Do ya think a newer version of the 3x lens will come out soon to match the XL2?
 

I've read there are limitations of the 3x lens on the XL1s, that it is soft/blurry for landscape wide pan shots. If you put 3x lens on the XL2 it may resolved cause of resolution but do you think Canon will come out with a newer version of 3x lens to match their XL2? speculations? I'm thinking about 3x lens... and if I get that and it goes out of date... I'd be a very poor miser.

I'm more interested to see just what "higher" resolution they'll get anyway because DV is 720 wide, and you have no choice about that. There might be a slight improvement, but enough to warrant better glass on a lens?

Aaron

If Canon plans to come with a new wide angle lens, I wish that it be fully manual, like the 14X.

If Canon comes out with a new lens, I hope it works like the DVX lens: full auto, full manual, and OIS. A lens like that would make the XL2 compelling indeed.

so no1 has news or rumours about a new lens for our XL series of cams? i mean is 3x gonna continue to be the sole contender in the widescreen arena?

No news.

I'd like to see a new wideangle also have a bit more zoom, like a 5x or so.

Hello to all, great forum, and this is my first reply - sorry to be slightly contentious.

"If Canon comes out with a new lens, I hope it works like the DVX lens: full auto, full manual, and OIS. A lens like that would make the XL2 compelling indeed."

Barry I have great respect for you and your anamorphic lens guide is a great idea, but I must take slight exception to what you say - I feel you have a slight bias which you declare by being a 'DVXuser'.

The DVX100 lens is not a 'full manual' lens in the sense of a truly professional one. It is a fixed servo lens with mechanical zoom, despite the fact that there is novel way to dial in focus. It is also rather limited in its range being only 10x. You can change it only with add on adaptors.

To critisice the Canon XL2 for it's lens is somewhat nit-picking. It has an interchangeable lens system. There is a very good 16x true manual lens available which corresponds very well with other professional lenses. What other professional lens has OIS - if you want OIS then the 20x is the answer; if you are shooting in a professional manner then use the 16x manual - the Canon XL cameras are the only ones at this level that allow you to change the lens.

What makes the XL2 'compelling' is true 16:9, interchangeable lenses, at last colour bars with 1KHz tone, XLR with phantom, 24/25p, SMPTE TC with user bits, ability to fit a truly pro viewfinder etc. Currently a combination available on no other prosumer camera at this level.

I have seen the debates about chip size, and we will have to wait for more reviews from respected people, but all I can say from downloading the few test shots (PAL) and comparing them to my XL1s and similar test shots from the PAL DVX100 on a broadcast monitor, this camera is very promising - I think it is markedly superior to the former and favourably compares to the latter. This is just my view of course though and I feel it is premature and foolhardy to prejudge either way.

Best regards
John

BTW Barry can I buy your guide in Europe and is the information still relevant for use with the XL1s? (I use the Panasonic adaptor with the XL1s 16x servo lens - works very well)

Not sure where you're coming from -- although I guess you're trying to imply that because I'm a DVX user, that I'm trying to put the XL2 down for some childish "mine is better than yours" reason?

Yes, I am a DVX user. I'm also a VX1000, VX2000, PD150, DSR250, DSR300, DSR500, and GL1 user, as well as owner/operator of various 16mm and 35mm movie cameras. And I am on record as saying that I'm very interested in the XL2, it has some significant unique features that the DVX doesn't offer, and I am quite interested in buying one. I'm all for "the right tool for the job", regardless of who the manufacturer is.

I know extremely well what the DVX lens is, of course. What I'm saying is, USE IT -- it gives you absolutely all the control that you NEED. The lens may or may not have pure mechanical linkage to the focus mechanism, but it sure acts like it. You can precisely control focus and execute REPEATABLE focus marks. It is miles and leagues better than the PD150-class manual focus ring. And the fact that it reports the physical position of the focus elements is a supreme bonus. It isn't exactly the same as a physical manual focus, but it's a case of where it's finally "good enough", and the only prosumer camera that has a lens focus system that's "good enough". And that's the minimum standard I find acceptable now. I cannot go back to the vague no-feedback servo system. And now that Panasonic's shown that it can be done "right", I see no reason why Canon or other manufacturers couldn't adopt a similar feedback system.

