviews! a few more questions
 

Thanks Barry for doing a terrific review of the 3 cameras. I need to get a back up for my XL-1 (it's getting on in years) and share your affinity for the frame mode. I am considering a DVX100 but not to happy with taht camera's image stabilizer (I do a lot of hand held shooting and am also getting on in years). I'm now leaning toward the GL-2...is the stabilzer capabilities as good as my XL-1? How do you think the GL-2 would be for outdoor/sunset event coverage on the fly? I also have considered getting a new XL1s but really don't want to duplicate my camera inventory (betacam, DV500, and XL1). Could the GL2 match up as 2nd camera for my XL1?
Thanks again for your input, Best, Craig Hollenback

Craig,

I just got a DVX100 myself (my Gl2 went down for repairs, right before I was to start a big project)...and I have to admit that I'm really sweet on this camera... I haven't noticed any problem with the stabilizer...but I don't do much without a tripod, stabilizer, or at minimum a shoulder mount.

What I have noticed is a definitely improved "motion" when in progressive scan versus frame mode on the gl2...substantially smoother..which may counter any gains from a better optical stabilization scheme. Additionally, this is the first DV camera that I have seen that looks good in a wide shot...it doesn't go all fuzzy like every other DV cam I've seen when you pull back to include a lot of stuff in the frame.

As far as the xl1, gl2 matchup...I'm not sure, I've only used the xl1s... In that case, the gl2 has better detail and contrast, and maybe a little more noise...but with a few minor tweaks to both images in camera...you can get them looking almost identical. The xl1 probably wouldn't match as well as you have a lot less control over the image.

However, I'm sure the xl1 would be no match the DVX100 at this point...the panasonic has about the smoothest highlight range that I've seen, whereas the Xl1 is known for being pretty harsh on the highlight end.

Barry

Thanks again Barry
 

Great info!...
In a nut shell, my situation is this...I've found myselfs doing very high end casual weddings at an exclusive Island Resort. Generally the entire event is over in 1.5hrs. Lots of run and gun shooting along side a journalistic style photograper. Little time for set-ups...combo of settings...shaded garden, sunset beach ceremony location, then wrap-up into early evening dinner.
I've been using my XL-1 with an me66 mic and a sony wireless. Camera mounted dimable Frezzi light and .6 Century wide adapter. All handheld...slow zooms, pans close-ups etc. Handheld for 15 minute ceremony.
I continue to do corporate projects(for about the past 15 years) and use the DV500 and Beta for that, the XL-1 for run and gun.
I'm getting a bit paranoid about the the old XL-1 flaking out and have been lugging the 500 out to the island as a back-up.
So, I need to get another camera....and would like it to be light enough to hand hold easily...perhaps with the help of a shoulder support if needed for addional stability etc.
Initial thoughts were for the DVX 100...light to carry...good audio inputs, built in wide angle (the Century is a pain to put on and take off the bayonet XL-1).
Based on your positive review of the DVX100...it sounds like it might just be the way to go...plus it makes for good marketing conversation to corporate clients about trendy 24p etc.
I thought that rather than 24p(the sample I shot at a rental house seemed a bit jittery) I'd use 30 p...closer to the XL-1 fame mode. Have you tried that setting?
Thanks again....and any additonal thougts would surely be welcomed...I want to make this purchase as non emotional as possible!
I really appreciate you unbiased feedback.
Best, Craig Hollenback

I agree on the 30p...the 24p looks to jerky to me...but the 30p is beautiful..one caveat though...when you go into progressive mode...you lose gain control (which makes sense) and autofocus(which doesn't). On the run and gun thing...the DVX is incredibly well balanced, it feels very light in your hand...and you don't need to add a wide angle which means you don't throw off the camera balance like you do with the gl2( and the xl1 is already front heavy).

One other warning: get to know the gamma settings, and experiment with the footage in your NLE...the gamma adjustments have the net effect of limiting the amount you can adjust the image later in post...so if you use the high or low settings...make sure you get it looking like you want in camera (I'm paying for this now on the "big project).

