DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Sony VX2100 / PD170 / PDX10 Companion (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-vx2100-pd170-pdx10-companion/)
-   -   Anyone have both a GL2 and a VX2100? (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-vx2100-pd170-pdx10-companion/47230-anyone-have-both-gl2-vx2100.html)

David Ennis July 5th, 2005 08:27 AM

Anyone have both a GL2 and a VX2100?
 
[Edit -- Sorry folks, I forgot to search first as I normally do.]

I have a GL2 and I'm very close to buying a VX2100. The GL2 is wonderful in close, but I'm tilting toward the VX2100 instead of another GL2 because I'd like a little more clarity in the wide shots when recording staged productions under various lighting conditions.

If anyone has done this, I'm curious as to how easy or difficult they are to match in post after a two camera shoot (I use Vegas, btw). TIA

Pete Wilie July 6th, 2005 05:56 AM

Fred, you may find this thread of some help:
A little novice color correcting help?

But if I were you, I'd use the same model cameras if at all possible. Or, at the very least, stay with the same brand. Sony's and Canon's really don't mix easily.

But I'm curious. What exactly is the problem with the GL2, and why do you think the VX2100 will solve it?

Best Regards,
Pete

David Ennis July 6th, 2005 11:39 AM

Pete,

Under typical stage lighting, the resolution of facial features and other details when the GL2 is zoomed out to frame the whole stage is less than I would like. Frankly, my decision to try the VX2100 was based on a single but erudite post by one individual that I now can't find again. He spoke specifically in the terms I just mentioned, comparing several cams.

That plus the appeal of having the best low light cam that normal humans can afford. For instance, I have some great GL2 footage of a dance routine, but I can't help thinking that a 2100 would separate the black leotards from the background better.

I'm thinking closeups and two-shots: GL2. Mid and wide, 2100.

Pete Wilie July 6th, 2005 12:28 PM

Fred,

It would really surprise me if the PD170/VX2100 was able to capture "more clarity" (does this mean more resolution or sharpness?) than the GL2 under good lighting conditions. I think the GL2 lens is just about the best fixed-lens available on a prosumer camera. I'm sure you know Canon lenses are among the best in the world.

The combination of the Fluorite optics with the Pixel Shift technology yield a great image. Here's a quote from the B&H web site, which I'm sure comes from Canon:
Quote:

L-Series Fluorite Optical System

Canon has satisfied the demands of experienced image makers for years through the power, design and quality of their 35mm and broadcast TV lenses. The professional L-Series lenses utilize Fluorite, a material which provides outstanding resolution, contrast and color reproduction, especially in lightweight, high-magnification lenses. Now incorporated into the lens on the GL-2, Fluorite delivers the ultimate clarity and image quality.

The Fluorite element inside of the lens defeats color aberration - the effect when components of light stray from one another within a lens, causing a reduction in sharpness, contrast and color. The Fluorite lens precisely controls components of light, providing an excellent balance of these three critical ingredients of picture quality. This is unobtainable with conventional optical glass.

Pixel Shift

This feature solves common shooting dilemmas by using a signal processing technique called Pixel Shift, which has been used in professional grade video cameras for many years. It achieves wider dynamic range, reduced vertical smearing and sharper digital still images.

The green component of a video signal contains 60% of the picture detail, and the red and blue components comprise only 40%. The green CCD in the camcorder is shifted vertically and horizontally the equivalent distance of 1/2 pixel from the red and blue CCD. The green signal is then sampled more frequently to extract the maximum picture detail from the video signal. This allows the camcorder to achieve resolution equal to camcorders with nearly twice as many pixels in video recording.
Now once you get into a low light situation, the PD170/VX2100 will start to outperform the GL2.

EDIT: Final thought. I would borrow/rent a PD170/VX2100 and test it under your actual stage conditions before I would buy one.

Mind you all this from a guy who just switched from a GL2 to a PD170. :-)
I switched primarily to get the excellent low-light, no noise with gain capability of the PD170, plus the integrated XLR inputs. Turns out that I also like the ergonomics of the PD170 better.

Good luck in your decision.

