Canon XM2 Pro Camcorder..Good?Bad? Help Needed

[Marcus Wright]

Canon XM2 Professional Camcorder on eBay (end time 24-May-11 20:25:43 BST)

This eBay listing is classed as a 'TV Broadcast Quality Camera' and as many of you may know recently within a £1000 budget Ive been looking for a professional camera to do just this for music videos and short films.

I wanted to know, the pros and cons of this camera. As after reading many reviews I'm really confused! Half the people say it's a good camera..half the people say it's bad?

I looked at Test footage on the internet and the footage doesn't look that amazing for what the camera is purchased at new right now or even second hand. And it looks like my panasonic hdc-sd700 has more sharpness and resolution better if I use this as comparison for the test footage on the net!!

So guys..any opinions on this would be dearly appreciated.

Thanks

[Adam Gold]

Maybe the Panny looks better because it's HD and the Canon isn't.

[Marcus Wright]

That maybe so. But Ive heard people ridicule me on here saying oh panasonic hdc-sd700 is a joke blah blah. But for a £600 camera which on some sites is £950, I found it was better than the sony z1 is video resolution and playback. I made a music video on the z1 i hired and tv companies said the video was pixelated and poor quality. I did one on the hdc-sd700 and they said it was fine i just had to change gamma lumma and make sure it was within their legal limit. The quality and overall look was better too. The only thing with the panasonic sdc-hd700 is that it doesnt have that film look even if u apply it, its too crisp and sharp in ways.

[Adam Gold]

"Film Look" and "Broadcast Quality" are two completely different and frequently opposing things, and neither has a universally accepted standard definition (no pun intended). It all depends upon who you are talking to and what your needs are.

And never believe anything in an eBay listing.

[Marcus Wright]

True a suppose. In honestly I have a £1000 budget and am looking for a camera which gives a film look for music videos and short films..basically summed up!! Aha lol

[Adam Gold]

You might consider a DSLR. Check out the DSLR and Film Look forums for some great reading.

[Marcus Wright]

Yeah,

The thing is with DSLRs from what I've understood theyre not primarily for video. And obviously the accessories are expensive which is why alot of ppl have told me to go for a video camera as primarily its function is video..although for DSLRs in my price range i was most interested in the canon rebel t3i and panaosnic gumix g2 (think those r right ones)..so yeah..its just hard to find the 'perfect' camera for you..when you are shopping with a high budget as you want value for money!!

[Chris Soucy]

Hi, Marcus.............

Originally Posted by Adam Gold

"Film Look" and "Broadcast Quality" are two completely different and frequently opposing things, and neither has a universally accepted standard definition (no pun intended). It all depends upon who you are talking to and what your needs are.................

Adam has, as usual, hit the nail on the head.

To prevent everybody going around in ever decreasing circles here, maybe YOU can give us YOUR definition of the two terms you keep bandying about, 'cos I haven't got a clue.

By "Film Look" do you mean shooting at a frame rate that is so slow anything faster than a paraplegic snail visibly jumps from one frame to the next?

By "Broadcast Quality" are you refering to BBC Broadcast quality? Al Jazeera? Nigerian State Television?

Without your definitions we're going nowhere.


CS

[Marcus Wright]

i want it to look like music videos do on TV? That kind of film look lol

[John Wiley]

Marcus, I'd not recommend the XM2 in this day and age. It's almost 10 years since it was first introduced, and that's a very long time in the electronic goods world.

It was a very capable camcorder in it's time, but it only shoots 4:3 SD video and these days the footage would look very tired.

The Sony FX7 would be the closest thing to a modern day equivelant (20x zoom, 3x 1/4" chips) and you could easily find one of those used for under 1000 pounds.

For music videos, DSLR is actually a very good option. You don't really need that many extra accessories to use them effectively, particularly if you are not worried about live audio. There are certainly some things that are helpful (follow focus, monitor, matte box) but they are not essential.The the only "must have" is a good tripod which you'd need for any other camera anyway.