Remember, the gl2 is still a great camera, and currently its almost $2000 less than a dvx. Is the dvx worth the difference?...I don't know...but I will say that I think its the best camera in the prosumer class at this point.

One question....How can you not get emotional about a new camera? I'd really like to know.

Barry

just too analytical!
 

Hi Barry....well truth is...I am pretty worked up about this camera purchase!...At least not since my first video toaster...I had the 6th one manufactured...and was a beta tester for them. I used to do all the Amiga animations and artwork that ran in their ads.
The DVX100 really turned my head, but I've never really been a big Panasonic fan...not sure why though. The things that I've read though seem to prove it's reliability.
The DVX100 has lots of exciting possibilities down the road for me also....that I don't think the GL2 has. I'm looking at $3126 vs:$2121 plus $250 off rebate for the GL2...both purchased through a friend in the biz The thousand difference while not small is not as critical as having the right camera for the job I've found. One nice corporate shoot would make it up quickly. The Island wedding thing crept it's way into my routine and so far it's been a pretty good gig. The clients are very high-end and consequently, there is no room for equipment failure...hence the additional safety camera. The plan would be to use the new camera as primary and "retire" the XL-1 to emergency.
One last question...how is the zoom control on the DVX100 vs: the XL1...perhaps I just didn't have enough time to try it, but I couldn't get the DVX100 to creep smoothly from a start to a gradual stop.
Thanks again...I know I'm getting close to a decision! Best, Craig

The dvx zoom is definitely not as smooth or slow as the xl1s...not sure about the xl1. But you can do a decent slow zoom...albeit with a starting and ending "bump".

Personally, I hadn't planned on buying this camera (although I'm glad I did) as I suspect that the next round of the XL series will have the same chipset and similar features as the DVX...this would be an awesome combo of utility and image quality...but this will not likely happen till next summer if at all.

Barry

thanks again
 

Barry,
Well I really appreciate all your input...The GL2 looks like it will fill the bill for simple wedding coverage and the price point is really good....not to mention the use of all my current XL1 batteries! I think that I'll get the GL2 to cover my butt for now and continue with the DV500 for the corporate work on sticks. I'm glad to hear that you've been happy with your GL2 (except for the recent breakdown). I checked out your site..."Uncollected" looked great...what did you shoot that with? I'm sure that the DVX100 or similar is within this years purchase for me when needed...Perhaps an XL1s with 24p/30p etc. might become available soon. Again many thanks...best of luck, Craig

"Uncollected" was shot on the xl1s. Good luck with your new cam.

Barry

Be advised of the considerable difference in vertical resolution (the number of horizontal scanning lines that contribute to the image sharpness) in the three different modes that are used in these cameras. The true Progressive video mode in NTSC cameras produces a full 480 vertical lines of resolution. Interlaced NTSC mode produces 360 vertical lines of resolution, but the Frame mode of many NTSC Canon models, gives only 320 vertical lines of resolution. They all use the full 480 horizontal scanning lines that are visible onscreen, but the resolution or sharpness is diminished by the way the scanning lines are used in Interlaced and Frame modes.

The Panasonic DVX100 with a Progressive option at either 24 or 30 FPS, gives the sharpest vertical resolution, which also allows for better still images to be extracted from the footage. This is a separate measurement from horizontal resolution (the number of visible vertical lines in the image), which is 640 lines that can be seen onscreen, in all modes.

Several Sony models, including the PD150, also have a true Progressive mode, but they only use 15 FPS when in that setting and the footage is not suitable for realtime viewing, only for still-frame capture. If you like the look of 30 FPS Progressive footage (some don't), you can have the best of both realtime video and still-frame capture with the DVX100 and other more expensive models with the same
30p FPS capabilities.

Unfortunately, when the DVX100 is in Progressive mode, the image stabilizer does not operate and works only in Interlaced mode.