Well, yeah. We all know that. And that's one of the more compelling reasons to consider an XL2. And if they make it with precise manual focus control, the XL2 becomes nearly irresistible.

Yes, there is. But if you use it, you lose autofocus, and you lose OIS. Why? I want both. That's what I'm asking Canon for. The camera would undeniably be better if it offered a lens that gave you the precision and control of the manual focus & zoom, while also offering the convenience of power zoom, autofocus, and OIS. Seeing as the competition offers it, I really don't see how I'm asking for "too much". And it's just a wish list item anyway... I think the XL2 is a very intriguing camera that may very well get my dollars once I have a chance to test it. But I am hesitant about the servo-focus system.

I want both. Anyone who's used the DVX would want both as well, because now you know you don't have to settle for one or the other, you can have both. And I only use the DVX as the example because it's the only camera I've used that has both. THere's nothing DVX vs. Canon going on here, it's just an example of a better way, and I'd like Canon to adopt the better way. They matched basically every other feature of the DVX... why miss this one?

Depends on what you mean by "this level"... the JVC DV5000 is the same price, allows you to change lenses with an actual industry-standard lens mount instead of a proprietary mount, and gives you true 1/2" CCD's as well.

Canon got it nearly exactly right with the XL2 (from the specs, at least). The only thing I can gripe about is the focus/zoom system. That's it. Everything else looks right. So fix the focus/zoom and the camera may be perfect (emphasis on *may*, until we see the footage). And I may get one anyway, and just go body-only and use it as the ultimate mini35 rig, so the lens issue may be a non-issue.

All I'm saying is, I want the 20x reach, the fluorite glass, the superb OIS, just add precise manual focus and zoom control and it'll be perfect. Give it controls that are at least the equivalent of the DVX (a 2-year-old camera, not too much to ask, right?) and it'd be irresistible.


Haven't used that particular combination, but some of the information would be relevant. Certainly all the explanations would be directly relevant. The guide gets most of its utility from the focus/aperture charts, which tell you what focus setting you need to be at to get proper focus at certain distances (or AF settings), and what aperture you need to be at when at certain zoom lengths/focus distances to get sharp focus. With the XL1 lens at equivalent focal lengths you could probably get identical results. But for the longer end of the lens, there aren't charts or distances factored in, so you might be limited to going no further than 45mm on your lens. And the focus compensation charts are based on the DVX's focus readout system, so I don't know how you would compensate for that on the XL1... might be possible, but I don't know how...

Thanks for your reply Barry and for the info on your guide.

"Not sure where you're coming from -- although I guess you're trying to imply that because I'm a DVX user, that I'm trying to put the XL2 down for some childish "mine is better than yours" reason?"

Not at all - I am suggesting that since you clearly have a preference for the DVX100, involved in the DVX100 community, are a current user, and some of what say about the XL2 appeared to me unfair, then I felt there was a slight understandable bias for this reason - nothing more. Sorry if you felt I was having a go.

You may want OIS and autofocus and full manual control in the same lens but I don't, and neither does it appear the high end pro camera manufactuers have a demand for it or see it as a limitation. In what circumstances would you be able to use OIS and pull both focus and zoom at the same time? OIS is for hand held only right? I have shot with the DVX100, great camera but you most certainly cannot pull focus on it like a pro lens whilst hand holding it.

The other thing is people have to really wait to see how this 20x lens pans out before pronouncing final judgement.

The JVC 5000 is most certainly not in the same price bracket as the XL2, in the UK at least, when you factor in the full kit including a GOOD lens and batteries, AND crucially it is not 16:9 - I need 16:9; most European broadcasters do too - this leaves the JVC GY 7000 and beyond and there is still no prog scan - I want that.

The point is this (the OIS lens issue) is not a standard thing that most people are crying out for, and it is a little unfair to criticise the XL2 on such a marginal lack or issue, as I see it, when most every other camera doesn't have it either. It seems you have gone some way to pick about the only thing that the DVX100 has over the XL2, whilst the XL2 has most everything on the DVX100 and then some.

Whilst that may be a perfectly valid concern for you it may not bother many other people generally. If when comprehensive tests come out there are problems with the quality of the image or other functional issues, these will be of more pertinent concern to most people.

Best Regards,
John.

