XL1S vs. GL2 - XL1S looks blah compared...

Daniel Patton · July 8th, 2005, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ash Greyson

I have to say in general, the people with the most hopeless devotion to their cameras are the DVX100a fanboys, even I, as a DVX owner, cannot stand them....

ash =o)

I noticed that about tha DXV100 users. As long as you get the results you want... that's all that matters.

But are you saying that you use the DVX as well and that you don't like it? Or just those die hard users you don't care for?

Peter Ferling · July 8th, 2005, 12:29 PM

I use both, and I've never preferring the GL2 over the XL1s. The factory sharpening setting is too high. Which you can adjust in the XL1s BTW, and you will get a similiar image at the expense of noise. Comparing the images I find the GL has that difinite, amaturish video look. Yuck.

As Ash already pointed out, both camera lens' resolve more image than what goes on tape, and that's a good thing. What matters most is what goes on inside.

Lighting makes all the difference, as I always make a custom white balance, and shoot at 0 dB. In places where I anticipate the white balance will change, the XL1s allows for three custom settings accessible by turning a knob, and I make sure that I'm all set. In fact, I find the XL1s, to be a much quicker/easier to use camera vs. the GL.

Dave Ferdinand · July 8th, 2005, 12:32 PM

I'm sure he was referring to the DVX die hard fans, not the camera itself.

As to XL1s vs GL2, and being that I own a GL2, I cannot see how a 1/4" CCD camera from the same manufacturer would surpass a 1/3" CCD model.

I think the only way to tell would be to put both cameras side to side, shooting the same subject and using exactly the same settings - forget 'auto' modes and things of the sort. You'd have to manually adjust them to the same settings. I'm sure the difference won't be huge, but I'm guessing the GL2 won't look better then.

Ash Greyson · July 8th, 2005, 01:49 PM

I love my DVX100a... easy to grab out of the case and shoot some exteriors, pick ups, cutaways, etc. I also can be more confident that when I get a 2nd operator I can go Ron Popeil with the guy and set it and forget it. It is also great for travelling, cranes and steadicam shots...a good all purpose camera.

My problem is the fanboys of the DVX, who think it is better than film cameras, XL2s, 2/3" CCD, HDV, etc. There are so many guys who have a DVX that think they are Spielberg....

The look most people go for on the DVX is a crushed black, saturated color, blown out highlights look. That is fine, I do that sometimes as well BUT... when I shoot crystal clear XL2 images with detail maintained in the highlights and shadows (something the DVX is not as good at) they harp on how it looks like crap... LOL...

ash =o)

Dave Ferdinand · July 8th, 2005, 03:17 PM

WEll, I don't own a DVX100 (GL2 + HD1) but I think it's the best camera in the $3500 price range and below.

Sure, it depends on what you use it for, it's not HD, yadda yadda. I'm just saying that overall it's the best choice for the moment.

Jesse Stipek · July 18th, 2005, 09:39 PM

I've always thought the XL series being a more 'broadcast' camera, but their are people out there who can manipulate the settings so sufficiently (without 24p) that the XL cams look like professional film cameras. But! This also goes with the GL2. I'm sure alot of you have seen the Sundowning clips, which to me, are masterpiece images of the GL2 that look similiar to the XL series. The only main difference in the two is the effective pixels, one being 1/4" and another 1/3". So it all depends on what you shoot and when u shoot (day or night). But to me, since my budget can only go as far as the GL2, it is already a huge step up from my currently owned PV-GS120 cam (1/6" 3CCD - blah).

/j

K. Forman · July 18th, 2005, 09:54 PM

I've used both an XL1s and a GL1, not a GL2. The XL had much better optics and zoom I think, but within a more controlled set up, they are both close. The real difference? The GL is much easier on the body ;)

Andrew Hsu · July 25th, 2005, 02:59 AM

I use both the XL1S and the GL2 regularly in my work. I use the XL1S about 97% of the time; the GL2 is my second camera.

If I had to give one away, I would give away the GL2 and keep the XL1S. But don't get me wrong: I love my GL2.
If I had to go on a trip I'd bring the GL2.
If I had to shoot a feature, I'd obviously bring the XL1S.

The main advantage of the GL2 is that anybody can shoot with it and get acceptable footage and that it is a handheld, not a shoulder-mount. I can use the GL2 to do more dynamic moving camera shots than I can with the XL1S. But for anything "artsy" (I hate that word but in this case it's fitting) I would take advantage of the far more accessible and superior manual settings of the XL1S. Menu-driven controls are the pits.