Steve McDonald

I should have added to my previous message that the measure of horizontal resolution is further complicated by the counting of the distinguishable vertical lines across only 3/4 of a screen with the standard 4:3 aspect ratio. The 3/4 of the width of a 4:3 screen represents the same dimension as its height. This is why DV and Digital8 video is rated at only 500 lines or slightly higher, of horizontal resolution, although 640 separate vertical lines are theoretically visible across the full screen width. Including the offscreen margins that are included in the coding, this is 720 vertical lines.

Steve McDonald

follow up to Barry
 

Hi Barry...I want to thank you for all your feedback about the GL2 and DVX100...Now that you've had some time to try out the DVX100...and I am about to purchase a camera today or tomorrow...I wanted to ask you how you've liked the DVX100? I understand that the stabilizer is not disabled in 24 or 30p but the auto focus in fact is. If I purchase the GL2, it will most likely always be used with the wide angle adapter (but it's nice to have the 20x for vacation, etc.) and I will need to purchase the beackteck phantom power XL2 adapter as well. I may perhaps use the still image to flash card feature for vacations as well etc. but have never used one to date. I will most likely never go out to film from the camera, but do wish to offer corporate clients a film look to video. Is the lens on the DVX100 all that it's cracked up to be compared to the GL2? Is the low light ablilties of the DVX 100 greatly superior to the the GL2? How's the 30p feature look to video compared to 30 frame mode of the GL2? I'm no longer the steadist stooter and will rely on the stabilzer capabilities of either camera for handheld. All in all is it worth the extra $1000 for the overall general and professional performance of the DVX100 along with giving up the little extra prosumer perks of the GL2? Thanks, Craig

Craig

If you haven't checked out this thread, you might want to..

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14119

As far as the low light thing goes, in Progressive...I don't notice that the DVX is any more valuable...you have no gain control, and are limited to 1/30 shutter. I haven't done a direct comparison yet, although we did a 2 cam shoot awhile back and the camera seem to have a similar sensitivity in normal light.

Both cameras have excellent lenses..yes I miss the gl2's long telephoto, but in reality for me, and I think most shooters...the wider Leica lens is a dream, with more zoom-room in the area that I shoot most.

The combination of the great wide lens and the true progressive makes for a wide shot that has far more detail than what can be achieved with the GL2 in frame mode with an adapter. Also, there isn't a heavy hunk of glass throwing the camera off balance.

Image quality on the whole...I'm viewing everything on an HD monitor...the dvx image is cleaner with surprisingly natural highlights. In our two camera set-up the main differences seemed to be a slight difference in sharpness, highlight rendition, and color rendition...with the dvx superior in all three areas.


Is the DVX worth the extra grand?...I think this really depends on your budget, and what you want to do with the camera. For me, I'm wanting to shoot original creative material --short films, music videos etc, in typically controlled situations, and the DVX is a professional camera designed for this purpose. The Gl2 is a consumer grade camera with more attention to ease of use, and may function better in run and gun situations.

On a side note,If you've been following the ladyX series, my episode runs next week...almost all of it was shot on the DVX...except the cafe seen which used both cameras. You might want to check it out.

ladyX ?
 

Once again, thanks for your candor....I checked out that thread...very interesting! Don't have any info about the ladyX series...is it on cable? Would love to see it. Thanks, Craig

Craig

Lady X is not on cable... yet. I wouldn't be surpised to see the entire series run on IFC someday soon, though! Read all about it right here, at ladyxfilms.com. Hope this helps,

very inspiring!
 

Thanks Chris...terrific concept...makes the gears start turning! Loved Le Fem Nikita...who knows what wil come of this? Tnx, Craig

Camera Shake in Progressive
 

>Unfortunately, when the DVX100 is in Progressive mode, the image stabilizer does not operate and works only in Interlaced mode.

????

No, it works for me in 24p unless I am crazy.

