XL-1 vs VX 2000 at DVinfo.net

mr cameraman · October 13th, 2002, 11:59 AM

What are the true advantages other than lens swapping on the Flagship Canon that people prefer over the Sony Flagship VX 2000?

I never had the opportunity to test both but I know what I wanted from the start which was the sharpest image in both outdoor and indoor situations and from all the information I've read the VX 2000 is the winner in picture sharpness and low light capabilities. The only thing I've read about what people prefer in the Canon is the color reproduction but from what I've read and tested on my VX 2000 is that you can adjust your white balance shift to get color quality very much like the Canon. The Sony is also more robust than the Canons.

Any comments?

Jeff Donald · October 13th, 2002, 01:21 PM

I'll preface these remarks by saying that I freelance as a camera operator. I've used clients VX2000 in the field on numerous occasions. I personally own the XL1s. I do not find the Sony more robust than the Canon or vice versa. I do find find the way that individual owners or companies treat their equipment has a direct effect on the performance of their cameras. Camera owners are definitely divided into groups. They all take great pride in owning what they perceive to be the best. it's only human nature. No on is going to admit that their pride and joy (XL1 or VX2000) is junk. Both groups can act rather juvenile when the other group says their equipment (camera) is better. Again, human nature. Buy whatever camera has the best set of features and benefits for you, and the things you shoot. Respect the fact that the other guy did the same and his needs differ from yours.

The stock VX2000 has a slightly sharper image than the XL1 with the stock 16X IS lens. However, the manual 14 X and manual 16X Canon lenses are sharper than the stock Sony, in my opinion. I have several clients with wide angle adapters for their VX2000 and even the Century Precision adapter suffers a loss of resolution. The 3X WA from Canon is slightly sharper (splitting hairs in my opinion) but hardly worth mentioning. I do find the audio in the VX2000 problematic. Is it the way they are treated or something else? Some seem to have a noise problem. Sony supposedly has solved any audio hiss problem. The BBC still install a $500 adapter on all their VX2000's. Why?

The VX2000 is clearly the low light winner. The headphone level on the XL1 is decidedly too low in volume (maybe I need my hearing check?). The XL1 will require larger, more expensive filters (either screw-in or matte box). The XL1 will require a more substantial tripod to get the smoothest pans and tilts. But it's worth it. I sometimes spend as much on the tripod (vs. the camera) or even more. What good is the best picture if it is ruined by bad (wobbly) pans and tilts.

For some the major motivation for the XL1 is the progressive frame mode. They are after that ever elusive film look. Some can achieve that look in post. But at the cost of software, expensive plug-ins and rendering time. They would rather shoot it that way. Each has it benefits and detractions. You have to fit the camera into your style of shooting and editing.

Each camera has it's own set of unique features and benefits that best fit the individual needs of different shooters. There is no one best camera. Just as there is no one best automobile. If there were we would all be driving it (or shooting with it).

Jeff

Dylan Couper · October 13th, 2002, 02:01 PM

Plus the fact the XL1 looks like a professional camera, and the Sony looks like a large consummer camera. (imho) Sure it's irrelevent to picture and sound quality, but people and clients that aren't techno-savy will be more impressed with it than with the VX2000.

Having made many contacts with people just by carrying my XL1 around, I consider this a major advantage.

mr cameraman · October 13th, 2002, 02:14 PM

Great response!
You are absolutley right. There are no perfect cameras out there.
Although my VX 2000 is a fantastic camera, I can still say that I still could use a more powerful zoom than its stock 12x.

But as you say you weigh the benefits of both and choose the features that you most prefer. In my case it's the picture sharpness and fantastic low light capabilities of the VX 2000.

I'm a wedding videographer and low light quality is a must for me. The VX 2000 captures GREAT pictures and color reproduction under these conditions.

Cosmetically, I do love the Canons though. If I had the cash I'd buy both.

I guess I'll check my Loto Tickets!!

Jason Wood · October 13th, 2002, 03:47 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Dylan Couper : Plus the fact the XL1 looks like a professional camera, and the Sony looks like a large consummer camera. (imho) -->>>

Yeah, but that's a double edged sword. I guess it all comes down to what kind of work you're doing, but if you're shooting indies and documentaries, you'd probably better off having a less obtrusive camera.

The Sony's are easier on the camera op too. I'd rather handle a PD150 for 7 hours over an XL1.

Jeff Donald · October 13th, 2002, 04:20 PM

I shoot my documentaries on an XL1. Again, to each his own. If I shot overseas or in troubled spots the smaller size might be an advantage. However, I have larger hands (an individual trait) and the XL1 is more comfortable, to me. I don't shot ENG style any more. But if I did, the XL1 can be held on my shoulder, easier on the camera op. So, for each advantage to one person, it can be a disadvantage to another. No right or wrong, good or bad, just different.

