DVX-100B or XL2... What do you think?
 

Hi there, my name is Sindri Svan and me and my friend, Trausti, have been looking into buying a camcorder. We are from Iceland and the amateur film-making scene isn’t big here but rising. From our research it seems as if the DVX-100B and the XL2 are best money can buy for in that prize range. What we are seeking is the “film-look” and wide angles. So we ask you, boys and girls; which one would you recommend and more importantly... why?

the film look isn't dependent on the camera you're using. Not in this case at least because both cameras are extremely good.

As for wide angle lenses, the XL2 gives you interchangeable lenses so you have the freedom to choose what you want there, but it's also pricier.

Yeah, realised that for a bit more money we could buy the XL2 allowing us to change lenses. But an additional lens costs around 1200$ right?
But basically, when it comes to quality, these cameras are pretty equal, right? Since we are on a pretty tight budget, wouldn't it then be better just to buy a DVX-100B and the 0.6x lens adapter?

well i'm not completely sure, but just from the footage i saw plus the comments from users on this forum, the DVX's image is significantly more noisy, even under normal lighting.

I'd wait to hear from some DVX users before making a decision. I ALMOST bought a DVX when i suddenly jumped over to buying the XL2. I think they're both incredible cameras, so you probably can't go wrong. If price is an issue, then i'd say go for the DVX. Still, wait to hear from some actual DVX users :)

Yeah
 

I've been saving for the last year; during this time, I researched, reaserached, and researched which camera to buy--the XL2 or the DVX-100. People who've went with the DVX and never used an XL2 will whole-heartedly insist that the DVX is the best camera. It's the same with the XL2 users. I only pay attention to the people who say they OWN both. I say OWN, because many will simply TRY the XL2 for a day and say that it is inferior to the DVX; the interface is so different that a day is not enough time to make that decision. People who own both of them (a very small group might I say) will have used both cameras extensively, and these people will more often than not tell you that the XL2 is the best camera. While it's true many, many more people own DVX's than XL2's, it is because the DVX hit the market first and had a better marketing campaign. They were put in the hands of the cinematographers first, and they fell in love with them. Why change a good thing? After all, 5 grand isn't cheap to also buy an XL2, if they virtually do the same things. You asked a popular question, one which I asked myself at one time. I chose the XL2 because of the following:

1.) Lense, lense, lense! How can you get good depth of field shots with a DVX if it only has a 10X zoom. The XL2 has 20X zoom.
2.) More pixels per CCD
3.) It looks bad a$$: Many people don't consider this very important, but for certain types of work it can be invaluable. Although they virtually shoot the same quality pictures, you'll LOOK like a pro wherever you take that thing.

Many DVX users gripe that the XL2 doesn't have an LCD monitor. Give me a break! I work at a TV channel and none of our $20,000 Sony's has an LCD. Professionals use the viewfinder or an external monitor--bottom line. Other than that, I really haven't heard another complaint that can't be discredited.

I just rented an XL2 over the weekend, and have used a DVX on a documentary. Here's the deal:

They're kinda the same, kinda different.

The XL2 does real widescreen--when you shoot 16:9 with the XL2, you're shooting 960x480, and when you shoot 4:3, it's cropping to 720x480. So for widescreen, it wins hands down.

The possible zoom range on the XL2 is higher/longer than the DVX, 16x vs. 10 (right?)

Now, here's where people get all crazy. Both cameras have somewhat complex menus allowing you to manipulate the image to fairly high degree. For the XL2, you have to activate a custom preset to do this, on the DVX, you can just ttweak it on any of it's scene files. Kinda the same idea, but it's less obvious on the XL2.

It seems to me that regarding menu tweakage, the XL2 makes more subtle, less extreme adjustments. You can't take it as far (that I know of) as you can take the DVX. If you wanted to, with the DVX, you can do something sorta like your "Man on Fire"/"Domino" film look, your "Underworld" look, any of that crazy, contrasty, insane lookin' stuff. The XL2 won't let you push the settings that far. Even when maxed out, you'll still get a fairly "normal" looking image with the XL2. This whole thing is the biggest difference, to me.