Has anyone noticed the electronic ringing on the two Canon Still Life comparisons done by Barry in his first post? Jump back and forth between the GL2 and the PD150 test patterns and its quite apparent---there with the GL2, absent with the PD150. I first noticed it on my GL2 and I posted it on this site as a HALO problem. Frank refered me to a site(see my post) that described various problem issues and there it was. An edge effect caused by over sharpening produces a phantom white line at the interface of a dark and light object. I did not notice it for weeks after getting my camera but now its the first thing I look for. Kind of like a paper cut.
I sent my GL2 back to the factory to correct this "problem" and it was returned, as was, with a note stating that it was "normal". I was just getting ready to send it back again when I visited Barry's evaluation to see if it was addressed. I didn't find any comments on it but it sure showed up in his Still Life photos. If all you other GL2 owners also see this condition, I may not return mine to the factory again but just enjoy the other good features of this camera.

Howard

I would hardly say that the "ringing" you noticed is absent in the pd150 images. Yes it is slightly less obvious, but it is still quite noticeable. Is this difference a flaw?...not necessarily.

Firstly, by specification the images from these cameras are designed to be viewed on an NTSC monitor, not on a web page viewed with a high resolution computer monitor. The fringing you notice would not be viewable in the specified viewing format, and in fact the fringing is a primary component in making the image look sharp in the lower resolution (ntsc)environment. (ask any prepress professional why we over-sample our scans, and then unsharp mask them (the source of the fringing) prior to printing...it produces a better, sharper result than simply scanning at the resolution of the litho screen, and not sharpening typically results in a slightly blurry image)

Secondly, this effect can be minimized by turning down the sharpness in the camera settings. In the review, I noted that I felt the image of the gl2 is slightly oversharpened...especially when viewed on the computer..and I have many times recommended here that the sharpening be turned down 1 or 2 points. I think this procedure would produce a similar amount of fringing compared to the pd150.

You would be hard-pressed to find any video camera (or even digital still camera) that doesn't produce some amount of sharpening artifact, especially when shooting a black and white line chart like mine...remember, as I said in the review...much of the data gained from test charts should be taken with a grain of salt...and is only valuable if you shoot black and white lines for a living.

Cheers

Barry

DVX100 Steady Shot
 

Yes, the DVX steady shot (labled "OIS" and shown by the little hand icon in the display)works in all modes- and quite well.

Barry has bought a DVX100 himself, and I would be interesed in his feedback now that he's had it for a while.

A new DVX100A is being sold now with some nice upgrades, including electronic 16:9 OR letterbox and several other useful features.

I am EXTREMELY happy with this camera, as it addressed many of the issues I had some problems with on the GL2-- a very good camera for the money, but lacking a few features I desired in a pro camera. Most notably, the DVX procudes a superior and sharper image, with more accurate color rendition-- albeit, and a price jump from the GL2.

Barry
Do you remember what the sharpness was set at when you did your evaluation of the GL2?

Howard

The comparison shots for all cameras were shot with all settings at default, which for the gl2 would mean the neutral or 0 position...this doesn't mean that sharpening is not applied at this level, only that canon's engineers decided that this level of sharpness looked best to them. I feel that for many purposes, this level of sharpening is a bit high, so I usually have mine set a step or two lower...but the best way to set your camera is to view the footage at a variety of sharpness levels on the intended output device....a higher level of sharpness might look better if shot in good light and displayed on an ntsc monitor, a lower level might look best on a computer monitor or for footage that is shot in lower light ( to minimize noise caused by increased gain).

If you've never done a custom preset sharpness adjustment, just be sure to turn the preset ON after you've adjusted the menu settings(button on the side of the camera)...a "cp" should show in the lower left of the screen letting you know that the adjustment is being applied.

Neil-As for my feelings about the gl2 as referenced to the dvx100. I think the gl2 is the best camera priced at $2000, and I think the DVX100 is the best camera priced at $3500. Is one or the other better...yes...do the math. In my ladyX film we did a scene with both cameras...the diner scene...and in some respects--sharpness and highlight rendering--the dvx100 proved superior by a slight margin. But I doubt that anyone could definitively pick the gl2 shots from that scene.

These are two cameras intended for completely different markets...so I'm not sure that any comparison is fair...in many respects the gl2 offers much more for the money in a significantly lighter/smaller package than does the dvx. Does this make it a better camera?...well yes, for someone who only has 2 grand to spend, and wants it for vacations, parties, hiking etc. For someone making their first indy DV epic, The DVX makes a lot of sense considering the next step up is many thousands of dollars more.