Jeff

October 13th, 2002, 11:59 AM	#1
mr cameraman New Boot Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 14	XL-1 vs VX 2000 What are the true advantages other than lens swapping on the Flagship Canon that people prefer over the Sony Flagship VX 2000? I never had the opportunity to test both but I know what I wanted from the start which was the sharpest image in both outdoor and indoor situations and from all the information I've read the VX 2000 is the winner in picture sharpness and low light capabilities. The only thing I've read about what people prefer in the Canon is the color reproduction but from what I've read and tested on my VX 2000 is that you can adjust your white balance shift to get color quality very much like the Canon. The Sony is also more robust than the Canons. Any comments?

October 13th, 2002, 02:14 PM	#4
mr cameraman New Boot Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 14	Canon vs Sony Great response! You are absolutley right. There are no perfect cameras out there. Although my VX 2000 is a fantastic camera, I can still say that I still could use a more powerful zoom than its stock 12x. But as you say you weigh the benefits of both and choose the features that you most prefer. In my case it's the picture sharpness and fantastic low light capabilities of the VX 2000. I'm a wedding videographer and low light quality is a must for me. The VX 2000 captures GREAT pictures and color reproduction under these conditions. Cosmetically, I do love the Canons though. If I had the cash I'd buy both. I guess I'll check my Loto Tickets!!

October 13th, 2002, 01:21 PM	#2
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	I'll preface these remarks by saying that I freelance as a camera operator. I've used clients VX2000 in the field on numerous occasions. I personally own the XL1s. I do not find the Sony more robust than the Canon or vice versa. I do find find the way that individual owners or companies treat their equipment has a direct effect on the performance of their cameras. Camera owners are definitely divided into groups. They all take great pride in owning what they perceive to be the best. it's only human nature. No on is going to admit that their pride and joy (XL1 or VX2000) is junk. Both groups can act rather juvenile when the other group says their equipment (camera) is better. Again, human nature. Buy whatever camera has the best set of features and benefits for you, and the things you shoot. Respect the fact that the other guy did the same and his needs differ from yours. The stock VX2000 has a slightly sharper image than the XL1 with the stock 16X IS lens. However, the manual 14 X and manual 16X Canon lenses are sharper than the stock Sony, in my opinion. I have several clients with wide angle adapters for their VX2000 and even the Century Precision adapter suffers a loss of resolution. The 3X WA from Canon is slightly sharper (splitting hairs in my opinion) but hardly worth mentioning. I do find the audio in the VX2000 problematic. Is it the way they are treated or something else? Some seem to have a noise problem. Sony supposedly has solved any audio hiss problem. The BBC still install a $500 adapter on all their VX2000's. Why? The VX2000 is clearly the low light winner. The headphone level on the XL1 is decidedly too low in volume (maybe I need my hearing check?). The XL1 will require larger, more expensive filters (either screw-in or matte box). The XL1 will require a more substantial tripod to get the smoothest pans and tilts. But it's worth it. I sometimes spend as much on the tripod (vs. the camera) or even more. What good is the best picture if it is ruined by bad (wobbly) pans and tilts. For some the major motivation for the XL1 is the progressive frame mode. They are after that ever elusive film look. Some can achieve that look in post. But at the cost of software, expensive plug-ins and rendering time. They would rather shoot it that way. Each has it benefits and detractions. You have to fit the camera into your style of shooting and editing. Each camera has it's own set of unique features and benefits that best fit the individual needs of different shooters. There is no one best camera. Just as there is no one best automobile. If there were we would all be driving it (or shooting with it). Jeff

October 13th, 2002, 02:01 PM	#3
Dylan Couper Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Posts: 8,314	Plus the fact the XL1 looks like a professional camera, and the Sony looks like a large consummer camera. (imho) Sure it's irrelevent to picture and sound quality, but people and clients that aren't techno-savy will be more impressed with it than with the VX2000. Having made many contacts with people just by carrying my XL1 around, I consider this a major advantage.

October 13th, 2002, 03:47 PM	#5
Jason Wood Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 87	<<<-- Originally posted by Dylan Couper : Plus the fact the XL1 looks like a professional camera, and the Sony looks like a large consummer camera. (imho) -->>> Yeah, but that's a double edged sword. I guess it all comes down to what kind of work you're doing, but if you're shooting indies and documentaries, you'd probably better off having a less obtrusive camera. The Sony's are easier on the camera op too. I'd rather handle a PD150 for 7 hours over an XL1.

October 13th, 2002, 04:20 PM	#6
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	I shoot my documentaries on an XL1. Again, to each his own. If I shot overseas or in troubled spots the smaller size might be an advantage. However, I have larger hands (an individual trait) and the XL1 is more comfortable, to me. I don't shot ENG style any more. But if I did, the XL1 can be held on my shoulder, easier on the camera op. So, for each advantage to one person, it can be a disadvantage to another. No right or wrong, good or bad, just different. Jeff