<< I am suggesting that since you clearly have a preference for the DVX100, involved in the DVX100 community, are a current user, and some of what say about the XL2 appeared to me unfair, then I felt there was a slight understandable bias for this reason - nothing more >>

That's still a bit unfair to Barry. I don't see a bias at all. His points regarding the XL2 20x lens are dead on and I agree with him right down the line. Most users of this camera would have benefitted more from a true manual lens with auto focus and OIS. As long as Canon is borrowing Panasonic's 24p implementation, they should have gone even farther and emulated Panasonic's focus and zoom numbering system.

Instead of the 20x L IS lens (which is wonderful for anyone needing a very long focal length), I would have preferred a short, wide lens with true manual focus, auto focus, OIS, and analog control rings for focus, zoom and iris. I'm sure Barry and many others would agree. If that would have inflated the price by another grand, so be it. It'll find its market.

You can't blame Barry for his deep online involvement with the DVX, it is a complete home run for Panasonic and its customers as well. It's a superb camera. No wonder it attracts DP's of his caliber. Let's please not get into branding wars. These are just tools in the long run. And very interesting ones at that!

MOST PEOPLE THAT WE DEAL WITH GO FOR THE CENTURY .7X WIDE ANGLE CONVERTER....IT GIVES YOU ALMOST THE SAME WIDE AS THE 3X, AT HALF THE MONEY AND YOU STILL HAVE A FULL ZOOM(ON THE 16X AUTO,16X MAN, OR 14X MAN).....BY THE WAY, AS A DEALER WE ARE VERY EXCITED ABOUT THE XL2. WE THINK ITS GOING TO DO VERY WELL, PARTICULARLY WITH OUR CLIENTS SHOOTING THEATRICAL PROJECTS AND MORE SO TO ALL THE "US AGAINST THEM" PEOPLE BANTERING ABOUT THE DVX VS THE XL2, HEY! NOW EVERYONE HAS 2 CHOICES OUT THERE TO GET THE BEST CAMERA FOR THE JOB THEY ARE DOING. SO....ENJOY AND HAPPY SHOOTING
.....JIM

Hi Jim,

It looks like your CAPS LOCK key is stuck on -- you'd better un-stick it or I'll have Jimmy Stewart and Johnny Carson pay you a house call (that's an inside joke between me and Jim).

Unfortunately, the new 20x L IS lens is not compatible with Century wide angle adapter in its current form. See my XL2 User Tips page for a detailed explanation. Hope this helps,

But... I've been a member of DVINFO.NET for about a year before I even started on dvxuser.com... I've been shooting DV since the first VX1000 came out. I use many different cameras, the DVX is just one of them (although, admittedly, it is certainly the most-used camera now). I used Sony's exclusively, until the Panasonic came out. It was a good enough tool that I converted to using it primarily. If the Canon proves to be a superior-enough tool, I would convert to using it. I'm no brand bigot, I use the best tool for the job, regardless of who makes it.

I don't know when you'd want to do that, nor am I overly concerned about that. I want a lens that provides precise manual control for zoom and focus. I want a lens that has superb OIS (better than the DVX's). And I want that lens to have autofocus and power zoom too. The DVX comes close -- it provides almost everything I need. The XL2 could have been better. I am disappointed that it doesn't have true manual focus, and to get manual focus I'd have to give up OIS and autofocus.

What I'm saying is, why should it be this way? If the competition could do it two years ago, why can't Canon do it now? Canon is, afterall a LENS COMPANY, and they make some absolutely superb lenses. If anyone can do it, they should be able to. And they should do it. Better is better.

But you can certainly pull focus on it under all circumstances better than you can on any other prosumer camera with a typical "servo" focus ring. That's what I'm looking for: class-leading performance. Canon can give it to us, that's one of the major advantages of having the interchangeable-lens system. And all I said at the beginning of this thread was, if Canon's going to make a new lens, they should make it with the best technology available. What's wrong with that?

Can't speak to the UK market, but here in the US you can get a DV5000 with a Canon 16x lens and viewfinder for $5399. XL2 is slated to carry a price of $4999. Batteries will be more expensive, yes.

Although I don't accept your premise that that's the only thing the DVX has over the XL2 (until it's tested properly), let me say this: yes, you're right. Of course. Why wouldn't I point that out? I said the XL2 (on paper) looks nearly perfect. If they come out with a new lens that addresses the camera's ONLY SHORTCOMING, then it would be nigh irresistable.

