XL2 vs XL1s: differences?
 

I know the tangible differences between the two cameras (24p, 16:9, etc), but what about things like low-light shooting, image latitude, viewfinder quality, image sharpness, etc. Can anyone give me their opinion?

Bill,

There are many differences, but more similarities. The low light capabilities are pretty much the same. Not as good as some and better than others.

The image on the XL2 is more adjustable, more options, but you have a lot to learn! Some want to skip all of that and have it shoot perfect out of the box, no so!

24p is an advantage in the XL2, along with true 16:9. The XL2 is the better camera, but what can you afford?

Viewfinders are aout the same, and bothlack underscan, as with all the other cameras! Don't know why underscan is not a standard!

What are you looking for?

Mike

Good question! I am still deciding whether to turn to HDV or stay with SD. The XL2 offers some attractive features that bring it "half way" to HD (16:9. 30p. etc). But I recently read a post that said the XL2 had poorer latitude than the XL1s. Not sure what to make of that!

Just to preface- this is not intended to start a 'HD vs. SD' bashing post. Please, no 'holy wars.' ;-)

I own both a DVX and an XL2 and (IMHO) the thing I've noticed about both cameras (from my footage, as well as observing other people's footage) is this: either one of these cameras in the 'right' DP's hands can make good material even better and is MORE than adequate for our needs whatever they may be (remember that '28 Days Later' was filmed on a stock XL1 with only a few additional lenses to round out the package). Conversely, either camera in the 'wrong' DP's hands can make even a low-end camcorders footage look great by comparison.

I know that's not exactly a 'rocket science' statement, but I think it's important to state it anyway because as DP's we can all be guilty of forgetting that great footage is more than just the size of the CCD when we get up on our 'Pixel Count is King!' platforms... (Which we all do, occasionally... C'mon admit it. You know it's true. ;-) ).

Again, IMHO, SD vs. HD is a 10% decision... i.e. SD vs. HD should make up about 10% of the decision, with things like form-factor, need for removable lenses, your specific situational requirements, etc. making up the other 90%, because at this point SD is very much alive and kicking, and the truth is that it will be perfectly acceptable for years to come, despite what the camera marketers would like us to think...

For me the reason I love the XL2 is the flexibility of lens options, and the reason I love my DVX is that I can get exceptional picture in a relatively small/portable/discreet camera. As mentioned, both cameras are lacking in the viewfinder department, but I can't think of a pro-sumer camera that isn't lacking in this department. The XL2 is a LOT more flexible in terms of how you can tune an image, but if you want 'out of the box' shooting, I think the DVX produces a better looking picture 'right from the factory.' Both cameras seem to be about the same in terms of responsiveness to shooting in dark environments... Perhaps a slight bit more grain to the XL2, but not so much that anyone other than us DP's are going to kick and scream about it. ;-)

So I guess the question should probably come back to your requirements... What are you planning to do with it?

If I stepped on anyone's toes, please accept my apologies. As always, this is merely me and my opinion. Feel free to disagree, if you need to.

Thanks!

~J

Well stated, Jeff. The only advantage the XL cameras offer in the vf department is the ability to use the FU-1000 hi res b/w unit made by Ikegami. It gives the full picture and has peaking control. Definitely was a good investment for me and I trust it's serving its new owner well.

-gb-

True... Though with the reported problems with the FU-1000 blowing the internal XL2 fuse (which can only be repaired by shipping it away to be serviced, conveniently enough), I've stayed away from it. Personally, I use DVRack to handle focusing, overscan, waveform monitoring, among other things... The sacrifice is one of portability, however for my needs (relatively 'traditional' movie-making, no 'run-n-gun' stuff, etc.) it meets the needs perfectly.

Anyway, DVRack is not for everyone, but it may be something to consider as an alternitive to cheesy viewfinders, regardless of if you choose to go with DVX, XL2, or any other camera...

Regards,

~J

Bill, I had the same decision to make when I was about to buy the H1 or XL2. It was a long and difficult choice, but in the end, I went for the XL2 and haven't looked back since.

The XL2 is definitely a far better camera in all respects compared to the XL1s. The image is a lot sharper with higher resolution and less bleeding of colours compared to the XL1s. I've recently blended some XL2 footage with footage that was mainly taken with the XL1s, and even though the completed project blends in nicely, I can easily pick out the higher resolution short XL2 4:3 clips.

The main reason for me picking the XL2 was the high quality picture (probably the very best that SD can offer) and the 16:9 frame ratio.

I already know that footage shot on the XL1s is professional broadcast quality, so I've obviously got no qualms about using the higher quality XL2.

Today’s buying/watching public is still a long way from accepting the HD format/picture quality/costs as a part of everyday life, so I have no worries in knowing that footage shot with the XL2 will be highly saleable for some years to come - for both television and DVD.

To give an example, this past week I’ve had a meeting with one of the largest DVD production/distribution companies in Europe for future sales of a new series of Globetrotterworld DVDs. One of my videos shot almost entirely on the XL1s impressed them enough to comment that it was easily of a high enough quality and standard for broadcast on BBC.

As good as the XL1s is I still felt that there were occasions where the image quality can suffer, even when you match it with the superb 16X Manual Servo lens. The XL2 has provided the improved image quality that I was looking for to bridge that gap, as well as that vital 16:9 wide that caters for a growing demand for that format.

Above all else, the XL2 is far superior in handling compared to the earlier XL1s, and many of the components are better built. The XL2 also provides a wonderful in-camera control of settings to tweak the picture to your own personal tastes - to enable the end footage to mirror your own 'vision'.

Regarding the improvements of the XL2 over XL1s, even though there were many, there were still certain aspects that I’d liked to have seen treated differently during the upgrade, and where the H1 still doesn’t seem to have solved them. Mike has touched on one those hoped-for improvements that sadly didn’t arrive in either the XL2 or H1…and that is not being able to see the full capturing frame. There is nothing worse than seeing something in the extreme corners of the frame during post production that was not noticed during actual time of filming.

The expensive add-on FU-1000 mentioned by Greg is an option (although it can add electrical problems to the XL2).
I just cannot get on with a black & white viewfinder image and need a colour image for framing colour power-points during the actual shooting stages. The H1’ viewfinder seems not to have improved over the XL2, so hopefully a future H1 upgrade by Canon will provide a higher resolution 100% frame colour VFR – and be part of the upgrade, rather than an ultra-expensive extra option.