When I reviewed the gl2, I was very happy to see that in many respects it held its own against two cameras priced $1500 above it. Is this also the case with the DVX?..yes and no...yes the gl2 still has category leading performance that produces an image quality very much on par with the dvx...but on the other hand the dvx has raised the bar for cameras in its market sector, and thus has a slight edge over the gl2 in terms of image quality, and a significant bump in terms of functionality.

Barry

Further advice for a newbie please
 

Thanks to you all for comments and reviews - particularly Barry.
I'm trying to make up my mind between MX2, XL1, P10, P170 and 100E - finding it all a bit hard (maybe I should stick to painting!).

I've had a Panasonic DV-DS15 for a couple of years. It's produced hours of semi-documentary footage mainly art, buildings and interiors across the globe. I don't do the family movie thing, more try to give a taste of where I've been and what I've seen without the touristy "look at me here" thingies. Most folks have been complimentary and asked for copies so I must be doing something right - ummmm?

I'm a seasoned visual artist (painter mainly) and multimedia enthusiast. I want to produce some professional (semi?) work - short film and video based installation sorts of thing. That's the reason for a decent new camera.

Which one? Anyone got more comments and advice?

Sorry if this is a bit long but this is my first "post"

Malc

the question you ask is perhaps too much for anyone to answer...you've got alot of cameras listed, and I doubt that any of us has real experience with all of them. The answer is probably this: which camera has the features that you need the most-- that is the camera you should buy. Do you need a larger chip, interchangeable lenses, better low light ability, smaller package. Is Frame mode or progressive important? Do you have $2000 or $3500 (convert to aus$) to spend? Do you need xlr connections, or can that wait? Do you want a harder, sharper video-like image, or one that is softer, warmer and more filmlike. Do you want a 20x zoom or will a 10x suffice.

These questions are retorical...but no one camera has all of these features, so you need to answer them for yourself...then peruse the various divisions of this site (or others) to narrow your focus. Then get thee to a good camera store and hold the thing in your hand, ask if you can borrow their demo for an hour, and see for yourself if you like how it works for what you want it to do...this is the only way...the way of the light.

Good luck, and welcome to dvinfo.net.

Barry

Barry! I've a nose bleed at the thought of all that!

I've done most of those things and now I'm pondering if it's worth waiting until September when we're promised a batch of HD capable toys. I'm assuming (may I'm too optimistic) that Sony et al will have a 3 chip beast which is better than the current JVC offering. Choice at the moment would be either the MX2 or the DVX100E - cash alone is my choice factor here. I also suppose that prices for these two cameras will drop after the release of the HD models.

Anyhow there's so much post work to do I don't thick I'll be actually filming 'till after Sept anyway.

G'day and thanks again!

It's difficult to determine whether the HDV format will really be much of an upgrade from the current miniDV format. While you are getting more resolution out of the image, this is at the expense of much greater compression, as well as difficulties in working with the mpeg format. To me HDV seems like more of a consumer format than DV...which seems to bridge the consumer and pro world nicely...so I dont know if I'd be counting on much price pressure from hdv right off the bat..

I think you cant go wrong with either the xm2 or the dvx...I have both and they are both excellent cameras...if I had to choose one I couldn't. The DVX definitely has a superior image and I love the wide angle, but you can't beat the compactness, automation, and 20x lens on gl2.

Good luck.

Barry

DVX Happy
 

I've owned both the GL2 and the DVX100 (first edition)

I much prefer the DVX to the GL2-- and actually, I have another second camera, a compact Sony PC101 which I've used for 2 camera shoots-- where I can tweak the Sony footage to match up good enough with the DVX-- providing the shots are different enough, or effected different so you aren't aware of the difference in camera resolution.

The change to the DVX was a quantum leap for me in regards to quality from the GL2. It's something that doesn't hit you over the head immediately, but at some point you go--
oh my gosh, this doesn't look like cheap video any more-- this looks like a decent film. This is a BIG difference.