The DVX has really nice audio quality. The XL2 ain't bad, but lacks a line in for the XLR inputs (but you can do line in through the RCA jacks, right? Still unclear on this). That means using the XLR inputs, you can only get a mic level signal.

That's my two cents. There were always a few things about the DVX that bothered me, being, currently, an XL1s owner, and having thought about switching over---the lack of zoom range is one, another big one is that with the XL1s, you can make 16;9 guides appear as you shoot 4:3, so you can frame your shots for later masking in post. With the DVX, you don't have that, so you have to make your viewfinder/LCD guides, unless you want to use the anaorphic mode in camera, or use the in camera letterbox (literally just blacks out the top and bottom of the image).

The XL2 will always cheat for resolution and broadcast legality. The DVX is easier to use. The XL2 has a MUCH longer lens (20X vs 10X) and therefore you can get a much smaller DOF. The DVX has a wider lens and does not require a wide adapter in many cases. The DVX has poppy saturated color, at the expense of noise. The XL2 is a much sharper/cleaner picture at the expense of a flatter image. The XL2 can only do line in thru RCA, not XLR. I could go on and on... bottom line. Are you a fairly skilled user? If not, DVX all the way. Do you plan on shooting 16:9? If not, again the DVX... but for a skilled user and someone who needs true 16:9 the XL2 will simply give a much sharper image and give you footage the DVX cannot replicate.



ash =o)

Damn. My bad. I keep forgetting that I use the 16x manual lens with everything, while most will use the stock lens.

Also, you CAN get a certain amount of saturation with the XL2, if you push the R/G/B gains up all the way, as well as color gain, but it's still not DVX-style crazy.

I bought the XL2 instead of the DVX for the following reasons, many already stated:

1. Longer lens
2. true 16:9
3. I personally find the DVX more tiring to use because I can't rest it on my shoulder, but that's a personal thing since I used both extensively for a year before buying.
4. While the XL2's lens isn't as wide, I can always change it to suit my needs. I also own a few ef lenses and I can use those if I ever want to as well

In general, I do know that the DVX's settings can be pushed further than the XL2, but I question whether many people will want to do something so dramatic to their shots instead of just doing it in post.

The XL2 does take some skill to get the best image possible, more so than other cameras, but in the end, you'll pick it up and it will be worth it.

The "wide angles" aspect of your question I believe answers the question for you. The DVX has a wider stock lens. While you could swap out the 20x or 16x manual lens for the 3x wide, the 3x wide isn't long enough to be useful as a general purpose lens - which means you have to own both the wide and one of the long lenses. And in the end, the 3x isn't that much wider than the DVX standard lens.

I'm with Andrew about not pushing the image in camera so much - I like to shoot a clean image and they can do what they will in post. It's just how I roll - nothing wrong with doing things in camera.

The other rationale that makes the DVX a better choice for Sindri is the LCD viewfinder. As previously indicated, the ideal scenario is an external or onboard monitor. But Sindri is just starting out and I'm assuming not a shooter primarily but rather a filmmaker. Under these circumstances, a camera with a larger LCD viewfinder is better than the XL2's little eyepiece LCD. Also, the 100B has a much improved LCD that can pass as an external monitor in a pinch.

Much has been made about pixels and true 16x9 versus 4x3 squeeze/letterbox. In the end I don't think it matters that much. I've seen footage from both cameras projected and the difference isn't appreciable IMHO.

Good point about the LCD viewfinder vs the eyepiece. This goes hand in hand with the body style.

If you're shooting at eye level, a shoulder camera and eyepiece are fine. If you want to do high and low shots, the eyepiece just doesn't cut it.