If Sony introduces a 3-CCD HDV camera that has every feature anyone could want, EXCEPT 24P, then I'd criticize it for not having that feature, because clearly a lot of people want that feature. The difference is, if Sony did that, there'd be no way to fix it! Canon COULD fix this shortcoming, by designing a lens that operates at least as well as the DVX's does. I don't see why anyone would have a problem with that idea. Better is better. The XL2 is the new kid on the block, it's had a chance to learn from all the others, and it took basically every good idea the DVX had. Why not go all the way and offer this one last thing?

The XL2 would be a better camera if it had a lens with precise manual focus control, precise manual zoom, Canon's excellent image stabilization, power zoom and autofocus. Those are all within reach. I would suspect that everyone getting an XL2 could appreciate a lens like that. Canon could do it. I hope they do.

"You can't blame Barry for his deep online involvement with the DVX, it is a complete home run for Panasonic and its customers as well. It's a superb camera. No wonder it attracts DP's of his caliber. Let's please not get into branding wars. These are just tools in the long run. And very interesting ones at that!"

Hi Chris,

I don't think I am blaming or being unfair to Barry! I am saying that I feel he has slight (italics) understandable bias, as many here may have a slight bias towards Canon - perhaps myself included.

I am not getting into a branding war, I agree the DVX100 is a great camera with fantastic image quality - but this is a forum for the XL2, and all I can see is rather theoretical critisims about it from Barry in relation to the DVX100 that skew the real picture of the comprehensive feature set offered in the XL2.

I believe they are unfair because yes maybe it would have been fantastic to have a full manual lens with OIS, but none exists in professional circles - why? Because they use other devices such as Steadicam and interchangeable wide angle lenses. The point is it is one thing to say it would be nice to have this feature and quite another to criticise the XL2 for not having it, when it has a much better thing - interchangeable lenses. Maybe they'll introduce such a lens as you ask for? The point is with interchangeable lens systems you do that.

It amazes me that people talk about $4999 (a price that is bound to come down mind) as if it were 15k, and that for this price the XL2 should have absolutely everything, no excuses! This is patently unfair.

Look Chris I don't want to get into a protracted argument in my first few posts, that was never my intention - I'm here to contribute not argue, and as I've said I have great respect for Barry. But by saying I am being unfair to Barry you lock the discussion out - there is a legitimate counter viewpoint here I feel, but I shall rest my case in this post.

Barry,

I agree the DVX100 has the very next best thing to a full manual pro lens and is much better than Canon's servo offerings - but unfortunately it is fixed and of limited zoom range. So it is somewhat moot for me.

"Can't speak to the UK market, but here in the US you can get a DV5000 with a Canon 16x lens and viewfinder for $5399. XL2 is slated to carry a price of $4999. Batteries will be more expensive, yes."

Again, not the case in the UK and I can only repeat - this is moot - no 16:9 solution of ANY kind, and no progressive scan, and therefore it is an apples to oranges comparison.

"If they come out with a new lens that addresses the camera's ONLY SHORTCOMING, then it would be nigh irresistable."

I accept every camera has shortcomings and you can fairly criticise them - it's just that I find it very hard to believe that anyone would find this a major shortcoming, why not criticise the DSR 500 for the same reason - it's something quite specific that you want. I want interchangeable lenses with true 16:9, which the XL2 has and I think this far outweighs the shortcoming. Plus a small thing like 1KHz tone with colour bars is very important to me and a welcome feature at this level.

I accept for you the OIS issue is a shortcoming that could have been addressed by Canon, but for me they've addressed the major issues and frankly that is one that never occured to me.

Best regards,
John.

Hey John,

No problem whatsoever. To each his own. The only thing that has me raising my eyebrows at all is this subtext of "you're a DVX user, therefore you're not allowed to comment on the XL2"...

You're correct the DSR500 doesn't offer that as an option. But in the future cameras like it will. For the longest time professional cameras didn't offer a flip-out LCD... but now they're starting to. Everyone used to think autofocus was "unprofessional"... now every SLR on the market has autofocus.

You place a premium on interchangeable lenses. Obviously that's a good feature, but it hasn't stopped Sony from selling hundreds of thousands of PD150's. Would the PD150 be a better camera with interchangeable lenses? Undoubtedly.