[Chris Harding]

Hi Marcus

You seem to be impressed with your current SD700's performance so why not just keep it??? for under 1000 pounds you are not really going to find anything that will give you a better image and looking at SD 4:3 camcorders is really going backwards as you will never be happy comparing an SD and HD image.

Either upgrade to a TM900 to stay in your budget or grab yourself a GH2 and shoot DSLR as John suggests. Professional cameras tend to start a lot higher than 1000 pounds, even used. You will pick up a new GH2 quite easily within your budget if you look around....grab an adapter ring and then look for some faster vintage lenses on eBay and you will have a nice setup...however be prepared to work in manual mode!! The GH2 isn't that great as a point 'n shoot and runs a lot better manually..with older lenses you will have to manual focus anyway!!!

Chris

[Marcus Wright]

yeah the thing is i kn ow nothing about lenses and like ppl say dslr is for photo..not video so i dont know..and not haviong autofocus is somthing i wud like for holidays n stuff yano

[Mike Beckett]

I'm with Chris here.

That Panasonic is going to totally outshine any 10-year-old DV camera. It's solid state, no messing round with tapes.

You don't have the budget for "broadcast quality". You already have a "great quality" camera in your hands.

- If you want to shoot for TV, you need a lot more money.
- If you want to shoot for fun/hobby, stick with your already good camera, or get another similar to it but a bit newer, or a DSLR.
- If you want better audio than your current camera, buy a standalone audio recorder like a Zoom H1. (The XM2 doesn't have XLR)
- If you only want a bigger, more pro-looking camera so you are taken more seriously, then you're upgrading for the wrong reasons.

You just can't get a decent "pro" video camera for your budget, even second hand, you have to compromise somewhere along the line. You can't get BBC quality from a tiny budget.

The best bang for the buck in terms of image quality for video is a DSLR. Learn the lenses, learn how to use them. Don't worry about them being "not designed for video". Someone tell that to Philip Bloom and all the other people making great films on them. You're not shooting a 3-hour cinema epic.

But really, really don't buy a decade old, 4:3, tape-based SD camera if you can help it.

Honestly, looking at the smattering of posts you are making, my advice is:
- Slow down
- Take a deep breath, think
- Look at your budget
- Listen to people here, we've been there, we've wasted money, so you don't have to!
- Don't rush into this, you need to get the right camera for you

The right camera isn't necessarily the one you dream of (otherwise I would have a shoulder-mount XD Cam instead of a tiny camcorder).

[Marcus Wright]

Haha. Sorry the take a breath part made me laugh.
Yeah thanks mate I understand what your saying, And I've learnt theres no 'perfect' camera for anyone.
And yeah maybe im deluded because I use to think oh I could get a Z1 for £1000 its HDV and apparently what ITV use, thats all the budget you need.
The thing that put me off DSLRs is they have no autofocus..although I really like the Canon Rebel T3I camera..the panasonic gumix gl2 seems to have more features for video..but I had the same worry as what youve said with SD..so really youve saved me the heartache so thanks.

But between the Canon Rebel T3i and the Panaosonic Gumix G2, do either have video focus and which would you recommend to me? I want one that is nearest to broadcast quality and for music videos.

Although, I disagree with you on the fact you said I won't get a 'Broadcast' quality camera for £1000. Ive been to plenty of networking events and theyve said they made the films on £800 camera..plus my panasonic i have ive just had a music video pass quality checks for TV on it..the problem I face with the camera I have now is the images are TOO crisp..and too sharp..

[Marcus Wright]

PS: Everyone thinks their camera is 'broadcast' quality its so confusing

Well my choices from what people have said are down to:

Canon Rebel T3I
Panasonic Gumix G2
or Sony FX7 (recommened by John)

guys pros and cons of each? im wanting to shoot broadcast quality music videos remember..