You can mount a handheld camera on a steady tracker or some other rudimentary stabilizer. This gives you the freedom to creatively position and move the camera. It gets a lot more complex if you have an eyepiece and no monitor.

It's not a problem for main-on-the-street interviews, but from the "film-look" comment, Sindri might want more creative freedom.

One thing to remember: no one will A/B your film between the two cameras. As long as the film looks good, nobody in the audience will think, "but the resolution would have been so much better with camera XYZ". Well, nobody in a normal audience anyway. ;)

I own and use both cameras almost daily so I feel pretty comfortable comparing them. First, the 3X lens is much wider than the stock DVX lens. The XL2 viewfinder is average at best, it is the only thing on the XL2 that I just hate. Also, in 16:9 mode the XL2 is much sharper, the DVX which is already softer than the XL2 to begin with, takes a very obvious hit when the pixels are stretched. You are geting 33% more rez with the XL2 which, as stated, was sharper to begin with. If you were to cut from color matched similar length shots on a decent sized TV, anyone with decent vision could tell the footage apart.

That being said... you CAN cut DVX and XL2 together, just takes some planning. People do great looking things with the DVX but it is just not as sharp as the XL2 in any mode and certainly not in 16:9 mode...sharpness isnt everything though.




ash =o)

If it were I who was faced with this dilemma I would end up buying the DVX100b and getting an M2 adaptor from http://www.micro35.com in order to be able to use affordable 35mm still camera lenses like Nikon or Canon. That way you'd get all sorts of depth of field. Remember that HDV camera lenses don't give you the 35mm cinema style depth of field that is used in professional hollywood movies. With the M2 adaptor from http://www.micro35.com you would get that. Also, I'm not quite sure the XL2 actually shoots 24p. If your final product is to be "film-like" and not videoy or 16mm-ish, then get the camera with the best specs for a filmic look. Go to this Website and read on it:http://redrockmicro.com/film_look4.html

the xl2 does indeed shoot true 24p. and doesn't eat tapes. and it's fuses don't blow. unfortunately, these are all things i read on other boards unmentioned as common xl2 problems.

i don't think creative freedom is determined by a camera's form factor. but i will agree that the xl2 would probably be all-around more work than the dvx. i would think that native 16:9 and ability to swap lenses, and go from a good telephoto to a good wide, would be huge for indie filmmakers, no?

price might be a big consideration. an xl2 with loaded options could cost a small fortune. the dvx is cheaper. and some money could go into getting some decent lights and sound gear.

also, there are other ways to get shallow dof onto tape, however impractical they sometimes may be. if you're set on getting a 35mm adapter and can't afford a mini35 (i raise my hand), the lack of a xl relay lens on most of these home kits would make the dvx a more practical choice, strictly from a "holy cow, how am i going to carry all this crap" perspective. that said, the m2 is a really nice little kit.

personally, i'd go for the xl2.

> "i don't think creative freedom is determined by a camera's form factor"

Agreed - unless the camera lacks an LCD viewfinder, and you don't have an external monitor. In that case you would be flying blind for some camera angles.

Wow, you guys have been amazing! There are few thinks I'd like to be clear on the Canon vs. DVX-100b issue. And keep in mind that money is an issue so we'll most likely ending up just buying one of these cameras and a tripod...

Comparison:
DVX-100B has more extreme internal settings then the XL2. Isn't that something that can be changed in post-production when using the XL2?
XL2 provides sharper images and higher resolution then the DVX-100B.
XL2 shoots real letterbox while the DVX-100B doesn't. It really isn't that hard to crop out the black spaces tough...
XL2 looks friggin' awesome ;)
DVX-100B has an LCD viewfinder, which is good for us since we are starting from scratch.
DVX-100B is cheaper then XL2
The Canon XL2 is capable of using Canon EF lenses, such as Canon EF 16-35mm L-series lenses? While the DVX-100B can not use other lenses without the M2 adapter. As of such the DVX-100B has a very deep DOF, right?

