XL2 vs DVX 100a
 

Well in the next month or so i am going to buy a good camera.

So i was wondering what the diference is between the XL2 and the DVX 100a.

The DVX 100a is cheaper and what i have seen from it i like.

The XL2 is more expensive but i also like the reults from it.

Does anyone know the real diferences bettween the two?

Thanks

Interchangable lenses, weight, shoulder mounted style, wide screen mode.

Searches and other posts
 

See this post and many others.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...t=XL2+DVX+100a

Mike

Max,

That horse has pretty much been beaten to death on this and other forums over the last year. The XL-2 will give you a bit more flexibility in shooting options at a slightly higher cost. The DVX100a will give you a beautiful picture out of the box at a slightly lower cost.

We typically advise trying both cameras and see which one 'feels' best to you while you operate it. The man-machine interface is an important part of the buying decision with other things being roughly equal.

Good luck,

=gb=

If at all possible, get your hands on both and try before you buy. The right camcorder for you is the one which *feels best* in your hands.

thanks for you help!

I think ill go over to EVS onlines retail shop and see how they feel.

I wish i could get the camera now, but i need a new car first:(

One thing that may be a + is that i already have panasonic long life batteries for my PV-DV103D hand held camera...

i got the xl2 for the true 16:9 mode. Everything is going the way of either HD or 16:9 and it's much better to have a true 16:9 than a fake cropping. You get better resolution basicly. You also get more zoom, which is good for making a deep DoF in a conversation scene. The interchangeable lenses are cool but expensive.

Dear Robert,

Haven't experimented with the 16:9 on my DVX-100A yet, so could you explain why it has what you call "fake cropping"?

Thanks in advance.

Stephanie

Make sure they actually fit. The footprint is the same but there are little tabs that are in different places between the GS-series and the DVX100A for example. So, I wasn't able to use my GS batteries on my DVX.

A rental house is a great place, they'll no doubt let you try 'em out and just fool around in the store.

it's six of one, half a dozen of the other RE: fake cropping. The res isn't that bad at all in the DVX's squeeze mode, and with the money you save vs. buying an XL2, you can buy the anamorphic lens.

Also check this out, a real live comparison with data (pictures and such):

http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/shoot3/

If you are really trying to get a film look with DOF and you plan on using a M2 adapter (www.redrockmicro.com), it will not work with a DVX100a that has an anamorphic adapter. In other words, if you want 16x9 on the DVX100a and you are using the M2, you will have to use "squeeze mode" and the picture will not be as good as an XL2 in 16x9 mode with the same M2.

This is completely irrelevlant if you aren't planning on getting an M2, but this was one of the reasons why I picked an XL2.

Kelly

Interesting. Why won't it work?

Honestly, I have never read a more biased article in my life. It's so clear they are madly in love with the DVX100.

Michael,
What was the name of that website saying the DVX was the best? ;)

Exactly. Biased to death. :D

I can't give any credit to that review. The very same things he bashes on the XL2, Adam Wilt praises. Now how will I believe? Wilt or some guy who runs a DVX100 site?

Both of these cameras are 1/3" chip cameras, so their image is going to be very close. The main advantage the XL2 has is that it uses 16:9 chips, while the DVX100a does it via electronic stretch. So the XL2 will look better when shooting 16:9. However, because it has 16:9 chips, it will crop in from the sides when shooting 4:3, in effect using smaller than 1/3" chips (just as the DSR570 does). So if you're shooting 4:3, the DVX100a would most likely look better in a side by side comparison, while the XL2 would look better in 16:9.

However, I've seen a lot of documentaries both projected theatrically and on TV shot with PD150s in the electronic 16:9 mode, and the DVX100a looks significantly better in its 16:9 mode, according to most people, and especially when shooting progressive. So, I think the differences, while certainly there, are minimal.

My feeling (ignoring the cost) is that if you're shooting most everything 16:9, the XL2 would be the way I would go. But if you're still in a 4:3 world, I would probably go with the DVX100a.

That's just for the image quality. There are lots of other factors in the purchase of a camera. Weight, balance, the viewfinder, the audio, how wide is the lens when zoomed back all the way, or how long it is at the other end if you do wildlife or sports, where the controls are positioned, etc.

I have both cameras and use them both quite often. The DVX is much easier to use and master, that is why it is the choice of every wannabe Speilberg fanboy. That being said, it is a great camera that grows with your capabilities.

The XL2 is much harder to use but IMHO produces a noticeably more detailed image, especially in 16:9 mode. Also, the 20X lens not only gives you more reach but it allows you to use that to gain a smaller DOF. The XL2 can be set up to emulate the DVX while the reverse is not true... All THAT being said, the XL2 is for an advanced operator, not the beginner.



ash =o)

ya know i actually thought the XLs were easier to use than the dvx. i think it's just much more established and popular and considerably cheaper. but IMO you get your money's worth. especially since everything's going the way of 16:9/HD.