Would the XL2 be a better camera if its lens offered true manual focus together with OIS and manual zoom? Undoubtedly. To argue against that notion is puzzling to me.

Without the ability to execute precise manual focus, the camera becomes somewhat limited for my purposes. Without the ability to interchange lenses, the DVX is limited for your purposes. To each his own. All I've been saying is, hey Canon, next time you introduce a lens, can you please make it this way? For the life of me I can't understand how someone could have a problem with that concept. People said "hey Canon, could you make your camera higher-res?" And they did. They said "could you make it 24P?" And they did. They said "Could you add real XLR connections with phantom power?" And they did. "Could you give it full-res 16:9?" They did. So now, to that list, I say "Could you give it a lens that has true manual focus, true manual zoom, autofocus, power zoom, and OIS?" And, because of the interchangeable lens system, Canon CAN do that. And they should. It would make the camera even better than it is.

Despite the fact I have a clear bias towards Canons (I own a Canon Powershot A70, Optura 40, and Elan 7e with three gorgeous prime lenses), I have to point out why I'm not buying the XL2 - no new manual lenses.

The XL2 will not be the prosumer king until it leverages the interchangeable lens system to better advantage. Right now, it only looks stronger than the DVX as a long telephoto camera or as mini35 rig.

My first camera was an XL1 with wide & 14x manaul. But although I enjoyed that camera and shot a lot of footage with it (and liked it far better than a VX1000/2000), I never felt it really delivered the lens options I wanted.

I was recently inbetween cameras. I waited patiently for the XL2 announcement, but then just bought a DXV100a. Why? It came down to bang for the buck.

After buy a XL2 & 20x (to get OIS), 16x manual and 3x wide, I've spent quite a chunk of change and ended up with compromised lens solution that leaves me no wider than a DVX100a, some really long telephoto of limited value (since I don't shoot nature or sports) and no clear reason as why it's worth nearly double the price.

If, however the XL2 had been released with a 14x lens (equivalent to say 22mm - 158mm 35mm) with manual focus and OIS, I probably would have put up with the form factor and lack of LCD regardless of the price difference.

But since no new manual lenses were announced, I could not justify the price.

I certainly hope Canon does rectify this. I would consider adding or replacing my DVX100a if this occurs and the XL2 image is equal or better to the DVX100a, especially in 16:9 mode.

But for now, for those of us who have to consider overall image quality and usability compared to dollars, to me the DVX100a is still the cam to beat in the miniDV universe.

It sort of feels to me as if Canon didn't identify their market, or at least aggressively aim at it. The press release says it's for ENG and/or filmmaking and they've added bits for each but not, from what I can tell, all the must haves that anyone who was just in one of those fields would want (assuming low "5k" budget of course). Hence they won't jump at it.

Maybe all the people they talked to said "I don't need OIS with my manual lens" or "I don't want a good default wide angle" or "I don't care about 1/4" effective chip DoF in 4:3"

Aaron

Canon identified their market all right. But unfortunately, the primary market of the XL1 is not independent film makers. Indies are more than a drop in the bucket, but not the market factor we may think we are.

Aaron, I'm not sure why you don't think this is a great ENG/event camera. IMHO, it outclasses every other 1/3"chip camera in this field as far as ENG/event goes, except for the price.
As far as the indie film market goes, the only thing I think the DVX100 has over it is a wider lens at the base price. Besides, as Jeff says, that market is a drop in the bucket.

As far as your other points:
There aren't many manual video lenses out there than have OIS, that aren't several times more than the price of this camera. Canon isn't going to bundle a $20,000 lens with a $4,000 body.

Most people that buy these cameras are not film students, and acutally work with them and make money. Shelling out an extra $1400 for the 3x wide angle lens isn't a big deal. Really, it's chump change when your average job pays for the camera entirely.

And finally, no, most people don't care about 1/4" effective DOF in a 1/3" chip. I think most people would rather have true 16:9. The only people who really REALLY care about it are the indie film people, and again... drop in the bucket. The series filmmakers who use it can rent a mini35 to fix that problem.

First, I admit I'm no pro - that's out of the way ;)

Second - I've always said we need to see some real tests of the cam - so obviously all these things are rumminations.