BTW, for post-production I intend to use Final Cut. (yes I'm a Mac User ;) )

Thank you guys so much!
Sindri Svan

Comparison:
"DVX-100B has more extreme internal settings then the XL2. Isn't that
something that can be changed in post-production when using the XL2?"

The XL2 actually has MORE control, the results are not as wide though, the camera will cheat for chroma resolution and broadcast legality. Easy fix in post where the only thing you cannot gain back, is lost resolution.


"XL2 provides sharper images and higher resolution then the DVX-100B."

XL2 is sharper in all modes but only more resolution in 16X9 mode


"XL2 shoots real letterbox while the DVX-100B doesn't. It really isn't that hard to crop out the black spaces tough..."

XL2 shoots true anamorphic 16:9, when you crop on the DVX you LOSE 1/3rd of the resolution.


"XL2 looks friggin' awesome ;)"
Can be argued and a non-issue for me.


"DVX-100B has an LCD viewfinder, which is good for us since we are starting from scratch."

You can get a monitor pretty cheap if you need one and you will need one for many shots no matter what camera you have...


"DVX-100B is cheaper then XL2"

Correct, especially when you consider adding lenses, etc. XL2 also requires better tripods, stabilizers, jibs, etc.


"The Canon XL2 is capable of using Canon EF lenses, such as Canon EF 16-35mm L-series lenses? While the DVX-100B can not use other lenses without the M2 adapter. As of such the DVX-100B has a very deep DOF, right?"

The Canon has five XL lenses, the 20X OIS, the 16X OIS, the 16X manual, the 14X manual and the 3X wide. You would never need more than 3 of those. I use the 20X OIS, the 16X manual and the 3X wide. Expect to pay $750 each for a good clean used version of either. In order to attach EF lenses, you need the XL EF Adapter, it works great but causes a magnification factor that makes it tough to use for anything but nature and sports. The XL2 with the longer lenses can achieve a much shallower DOF without an adapter. EITHER camera will take a mini35 adapter but when you get into that world, to get the best image you are talking about enough money to move to a 2/3" CCD camera or HD camera... IMHO mini35 rarely makes sense and makes NO sense in the 1/3" CCD SD world.




ash =o)

Another consideration is the battery.

At NAB I asked about batteries for the XL-2, and the Anton Bauer rep showed me some $600 batteries and a $1200 charger. I then told him that we might also consider moving straight to HD, and that the HVX200 might be the ticket.

Instead of the price going up, it went down. He walked me over to the Elipz display. $300 for battery and charger. Five hour life. I think it's 8 or 10 hours on the DVX.

I'm sure that there are cheaper batteries for the XL-2 than that, but not from Anton Bauer. It's no deal breaker, but another thing to consider.

BTW, Ash, I think people were recommending the M2 adapter, rather than the mini35. The M2 with rails is somewhere around $1,500. The mini35 is significantly more...

Clearly (pun intended), the main advantage of the Canon is the extra resolution. And, yes, it looks cool. :)

How long do you think Canon and Panasonic will be making either one of these cameras? When will they cut off production of SD and only make HD/HDV? Plus I've seen post on the new AHD that some say will replace HDV.

I don't think batteries are really an issue - both cost about the same whether you're buying oem batteries or batteries from Canon/Panasonic. You don't need to get Anton Bauer batteries etc if you don't have a need for them - I can shoot a 3 hour stage production without worry using 2 of the standard XL2 batteries and still have some left over for behind the scenes shots and stuff like that.
I think both cameras will be around for a while longer - not everyone needs HD now and currently, none of the HD cameras available meet the needs of anyone who is using an XL2. The XL-H1 is close, but imo, at 3x the price it's beyond what most people in the market for an XL2 would pay (including myself which is why I love my XL2 so much:))

Canon's XLH1 uses the same style battery as its predecessors and in fact has a newer, longer lasting battery that comes with it. You can just as easily buy the new battery and use it on the XL1/XL1s/XL2, GL1/GL2.

