are you unsatisfied with how the images you currently produce using the XL2 appear on either the plasma or in the theater? or are you just thinking it's time for an upgrade?

it's a fabulous camera, but to milk it for its best images, it is not practical if you do a lot of field shooting. they really need to develop a portable tapeless solution that is not limited to HDV before it can be a great field camera. right now, to maximize its available features, you need a studio or ENG set-up.

that's the one issue which keeps me from buying. the interchangeable lens mount is perfect for wildlife videographers, but the potential for getting maximum-great images in the field is limited.

still, i own an FX-1 and the HDV images can be superior, often far richer than what the XL2 can produce. so it often breaks out, FX-1 for landscapes, XL2 for wildlife. FX-1 for colorspace, XL2 for progressive. i am in a constant struggle on deciding which projects to shoot using which of these two cameras.....sometimes i think i want to sell them both for the H1, and other times i am glad to have both of these tools at my disposal.

i hope you have more luck solving this conundrum than i have had, tracy!

Happy days indeed! We have a camera that shoots stunning HD to cheap tape, can interchange high quality lenses without extreme expense, has lots of useful connectors and I/O, and if we run into format snobbery we're not stuck with HDV. Sooner or later the SDI will come into play for field acquisition and then that is where you will find format nirvana. I've had a taste of this and me likey. :)

That is a camera you can grow with.

There is a summary with test images at CML:

http://www.cinematography.net/hdcamt...ixelmonger.htm

Ah-hah. That's the one I was thinking of. Thanks for the link, Wolfgang!

OT: I'm an H1 owner now!
 

Funny enough, shortly after I posted the link above the postman rang twice and brought me my new H1. This is my second camcorder after I bought an XL1 back in 1998. That's eight (!) ago - man, where have all the years gone? Well, sorry for the OT. Couldn't help but tell you that.

I'll post some comparative test images taken with some macro lenses once I've assembled the whole thing and gone through the manual.

Congratulations Wolfgang! We're looking forward to anything you want to share. Thanks in advance,

Broadcasters
 

You're right, here, that's for sure! I just spoke with a good friend who was able to attend the International Wildlife Film Festival in Missoula, MT this past May. They always have big forums about aquisition formats, and this year, National Geographic and Discovery both stated that any program submitted to them can be no more than 15% HDV, or 16mm. All HD, all the time (I guess). Bummer. I guess it's a good thing I don't rely on them for work!
However, I have spoken to festival delegates in the past (both at IWFF and Jackson Hole Wildlife Film Festival) who say they "sneek" these formats by them all the time. I guess they aren't paying an engineer to sit there and watch every second of the films? Who knows. But good for them.
All I know is that raising grant money to buy any equipment is going to be REAL fun! --?

I appreciate everyone's comments here...Thanks.
As always, this forum has the best discussions.

Thanks, I'll take a look!

theater and stock footage
 

In the theater, of course. It's a large format theater --you know--three stories tall (not IMAX, but Kineton). At any rate there is another underlying reason why I'm thinking of a Sony HDCAM, rather than the XLH1. I do love the size and weight of the Canon, but I need staying power for my footage. Think stock footage librarires...Uh, the whole thing just makes me ill. To think that individuals have to have such an expensive piece of equipment to make a living off of this industry. And I do believe that someone who is primarily doing wildlife DOES need to own a camera...shooting every day makes rental impractical, as I'm sure everyone can imagine.