David Ennis July 6th, 2005 01:39 PM

Well, there's nothing to do but try. I just bought a VX2100 from B&H in time for a field test this weekend. It's returnable if it disappoints, and I'll then get another GL2 from them and have enough money left over for some audio upgrades even after absorbing shipping as lesson learned. It's a win-win for me and my store. Thanks for your input. I'll keep you posted.

Pete Wilie July 6th, 2005 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fred Retread
I'll keep you posted.

Please do. I have a number of friends who own GL2s and it would be nice to know that we can shoot together and intercut footage with proper color balancing in production and a minimum of color correction in post.

Dave Glardon July 26th, 2005 03:41 AM

I have used a GL2 for about a yeay but just picked up a 2100 a few days ago. I think the vx2100 has a much better quality picture. The Canon has great optics but the Sony just looks awesome in natural light and works well in low light. I am very impressed.

The GL2 is 1/4 chip... the vx2100 is 1/3 chip. The vx2100 is just going to have a better picture.

Both are nice cams but I was blown away the first day I had the vx2100 and watched the footage back on my TV.

Dave Glardon July 26th, 2005 03:42 AM

I will also add that the vx2100 is not as light as the GL2. Not even close.

Graham Bernard July 26th, 2005 05:34 AM

Is there such a thing as a camera for all Reasons ( Seasons )?

Guess one would have to spend at least treble to get close to that Nirvana -and THEN you'd have to spend even MORE on those wide angles and things - yeah?

Grazie

Ian Thomas July 26th, 2005 02:23 PM

Fred

I have had the XM2 ( GL2) and now own the Pd170, the canon gives a very good picture but as said many times before is not as good in low light, I also thought that the Canon build quality is not as solid as the PD and in my opinion is not as robust

For weddings at this moment in time the Pd + VX are kings and the picture if used correctly is awesome for SD video.

Bob Harotunian July 29th, 2005 06:43 AM

The only difference I've seen between my PD 170 and the GL2s we used is low light performance. In fact, the GL2 held focus better in my opinion and wide angle shots are no better with the PD 170. I know you're asking about the VX 2000, but I assuming the electronics are very similiar. Again, these are just my observations based on well lit scenes.

Tom Hardwick July 29th, 2005 01:51 PM

I've used the XM2 and the VX2000 side by side in a shoot, and the Canon was consistantly using an aperture one stop wider. The VX2100 is even more sensitive, so I guess the cameras are a good stop and a half apart now. If low light performance is your bag, there's a clear winner. But the Canon gave delightful pictures, and I actually preferred the look of the image at max wide-angle. But then the Sony lens on the VX isn't at its best at full wide.

tom.

Boyd Ostroff July 29th, 2005 02:18 PM

Fred, it sounds like you may just be banging your head against the resolution limits of all prosumer cameras in wide shots. Have a look at this thread: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=28087

If you really want to get the best resolution then you might spend a bit more and try the FX1. Even if you don't want to work in HD you can shoot in HDV mode, then set the camera to convert its firewire output to SD for capture. This produces a noticeably nicer image. It is also native 16:9 and will give far superior results to your GL-2 if you want to shoot widescreen.

Another option would be to get a DVX-100a and shoot progressive scan which gives really nice results from what I've seen. But I don't think the VX-2000 will help much with your wide shots unfortunately.

John Laird August 9th, 2005 11:44 AM

I used a PD170 and a GL2 for our weddings last year. The GL2 is smaller and lighter than the VX or the PDs. In good light they both give an excellent picture that with a little tweaking, can be matched very well in post. Colors are cooler by default on the Sonys than on the Canon. Frame mode on the GL2 is nice. It's not as much of a feature as it used to be since the effect is now easily achieved in post using 60i. As mentioned before, the build quality is very different. The Sony's are much more robust with a good deal of metal in them. The GL2s have more plastic. I can see though where this would be an advantage for the GL2. I don't like the GL2's tape transport mechanism at all. It seems very cheaply made, especially compared to the Sonys. To me the Sonys are just better built for everyday use in the field. Their proliferation throughout the TV industry bears good witness to this.

John

Ian Thomas August 9th, 2005 12:38 PM

Boyd

Is that all there is to it, shot in hdv and then set the camera to convert it to firewire for SD capture.

If this is true why would anybody want to buy a SD camera any more?


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:31 PM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2021 The Digital Video Information Network