You'll need the Glidecam 4000, Rhett.

It works well, but once you add the weight necessary for balance, the critter gets kinda heavy!

I bought the armbrace to take the weight off my wrist... you might do the same, if you need to shoot for any extended period of time (or if you have relatively weak wrists, like me)

The Body Pod didn't make any sense for my work, so I can't comment on it.

Thank you very kindly. I actually thought the armbrace sounded like it would be a worthy accessory. That is just a lot of weight on on the wrist if you hold it for any length of time. I just didn't know if the 2000 would cut it because it seemed the 150 could go either way but by the time you add a 16:9 lens and hoods and filters and a Senn mic and screen I guess the weight shoots up there pretty fast.

Thanks again.

Thanks for all the replies.

I had really set my heart on the XL1s about a year or so ago and was within weeks of buying it (after much saving of pennies). But now after just quadruple checking and researching - the XM2 may be the better option - but a few last points if possible...

I'll be using the camera to make 'arty' short films for my own personal satisfaction (based on poetry and other such poncy things).

So it seems from the replies that if I don't need to change lens (don't think I'll be able to afford or even need extra lenses anyway - maybe a bit of a luxury?) then the XM2 is the one. Apart from the fact that the XL1s 'looks' like a nicer piece of kit.

Some people say that the XM2 actually has a better picture than the XL1s. Is it just that it is a sharper image? One of the main reasons I was getting the XL1s was because so many people had said about it's beautiful picture quality (slightly soft). Is this undone by the XM2's sharper picture? Is achieving a shallow depth of field as easy ('easy' may be the wrong word) on the XM2 as it is on the XL1s?

The XM 2 inherently has more DOF because of the smaller chips (1/4" vs. 1/3"). DOF explained here http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...&threadid=3926 The soft look takes the edge off the video look which tends to look over sharp to many people. The softening can be done when you edit, but it takes time and lowers picture quality when you render.

Jeff

I had read your excellent depth of field post (more than once too).

But that's an interesting point about the smaller chips giving more DOF. So when people say the XM2 has a 'better' picture they just mean it's sharper (and therefore less 'film-like'). Is this the case? Can it be adjusted with the sharpness control on the camera to make it look more like the image on the XL1s? Shallow depth of field is quite important to me. This is tough - so it's swinging now back in favour of the XL1s again...

I'm not the expert on the XM2/GL2. I would think that adjusting the sharpness and warmth could get the images closer in appearance. Ken Tanaka has both, maybe he'll respond.

Jeff

Justin,
Out of the box, the GL2 has a "crisper" image than the XL1s. When I plan to intermix footage from both cameras I generally prefer to knock the GL2's sharpness down by 1 or 2 clicks (on the preset menu) and leave the XL1s settings flat. Probably due to the GL2's slightly higher resolution this generally gives me the best matching results.

You'll have to develop your own judgement on warmth/saturation settings based on experience. The XL1s is a bit hotter on warmer colors, where the GL2 is much more neutral default image; neither reds nor blues/greens really pop. (Warm yellows sometimes pop a bit, something I discovered while shooting a short piece last autumn.) On warm scenes (where I need to intermix the two cams) I sometimes turn the XL1s' image saturation or red balance down a click.

Basically, the images from both cameras are extremely flexible. With practice and solid knowledge of the cam and your nle you'll eventually develop a personal formula for what you -must- do to your image in production and what you -can- do to it in post-production, with the latter offering the greatest amount of latitude.

Regarding "film look", I can't really say. I don't really try to chase that characteristic.

Many thanks Jeff and Ken for your help.

One final question (I promise) - Ken, is achieving a shallow depth of field as possible with the XM 2 as it is with the XL1s?

Justin,
Honestly, I've never compared them on that basis. I would expect the XL1s to have a slight advantage in that respect; its CCD block is 1/3" versus the GL2's 1/4" block. But I'm not sure that the difference would be remarkable.

If you want to convey a shallower DOF than possible with either camera you'll likely have to use tricks such as silking the background. Or using extremely tedious post-production techniques.

"You do have an XL1, right" 12x year
 

The producer says, "You do have an XL1, right?" Implying that anything less would probably not qualify for the job. I have a dozen calls like that a year.

Jeff-
I'd love to get some calls like that.
If you get any for shoots in or near NYC that you are unable to do, please let me know. Thanks.
Bob Andren
914 576 -9429