That is one of the things Canon has done right for its customers. The battery that came with your XL1 could be used on your XLH1 if need be.

-gb-

Thanks for clearing that up, Andrew and Greg. I got one data point from Anton Bauer, and the difference in support for the products looks like it just comes down to limitations in AB's product line.

The AB rep mentioned that the Elipse would fit the handheld tripod mount, but not the frame mount of the over-the-shoulder cameras. A simple pair of adapters (one mechanical, one electrical) would do the trick.

In any case, battery life, charge times and backup batteries are part of the equation when buying a new camera. Make sure to plan a solution that matches goals and budget.

Actually, Panasonic just announced a new bundle for the DVX. It now includes Magic Bullet Editors, a slightly reduced rebate, and Red Giant's InstantHD software.

In my opinion, you can't go wrong with either. The XL2's only true advantage is the native 16:9. The interchangeable lense option isn't very useful unless you'd rather have the manual lense instead of the stock 20x. The rest can be emulated on either camera.

If I were in your situation and HD just wasn't an option, I'd go with the DVX100B because it's just easier to use right out of the box and the squeeze 16:9 results are pretty decent. Plus the bundle is just that much better now with InstantHD added in =).

Ideally I would think you'd put the extra money into a plain $6,000 or less HVX deal and shoot in standard definiton on MiniDV. That way, you get the option for HD, LCD viewfinder, and native 16:9 all in the same DVX-ish package. Plus it isn't HDV of course.

I own both camera's as well. They are so darn close on some levels and not so close on others, ultimately they kind of balance out and it's really about what your needs are going to be.
Personally, I like my XL2 better, I always have. I even like it better than the DVX100B I bought a few weeks ago (replacing the "A" model I had).
That's not to say it's a better camera, I just like the crazy reach of the 20x lens, the true 16:9 CCD's, and the higher rez picture (in 16:9) it provides.
The DVX has that little special "something" in it's 24p mode (some call it the "Mojo") that makes its progressive images look very nice. (yes, the XL2 has nice 24p as well...)
Botom line: you will not regret buying either.

Slightly OT, but when I see it posted, I need to correct.

The longer lens DOES NOT give you shallower DoF. It gives you a PERCEIVED shallower DoF. It compresses the space more, so the out of focus background becomes closer, your actual area of "acceptable" focus is the same.

The biggest thing that I noticed when Xl2 footage was posted when the cam came out, is that it seems VERY clean in low light.

One disadvantage is that if you use it for 4:3 shooting, it's closer to a 1/4" chip size camera - and DoF etc will be affected by that.

Thank you guys for all these quick responses! :D
I suppose we'll invest in the DVX-100B, Now we just need to find a retailer in the UK :P One question though, I have a Manfrotto tripod I use with my 20D, could I use that with the DVX or should I get a bigger tripod for it?

LOL... somebody always has to go there... bottom line, percieved, technical, whatever... because of the longer lens you can get the look of a more shallow DOF. Semantics.... And in 4:3 mode at equal lengths, the DVX and XL2 have an almost indentical DOF...



ash =o)

I'm confused. . .what's wrong wit 4:3 mode?

I played with it when I rented the cam. Looked fine to me.

4:3 crops the 16:9 image, just like with all the bigger chip camera. The net effect is that a small portion of the chip is being used which in theory means a larger DOF... in practice it makes no real difference though...


ash =o)

So where it counts then, no loss of resolution, still looks great, etc.?

Correct, there is in theory less pixels in 4:3 mode than in the DVX 4:3 mode but the extra sharpness from the XL2 masks it to the point they are indecipherable...
That being said, if you are doing mainly 4:3 work and dont intend to use any additional lenses, I think the DVX might be the better choice.



ash =o)

It's not that, just that all the paid work I do'll probably be 4:3. The widescreen I reserve for personal narrative stuff. Unless someone requests it, of course.