I guess as far as ENG stuff goes, most ENG cameras shoot 4:3 - but they've made the CCD 1/4" an inch in this mode. The pixels are also going to have to be small cause of the higher res. So because of this most peple are wondering how the sensitivity is going to hold up.

I wasn't expecting a fully manual/OIS lens that's like a 20K lens. I more wonder why they didn't add to the stock lens, repeatable barrel markings like the DVX. Panasonic did it, I'm sure Canon can. The ENGers wouldn't care the the movie people would love it.

If the Indy market is so tiny compared to the event/eng markets, why didn't they add stuff like timecode syncing. Or give us a good default B&W viewfinder stock (Even just give us underscan on the current one), or give us a good sized LCD and not a 2" thing. Why not give us peaking on the LCD for focus? Would these have really cost them a lot of money?


I think that both of us are right. This camera, to really kick into gear and be a "pro" piece of equipment, requires lots more addons. *BUT* a lot of us are thinking that the price needs to sit around (With a little bit more spending for some things, sure) the 4-5k mark.

When you start adding all these goodies if you're an ENG person, manual lens, B&W viewfinder etc etc then I would have thought that you might as well go out and by a full shoulder rig with 1/2" chips like the DVC200? So as I've said in previous posts, I think this camera Is not in the class of the DVX - it's really in a higher class due to cost but does it deliver that level of class compared to other camers once you've had to spend the extra $$? Dunno.

All this is just gut feeling, from somone who isn't a working video pro, and I have no problem being proven wrong - my ego can handle it ;)



Aaron

Indie Market drop in bucket? Show me the money
 

I think the statement that the indie market is a drop in the bucket compared to ENG/Event in the under $5 camera market needs some strong evidence to back it up.

I would define the "indie market" as the "aspiring filmmaker" market.

First, the more expensive the cam, the lower the overall sales. This automatically puts the DVX in a higher overall sales potential.

Secondly, if our area (Greensboro, NC) is representative of the US market, there are 4 TV station and about 25 video producution companies, most of them 2 person operations or smaller, in the area. Plus a couple of film schools.

The aspriing filmmaker number many more in both people and in cameras of any kind owned. (I run the local indie film group - we have almost 200 members).

If you factor in the most TV stations and many event people want 1/2" and 2/3" inch cams, & that film schools will find the DVX100a's price far more attractive, I fail to see how the event/ENG market is huge and the aspiring filmmaker market is a "drop in the bucket" which implies 1% of the market or less.

I did not find any hard statistics via google, but I would like to see some hard numbers before I buy this "conventional wisdom".

. This is my statement, dylan may have a different opinion. Lumping "aspiring filmmaker" in the "indie market" would give false figures in a company trying to determine a market. I have classes full of aspiring filmmakers, but few will be working independent filmmakers. I wouldn't even put the education market in the "indie market" because of the dual roles many of the cameras play in secondary education. The cameras are used for taping sports, training, school functions, but few independent films. Event, ENG, Education and Law Enforcement are much larger markets than the independent film maker in my estimation.

<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Donald : The cameras are used for taping sports, training, school functions, but few independent films. Event, ENG, Education and Law Enforcement are much larger markets than the independent film maker in my estimation. -->>>

Ditto. Don't forget weddings, documentaries, and the adult film industry.

<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Donald : . This is my statement, dylan may have a different opinion. Lumping "aspiring filmmaker" in the "indie market" would give false figures in a company trying to determine a market. I have classes full of aspiring filmmakers, but few will be working independent filmmakers. . -->>>

Jeff:

While obviously few will be working indie filmmakers, my point is that related to this thread aspiring filmmakers and indie market look for same features, price points etc. in a camera.

In our community all of the indie filmmakers, inclluding myself, earn little or no money from our films. However, like all artists, we consider ourselves pros and look at equipment that way.

I don't think you can split this market from the standpoint of camera features & pricepoints.

I understand your point, Stephen. If I were a manufacture, I would be most concerned with the people that actually buy my product, not window shoppers. The longer lenses and many of the features are designed for the people that are the actual buyers and users. Law enforcement, schools etc. like the extra reach the longer telephotos provide. Wide angle is more of an after thought to these buyers and the screw on adapters are more than adequate for most of their needs.