I just got an interesting info from a fellow at DuArt (they do video-to-film transfers among many other things):

"We recently had three seminars at work discussing the CanonXL2 for use in video to film transfers. We screened five minutes of material then had a director and his DP discuss the camera. A representative from Canon then showed off the features of the camera. The XL2 does an exceptional job of going from tape to film. The audience was impressed by the footage we screened. I would use the XL2 any day over the Panasonic VX100 or the Sony HDV Z1."

Just to be clear: This is just the opinion of someone who works at a place who has done a XL2 video-to-film transfer and liked the results. The opinions he expresses are not mine, or DVinfo.net's. As with everything you read on the net, a grain of salt is recommended!

However, since he is a well-known expert at one of the top film houses in the world, I posted his comment here for your perusal.

IMHO the XL2 is much better for film bump, mainly due to the 16:9 CCDs. DVX stuff can look very good as well but even with an anamorphic adapter, not as good as the XL2. I saw some Z1 footage bumped to film and it looked really good but it was nature stuff. In my experience, the Z1 struggles with fast motion and light changes...



ash =o)

I didn't see the replies to this thread or I'd have replied sooner.

Michael Maier feels that the DVX review I linked was biased. I was not referencing the words in the article. I was referring to the hard data- the screencaps. Or do you think those were doctored up, or perhaps Adam Wilt's were, or both. :roll eyes:

Those caps are meaningless, I could post some caps that make a 1CCD camera look better than a DVX or XL2. Just look at the very bottom pics, the XL2 footage is overexposed. Also, nobody will argue that the DVX, like the XL1s, has super poppy colors... the downside is that those colors are not broadcast legal and have to be toned down in post, especially the reds.

Like I said, I use both cameras, almost daily, both have their good points and bad points but I am sick of DVX fanboys who have no idea how to use an XL2 comparing the 2 as if it means anything. The DVX is easier to use and easier to get a flattering image out of. Just because someone cant operate an XL2 doesnt mean they should dismiss it.


ash =o)

I agree. I also agree with you that both can produce great images; I've seen plenty of good stuff from both.

It's funny, people who own just a DVX tend to love their cameras, whereas people who own just an XL2 tend to have a big chip on their shoulder toward DVX's.

It would be interesting if there were another test wherein the XL2 were set up differently and showed a superior image to the DVX. Had I posted a link to it on a site called XL2user.com, would Mike have posted the exact same rant about how the site was biased? We already know the answer ;-)

Fellows, I think Greg Boston put it best earlier in this thread when he said this horse has been flogged to death. I sincerely appreciate the feedback that's been given from those who have actually used both -- many thanks. Ultimately it all comes down to the musician, not the guitar, don't you think? Let's put this poor tired puppy to bed.

I dont think XL2 guys have a chip on their shoulder at all. Read around some more. The DVX has more hardcore fanboys than any camera on the planet. They love their DVX's and slam pretty much anything else. Not really fair to generalize like that but I find it to be true...

Chris, that is what I always say... a camera is an instrument, the operator is a musician. Ultimately the skill and creativity of the operator will shine thru the technology...



ash =o)

http://www.iciclestudios.com/images/xl2/switch_back.htm

This is the XL2 and DVX intercut. I shot the XL2 and my buddy shot the DVX stuff and edited it. It is a concept piece where a graphic artist airbrushes a mural, but does it in a theatrical entertaining way set to music.

I have used both and in short, agree 100% with Ash. The XL2 is harder to use/learn but gives great results. If you want that punchy color look of the DVX you may have to tweak in post.

I must say as a DVX owner myself, i have found many faults with it when comparing it to the XL2 and PD-170. However i got what i paid for and am happy with the 24p for local commerical spots that i produce, otherwise it looks like a normle everyday 3-CCD chip camera.

Ford vs Chevy
Lamborgini vs Ferrari
Mercedes vs BMW
Mac vs PC

The horse is dead as stated numerous times

Really Chris? And all this time I had been blaming my guitar. Darn, now I'll probably have to start taking my guitar to therapy for all the verbal abuse it has sustained over the years. :-)

-gb-

Which part of Chris Hurd's "stop beating a dead horse" did you guys not understand?

They're all just tools we use. No more.

They won't make any of us a better filmmaker. Pick one with the features you like and feel comfortable working with and handling and go with it.

Just think, most of the films that are out now were shot with REALLY expensive 35mm arriflex cameras and they still suck hard (my opinion)

Rent or borrow a few of the cameras you're interested in, play with them, and go with one YOU like.

Trust me, you'll be happy with your decision in the end :)

The part where this thread was not locked right there and then. If we discuss the merits of both, especially those of us who own or use both together all of the time, we are simply exchanging knowledge of which tool is better for which applications.

In addition I posted a link to a DVX/XL2 video i shot. This was not test footage. It was real world shooting without any ideals other than to make the cameras intercut effectively. This should show that either camera can do an excellent job.

As Chris often says, you really need to pick the camera that feels the best in your hands and for your shooting style.

Peace!

Good idea Marty. I am locking this thread now. It surely contains enough info and links for someone to make an informed decision.

Thanks to all contributors!

regards,

-gb-