Just found out about the xl2...
Wow this is truely good news. I'm glad they just left the hdv out. or did they?
Has anybody already taken the camera to see if the auto focus is fast enough? or feedback on the servo focus usage?
Thanks for the info,
Takeshi

HDV would require a different CCD block, I think.

Bill, there are two lenses for this thing with an analog iris ring on the barrel: the old Canon 14x, and the old Fuji 14x. They are discontinued but can still be found if they're wanted bad enough. Where were you people when I was looking for a buyer for my Fuji for three years straight.

I sold one of my 14X's recently and in my opinion it is the best lens short of the P+S Technik unit and it's compatible film lenses. The EOS EF lenses are great for wildlife and surveillance etc. But for day to day use the 14X is the benchmark by what all other lenses for the XL series will be measured.

Jeff, I agree. I have that 14X and I cannot believe the beautiful video I get out of it. I really enjoy the iris ring on the lens. I thought of going with the 16X just for the auto-zoom, I am glad I went with the 14X. Bob Safay

<<<-- Originally posted by Aaron Koolen : "Of course...if they put all the good stuff on the cheap cameras, lots of people would probably not want to spend the money on the better stuff."

You hit it right on the head!


Aaron -->>>

In the case of the Canon XL2, which better stuff would that be?

I'm afraid the lack of higher end features on this camera are simply a matter of either trying to keep the cost down or neglect. I would say that in the case of the EVF not having underscan, it's probably just neglect.

It's a great camera but unlike Panasonic, who learned their lesson with the DVX100, Canon still doesn't seem to have figured out that ergonomics are the most important element in camera design.

Would I buy it? Maybe for a tripod based shoot that I wanted to transfer to film or upconvert to hidef - in which case the PAL version could be a better choice.

David

David

<<<Someday somebody will come out with a "handycam" style small camera with all the professional features you need to make movies. Seems to me that it wouldn't really cost anymore to do some things right. Not everything, obviously, but...-->>>

Some day, but it will have to be a company like Olympus or Sharp that
has little if any presence in the pro video market. I know Olympus was
working on a cheap real HD camcorder.

The whole underscan, letterboxing, and action safe guides
were asked for in the XL2 wish list. I guess there were issues with
adding one those important features . . . ear wax?

I can live with the old thumb wheel iris IF the result is NOW smooth. I hate
those obvious "click downs" of the old XL1 and other handycams.

These issues aside, the XL2 is still on my wish list.

<<<-- Originally posted by David Cherniack : <<<-- Originally posted
It's a great camera but unlike Panasonic, who learned their lesson with the DVX100, Canon still doesn't seem to have figured out that ergonomics are the most important element in camera design.
-->>>

That depends on who you're selling too. For many people (for very valid reasons, I might add), that's exactly the case. For me personally, it's very much not true. Most of the filming I plan to do will be using support mechanisims such as tripods, dollies, or stabilizers, so ergonomics isn't really a big factor. And I've got basically as much time as I need to get things done, so ease of use isn't really a factor, either. I want the camera that's going to give me the greatest versatility to get the shot that I want and the highest picture quality I can get - without busting my budget. The XL2's interchangeable lenses give me the first, and it's new CCD pixel block is going to be competetive (at the very least) with anything else in its price range. So for me, it's probably going to be the best tradeoff I can get.

Would I like better ergonomics? Probably (I hedge only because I haven't actually used this camera yet). Am I willing to pay for it? Maybe later, but not at this point in the game.

Now, somebody who works all day as a news videographer or doing various other things might have exactly the opposite point of view, and want something ergonomic and/or simple to use. It's all in the application - and for my application, I'm thinking the XL2 is the way to go.

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : 16:9 is letterboxed in the EVF and external 4:3 monitors. -->>>

Since I'm not familiar with Canon's way of doing things I might not understand the implications of this, but it seems odd. So in other words, if you hook up a 4:3 external monitor to the camera as you shoot in 16:9 mode you will see a black bar above and below the letterboxed image? But then if you use the same monitor, connected in the same fashion while playing back the tape you will see a squashed anamorphic image? Surely it doesn't letterbox output on playback, does it? Or is there some menu setting that selects letterbox vs. anamorphic for external video? It would be a shame to have real 16:9 but not be able to view the full resolution image on an external 16:9 monitor during either recording or playback.

Can you clarify how this all works?

Boyd

I have made an incredibly stupid mistake. Chalk it up to an extreme lack of sleep this week. Of course it is not letterboxed in 4:3 monitors. It's a spaghetti western in 4:3 monitors. I have no idea what I was thinking about, except going to bed.

Ah, that makes much more sense. Chris: get some sleep! Take some time off! God knows you've earned it, and thanks so much for all your hard work in getting the word out on this new camera.

And for Bill Pryor, who asked about underscan: according to my notes here, the LCD shows only 92% of the total image area. Watch out for those boom mics!

More proof for the theory that canon is trying to force us into 16:9 No boom mic problems on the LCD when it's letterboxed! ;) Although lightstands and spurious crew still are.

Aaron

Well, not that Canon is trying to "force us into 16:9",,, it's just that everyone wants 16:9, there is a huge market demand for it.

Personally, I prefer 16:9 too. We will probably never see a "4:3 only" camcorder again. That's fine by me.

- don

I guess it's different all over the place. 16:9 is almost non existent here in New Zealand. We just don't uptake on things like this very fast. While 16:9 TV's are out, there are no 16:9 stations, occasionally Sky transmits a movie in it, but I guarantee it'll take our news stations about 30 years to get there.

I do my own independent news stuff and I would prefer 4:3, but even if this camera is meant to be 16:9 primarily, why didn't they underscan at least the horizontal sides of the LCD?


Aaron

That's a good question Aaron, and if it helps, where I am in Texas (which by virtue of being the "third coast" of the U.S. is only five years behind the east and west coasts as opposed to ten years behind for the rest of the central United States), there's not much 16:9 either. I've got a great spot in my living room for a widescreen set, the built-in is ready for it, a 42" would fit perfectly, but the wife says no way for right now. Not much wide programming down here except for the ESPN sat feeds anyway.