I agree that Canon has made some accommodations to the indie market with the XL2. I just don't expect them to ignore their core users, which have differing needs than indie filmmakers.

Jeff:

But I'm not sure that Law Enforcement, schools is a bigger chunk than the aspiring filmmaker crowd. Plus law enforcement, schools - money is big issue and the XL2 is much more expensive than it's competition.

I take no position on this discussion because I have no idea how many cameras Canon sells to each particular market. However, in almost all the advertising I've seen for the XL1s and GL2 recently, Canon focused specifically on aspiring indie filmmakers. They ran incessant ads featuring Soderbergh and the XL1, and they organized tours promoting the GL2 and how to get a film look out of it.

It would certainly seem that Canon is/was aiming their camera at the aspiring filmmaker as a viable market.

Barry:

That's a good point. Every ad I've seen for the DVX100a, XL1s and GL2 have been indie film focused. I think it's also revealing that Panasonic discontinued the DVC80 due to an apparent lack of sales.

Even the DVC30 gets targeted at the indie crowd with the cinegamma and frame mode added in the electronics. And Sony's forthcoming pseudo 24fps consumer cam tells me "indie" feature drive big sales, not ENG/Event features.

I think clearly Canon were aiming in part for the 'indie' market with 24/25p and 'cine-gamma' etc. In this respect they were aiming for the same market as the DVX100 and I think they are not going to sell as well in this category, because of the cheaper DVX100.

But Canon have had a strong following in broadcast, corporate and weddings too, and this can be a potentially far larger market than indies. Features like SMPTE TC and colour bars with tone indicate they have certainly considered this angle too.

It doesn't necessarily follow in my view that the XL2 will sell less than the DVX100, based on price or indie use alone - this is only true of a certain type of buyer. Those who need or simply must have true 16:9 and interchangeable lenses together with 24/25p won't find anything similar at this price - nada.

If the XL2 has the picture quality of the DVX100 in 16:9 then it will become an extremely attractive choice and there will be plenty of organisations, individuals and indies buying or renting them regardless of how it compares to other 1/3" chip cameras in price.

I think this talk about which market it's for is a little silly, How many people out there use their camera for just one thing? Sure I'll shoot event footage with the canon but I use the same camera to shoot shorts and (bad) features. Along with weddings and promotional videos.

I think the idea is that you pitch that the camera can be used as a indie film cam but people will then use it for other purposes when they're not shooting movies. (if they bought the camera as a tool to make money)

Isn't it the other way around, Nick? You buy the camera that will make you the most money or be more efficient and in the off time you shoot your (bad) features. Everyone likes to think of themselves as being indie producers. But the reality for most people is, events, training tapes, TV commercials etc are what pays the bills and puts bread on the table.

Jeff well sure it's like that for most people, But in my case I make so much money shooting Indie's that I just consider that as the main source of income... then I wake up.

Jeff's right, take my previous post and reverse it, though I believe the principle idea is the same. I also believe that there are a few people out there who buy cameras with the idea they're going to make movies but in the end they move on towards whatever will pay them.

Either way i think that canon should make a manual wide lens.

Jeff well sure it's like that for most people, But in my case I make so much money shooting Indie's that I just consider that as the main source of income... then I wake up.

Jeff's right, take my previous post and reverse it, though I believe the principle idea is the same. I also believe that there are a few people out there who buy cameras with the idea they're going to make movies but in the end they move on towards whatever will pay them.

Or they sell the cameras in our classifieds

Jeff/Nik/John:

While your observations are correct I see them as not relevant to this thread or to the discussion about marketing.

First, in most cases for most products, marketing people care least about what people do after they bought a camera. What's most important is what they think right before and when the moment they buy a camera.

It's clear from the success of DVX100a and the current marketing campaigns that "indie filmmaking" is all the marketing rage - who cares how many people shoot indies, make money at the or turn around and sell the camera on eBay. A sale is a sale.

Second, Canon with XL2 to me made a marketing mistake. The decided to make a camera aimed at too many market without a willingness to break from the past (see their cam history).

It's clearly best aimed at current XL1/s owners. It's questionablely aimed at DVX100a wanters (big price, lack of compelling lens choices i.e. this thread).