The progressive mode, espeicially. I use 24 frame progressive a lot, and it is wonderous in low light- really great.

But beyond that, the accurate color rendition of the DVX is extremely welcome. Not to mention the superior sharpness to just about anything anywhere near this price. Certainly fine for any regular TV work broadcast quality. I've done DVD projects with it that are amazing.

I've got a few inventions you may enjoy trying to make for yourself- including a low cost super wide angle for the DVX- which has work wonders for my work.

However-- if you DO OWN a GL2- I've invented a do-it-yourself wide angle lens for that camera that performs very well- instructions here (I post this link from time to time

http://www.neilslade.com/lens.html For GL2 DIY w/a about $40, for a .5X

and the DVX DIY wide version--
http://www.neilslade.com/Papers/DVXlens.html
about $75 for a .3X
Neil
www.neilslade.com

HI

Thanks for the amazing information in this thread.

I am one of those guys wanting to buy a digital cam (3CCD) and I can't decide what I want. I hear bad and good things.
I have to understand that problems or negative aspects of cams are going to apear more often in forums and that isn't the correct representation of what a cam can do. I have adobe premier, after effects and Cubase sx 2. I been making music with the pc for 9 years now so I don't need a cam with good mics. I have to buy a extra one for less than 150-200 dollars. I don't know about lighing much. I am searching this forum for good canon lights which you can plug on the canon gl2 (xm2).

So I have my doubts.

* points me wanting to go for the gl 2 (xm2 in holland):

- barry's review about the perfect videos taken in light conditions
- the price (2350 euros/dollars in a DUtch shop in Europe)
- it has firewire/USB 2 and NO bluetooth. I don't need bluetooth
- canon's reputation of making good lenses

* point me NOT wanting to go for the gl 2(xm2)

- bleeding of red colours problem ( This is an overall ' Color Fringing' problem of all 3 ccd cams I think, but I just read some post so I don't know)
- Spurious Color problem (yellow/purple color fringing problem with strange edges around a lightened object like a carwindow in the sun)
-
- problems with stuck tapes
- bad quality on low light conditions (whith a cheap 100 dollar canon light I guess you can fix this problem in inside situations, but i fyou film outside (a park in ney york) I don't know. Maybe it is better to go for the sony 950.BUt my first cam was a sony and it didn't last long so I don't trust sony cams really anymore. I also had a sony tv and it had colours problems, so I sony gives me headaches.


So while the xl1/2 and the pd150 are above my budged for now, I don't know. MAybe I should wait for next year and see other 3ccd cams apearing on the market.

I have a dillema.

I bought my GL2 recently based on this review and others I got on the internet and I'm quite happy with it.

It's true it's not a perfect camera, but it has great quality taking into account it's the second cheapest semi-pro 3 CCD camera on the market (DVC30 is cheapest).

The red bleeding is evident but it's not an issue if you're into making indies like myself (just avoid strong red areas). I also don't like the looping focus ring. But hey, my only other option was the DVX100A and that was CDN$1600 more.

I love the frame mode and the fact that is so light as well.

Just hope I don't get struck by the infamous tape deck problem..

I'm new to all of this, when you say that the GL2 has more camera noise in low light situations, what do you mean by that? Would that camera noise be gone if I was using a shotgun mic?
Another thing. Is there a website that explains everything about camcorders for beginners?

Drew,

Welcome aboard, and don't take it the wrong way that I had a nice chuckle at your question. It really is a good one...I had just never looked at it the way you proposed it.

The noise referred to in low light situations is not of the audible sort...in this case, noise is "non- image pixels" that are generated by the increased gain needed in low light situations. Let's call it grain for a photographic comparison. While a shotgun mike is usually a good Idea, it will have little effect on noise of this kind. The best way to deal with the low light noise on the gl2 is to use the camera on manual, thus allowing you to control the gain, turn the sharpness down slightly on the camera, and as always...shoot in adequate light.

Hope this helps.

Barry

Lol, that makes more sense.