Can this 2 cameras work side by side..or do they show significant differences with the picture?

I'm hopefully within a month or so of buying a new camera. I've been working on it off and on for a awhile now. Right now my two choices are like the guys from Iceland. DVX100b or the XL2. Having owned the XL1s before the big drawback for the XL2 is the size. But before I was trying to use the XL1 for a event/wedding camera.

Right now my only reason to own a camera is to make a movie and docs. So the size might not be as big a factor.

The big drawback on the DVX100b is lack of 16:9. But again I guess that can be done in post. But in the end which is better or can you even tell?

Some have posted about the cost differance. B&H has about a $600 differnce if you include the Panny rebate. So not that big of a deal.

HD? HDV? I guess I'll have to wait on those.

No matter how many times you read these post it doesn't get any easier, if you know what I mean.

Bottom line. Which one to get for a film and documentry?

If the form factor is not an issue the 16:9 is actually a pretty big deal... the DVX only has one third less resolution than the XL2 in 16:9 mode.



ash =o)

Should I forget about PD-170?
 

Like many here it seems, I'm stumped as to which camera to buy.

Though I know this thread is comparing the DVX100b to the Canon XL2, what about the Sony's PD170? It's about the same cost as the DVX100b.

Any thoughts? Some say that they are comparible, other's that the Pany is in a class by itself.

Just so you know, I'm a documentary filmmaker, but my bread and butter is shooting corporate and educational videos. As well, most of my productions (I have an XL1) get streamed on the internet.

Thanks in advance!

I'd say the DVX100 is better than the PD170 for everything except low light shooting. The DVX has a much more useful lens (wide angle) instead of the Sony which is not very wide and not very long. I also prefer the controls on the DVX and XL2 along with many other things compared to the Sony.

DVX better than PD-170
 

Thanks. That's very helpful

Here are four questions (and/or problems) that I haven't been able to answer. Perhaps you have some thoughts.

1. They talk about the DVX being noisy. Does this mean mechanical noice (ie. zoom), or picture noise? Obviously I don't want to hear grinding as I zoom during a quiet interview. I've been using a Canon Xl1 for 5 years now, so I'm assuming that the picture quality (in 60i) is infinitely better.

2. The 16x9 shooting is vague. I know it's 4x3 stretched, but what do you see in the viewfinder? Is it stretched? Black bars? I know they sell an anamorphic adaptor, what does this do? Basically I don't often shoot in 16x9, but when I do it would be nice to have a WYSIWYG in the viewfinder.

3. Headphone echo. I don't understand this. I don't use a soundman or external mixer, so I'd like to be able to properly monitor audio. Also, can you switch which channel you monitor (1 or 2 or mixed) in the headphones?

4. Perhaps I'm blind, but does the DVX100b have bars and tone? I know the XL2 does.

I think I've decided on the DVX, but these questions have been plaquing me for a while.

Thanks again.

1. People mean in terms of image noise, but it's still pretty clean compared to other cameras.

2. With the DVX-100B, you can choose to view the image with black bars (letterboxed) or stretched when shooting in 16:9. The anamorphic adapter allows you to shoot 16:9 without loosing resolution.

3. I believe the headphone echo issue has been fixed in the B version. I'm not sure about monitoring the 2 channels the way you want though, hopefully someone who does will chime in.

4. It does have bars and tone.

I'm glad I have time to hash this out. I just keep seeing great stuff done with the Sony Z1. It has so many shooting choices. It is almost to the top of the list. Z1 or XL2.

Spot made some good points about not worrying about 24p. Any of you like to let me know what you do if you have the hope of going to film using the Z1?

DVfilmaker says shoot in 1080/60fps.

But the XL2 does it all without the HDV.