It's also questionably aimed at event/eng/corporate gov/ folks without XL1 system investments. The price is high enough we start to think about 1/2" cameras lack of excellent 4:3 performance vs. good native 16:9 may turn out to be a signifigant issue. Many of those folks still want good 4:3 60i images.

I don't think I'm an strange anachronism. I bought a XL1 & assorted lenses in 1999, sold it to buy a DVX100 which I lost in.

Last month, I really needed to buy a camera & despite a Canon brand preference, I bought a DVX100a instead. I don't expect to be stunned by the difference in 16:9 off the XL2 vs. 16:9 squeeze in the DVX100a. I'm still reeling a little for what a XL2 with 3X and Manual Lens would set me back.

<<Or they sell the cameras in our classified>>

::ahem:: I uh don't know who would do something like that... ::Ahen::

Stephen I repectfully disagree with you I think that our conversation was directly on topic and relevent.

I think the marketing strategy was like this, you don't typically market to say the ENG/Corperate/GOV market because people purchasing for those particular groups will tend to be on the more "professional" purchasing side. If someone makes there money shooting documentaries, commercials, corperate videos, and that's what the plan on doing I think they will do ALOT of research before they buy (if they buy instead of rent) and then they will come to the best decision they can, and to be honest marketing won't make too much difference to them. On the other hand (please no indie film makers take offense to this) Often times the Indy folks will something in a magazine and not particularly care what the specs are and are more impressed by the pictures or whatever. As a result it becomes sort of a (really expensive) impulse buy where marketing plays in heavily.

I think the camera is in fact defintely geared towards previous XL1 owners and I think that might make canon a lot of money, I think that the dvx100a is still an excellent camera and will remain one of the top cameras in the market, I don't think that the xl2 is a dvx killer by any "stretch" (get it stretch... ok bad joke)

I also sold my XL1 mostly because I had a job that would supply me with equipment and I wasn't using it anymore, I am reluctant to like the populatr camera's but I think that the DVX100 is a good one, I also think that the xl2 is a good one, I still have my 14x lens so I'll probably end up going withthe xl2 as my next camera I'm also partial to the body style of the camera which I assure everyone is NOT front heavy when you have a Anton Bauer pack and wirless receiver mounted to the back. and is definitely not too bad when you have it on a set of sticks.

I think the original intent of this thread was there should be a new wide lens, and I think there should be I wasn't crazy about my wide lens (it seemed soft even on close ups) and I would really like a manual one, I'd really like a b4 mount so I could toss up professional lenses but I don't think that's going to happen soon.

What most people (at least the prudent ones) are thinking right before they buy the camera is how are they going to pay for it. Purchasers may have fleeting thoughts of making the next great indie film and being discovered by a big studio, but reality (or their spouses voice) soon snaps them back to the present. People buy these prosumer cameras with the hopes of making a buck or two and paying their Visa bill. So, if fleeting thoughts of "indie" stardom count as a sale in the "indie market" then you may well be right. The indie market is huge and probably accounts for over 90% of XL series sales. However, if the market is defined by what the cameras are primarily used for, then I stand by my assertion that there are at least several markets larger than independent film makers.

Being relatively inexperienced though, do ENG/Seminar etc people give a damn about chip size? The few I have talked to have. I mean one guy was saying there were some concerns about his camera being suitable for a job cause his cam was only 1/2" and not a 2/3rder.

If this is the case (Not saying it is) then 1/3" won't cut it ever and definately 1/4" won't which is what the Xl2 is in 4:3. I know it's not just the size, and that it's what the size generally gives sensitivity, DoF etc, but it boils down to that.

And re the WA, I would have thought, regardless if whether you're an indy filmmaker or ENG person, at some stage you'll be shooting inside a room and want a wide angle. So let's hope they do bring out some new lenses.


Aaron

in the real world, working video stiffs buy cameras that get used a lot... by comparison, how many films do indie filmmakers actually shoot? renting higher-quality gear than the xl2 is the answer for them; there is little economic sense in buying a camera that only gets used a few months out of the year.

i personally don't know any indie filmmakers who are actually making a living shooting indie films with canon-level video cameras... but i know quite a few full and part -time videographers.

it would be interesting to see a dvinfo.net member poll that measured the count of videographers vs. indie filmmakers... and people who do both with their canon gear.

i just started a thread about that poll. i won't post my own answer til i get replies... so go get 'em!