Andrew Hsu
Morning Star Videography

July 8th, 2005, 12:32 PM	#18
Dave Ferdinand Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 359	I'm sure he was referring to the DVX die hard fans, not the camera itself. As to XL1s vs GL2, and being that I own a GL2, I cannot see how a 1/4" CCD camera from the same manufacturer would surpass a 1/3" CCD model. I think the only way to tell would be to put both cameras side to side, shooting the same subject and using exactly the same settings - forget 'auto' modes and things of the sort. You'd have to manually adjust them to the same settings. I'm sure the difference won't be huge, but I'm guessing the GL2 won't look better then. __________________ Do or do not, there is no try.

July 8th, 2005, 03:17 PM	#20
Dave Ferdinand Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 359	WEll, I don't own a DVX100 (GL2 + HD1) but I think it's the best camera in the $3500 price range and below. Sure, it depends on what you use it for, it's not HD, yadda yadda. I'm just saying that overall it's the best choice for the moment. __________________ Do or do not, there is no try.

July 18th, 2005, 09:39 PM	#21
Jesse Stipek Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Monroe, WA Posts: 44	lemmi clarify I've always thought the XL series being a more 'broadcast' camera, but their are people out there who can manipulate the settings so sufficiently (without 24p) that the XL cams look like professional film cameras. But! This also goes with the GL2. I'm sure alot of you have seen the Sundowning clips, which to me, are masterpiece images of the GL2 that look similiar to the XL series. The only main difference in the two is the effective pixels, one being 1/4" and another 1/3". So it all depends on what you shoot and when u shoot (day or night). But to me, since my budget can only go as far as the GL2, it is already a huge step up from my currently owned PV-GS120 cam (1/6" 3CCD - blah). /j __________________ Trico Films Ltd http://www.tricofilms.com/ Proud Owner of a SONY HDR-FX1

July 18th, 2005, 09:54 PM	#22
K. Forman Capt. Quirk Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Middle of the woods in Georgia Posts: 3,596	I've used both an XL1s and a GL1, not a GL2. The XL had much better optics and zoom I think, but within a more controlled set up, they are both close. The real difference? The GL is much easier on the body ;) __________________ www.SmokeWagonLeather.us

July 8th, 2005, 12:29 PM	#17
Peter Ferling Trustee Join Date: May 2005 Location: Wyomissing, PA Posts: 1,141 Images: 57	I use both, and I've never preferring the GL2 over the XL1s. The factory sharpening setting is too high. Which you can adjust in the XL1s BTW, and you will get a similiar image at the expense of noise. Comparing the images I find the GL has that difinite, amaturish video look. Yuck. As Ash already pointed out, both camera lens' resolve more image than what goes on tape, and that's a good thing. What matters most is what goes on inside. Lighting makes all the difference, as I always make a custom white balance, and shoot at 0 dB. In places where I anticipate the white balance will change, the XL1s allows for three custom settings accessible by turning a knob, and I make sure that I'm all set. In fact, I find the XL1s, to be a much quicker/easier to use camera vs. the GL.

July 8th, 2005, 01:49 PM	#19
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	I love my DVX100a... easy to grab out of the case and shoot some exteriors, pick ups, cutaways, etc. I also can be more confident that when I get a 2nd operator I can go Ron Popeil with the guy and set it and forget it. It is also great for travelling, cranes and steadicam shots...a good all purpose camera. My problem is the fanboys of the DVX, who think it is better than film cameras, XL2s, 2/3" CCD, HDV, etc. There are so many guys who have a DVX that think they are Spielberg.... The look most people go for on the DVX is a crushed black, saturated color, blown out highlights look. That is fine, I do that sometimes as well BUT... when I shoot crystal clear XL2 images with detail maintained in the highlights and shadows (something the DVX is not as good at) they harp on how it looks like crap... LOL... ash =o)

July 25th, 2005, 02:59 AM	#23
Andrew Hsu New Boot Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: San Francisco Bay Area Posts: 8	I use both the XL1S and the GL2 regularly in my work. I use the XL1S about 97% of the time; the GL2 is my second camera. If I had to give one away, I would give away the GL2 and keep the XL1S. But don't get me wrong: I love my GL2. If I had to go on a trip I'd bring the GL2. If I had to shoot a feature, I'd obviously bring the XL1S. The main advantage of the GL2 is that anybody can shoot with it and get acceptable footage and that it is a handheld, not a shoulder-mount. I can use the GL2 to do more dynamic moving camera shots than I can with the XL1S. But for anything "artsy" (I hate that word but in this case it's fitting) I would take advantage of the far more accessible and superior manual settings of the XL1S. Menu-driven controls are the pits. Andrew Hsu Morning Star Videography