GL2 Review- Comparison with XL1s, PD150

<<<-- 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]

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)

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.

[Ken Tanaka]

<<--"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>

<<<-- 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

<<<-- 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

<<<-- 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

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.

[Heidi Willoughby]

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.

[Ken Tanaka]

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.

[Heidi Willoughby]

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

[Ken Tanaka]

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.

[Michael Pappas]

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