I really like the various lenses you can get for the XL2, but I also love how pristine the XHA1's footage looks. Which would be a better buy?

and yes, I know I can always invest in a letus or something of the like along with the XHA1, but that will run me an extra $1k.

I have both,

Although I liked the options, I never even bought any other lenses for my XL2. I think at this point you should get the XhA1s since it is HD. I imagin that in 3 to 5 years HD will almost be a requirement for anyhing that will be shot for video work.

But if you're just shooting for fun and not for contract work then the XL2 may be the way to go if you can find one way under the cost of an XH A1, but you still have to buy other lenses for the XL2 if you don't already have them of course.

I would have a hard time buying anything SD at this point since you can see where all this video stuff going.

The extra lenses are a hassle, not a help, in my opinion.

The lens on the XH-A1 OR XH-A1s is excellent. It is quite wide and it is a 20x zoom. No worries about back focus, dust and all the rest of the issues of interchangeable lenses.

Yes, it is HD, and the camera downconverts on capture is you want. But everything is going HD.

But back to the original question, what are your shooting with the XL2 and what lenses will you be getting for this shooting? With that answered, is there some lens option you will be using that the XH-A1 can't match, especially considering the Canon wide-angle converter is excellent, and for not that much money you can get excellent .6x and .45x Century wide-angle adapters to go real wide.

The Canon also works great on a tripod, with a very real-time responsive zoom ring, a continuous aperture ring, excellent auto-focus, custom buttoms, etc. etc. etc.

The XL2 to me is awkward and not up to what the XH-A1(s) offers.

For me, from a professional standpoint, the only choice would be the superb XL2, mainly for the great handling, exposure/colour control, and most important of all the option of the extra XL video lenses, including also a vast range of SLR lenses to match to it.

With a fixed lens, such as with the XH-A1 my shooting options would be severely limited.

Two years ago, I was persuaded that HD was the way forward and SD would be dead by 2009, with the vast majority of TV programs broadcast in high definition and most homes owning a Blue-Ray player. I tightened my belt and saved up for the latest Canon HDV camera systems and sold my beloved SD systems, including the lenses.

Reality has painted a very different picture and although the HD locomotive is moving forward (albeit at a much slower pace than most people thought) it will not replace SD in the homes for quite a few years yet. The vast majority of people I know who have been shooting with the latest Canon and Sony HDV cameras during the past 3-years have all needed to down-convert all their footage to SD for final output and sales.

During the past few years I've actually ended up buying back some of the original SD systems and ploughing back money saved (when compared to overall HD system costs) for use on extra lenses, system add-ons, production costs and travel expenses.

When in situations where HD is the only requirement of my buyers (which surprisingly is still not in the majority in 2009) then the wonderful XL-H1/H1a/H1s would be the only option in the Canon line-up (although of course this would cost more new than the XH system; but even if my budget were limited I would rather look for a mint second-hand XL-H1 than a new XH-A1).

I suppose it all depends on your own requirements and the type of subjects that you'll be shooting. If the smaller fixed-lens package of an XH-A1 with fixed lens is all that is needed for your given goals, then of course go for that choice.

Tony,
Pardon the prying, but what are you shooting that you need farther wide or telephoto than what you get with the A1. I would not want the bulk and hassle of the H1 myself, and the A1 has suited my needs very well in just about every situation. Is there that much of a need to go wider than the A1?
Bill

As mentioned above, the other option if you have the doh $ is to buy the XL H1 which is essentially the XL2 but in HD. You can change the lenses on that.

But unless you're positive that you'll be changing out the lenses, the XH A1 is the way to go since it shoots in SD and HD. IMO;)

although the HD locomotive is moving forward (albeit at a much slower pace than most people thought) it will not replace SD in the homes for quite a few years yet.

Think it all depends in which country you live in, HD has proved to be a great selling point for the weddings I do, most clients don't have a blu-ray player yet but most own a hd-ready of full hd tv. For that reason I provide a HD file for them separately which I show them true my WD mediaplayer (and a usb stick) on their tv when I deliver the dvd's. These HD streamers have become quite cheap and they make all the difference on these really big lcd screens.
Also HD is being pushed hard by the cable companies and some weeks ago I saw a documentary on nat geo hd and it was breathtaking, like I almost could reach out in the wilderness.

Noa, I shoot both above and below water a wide variety of outdoor nature subjects and adventure sports using both stills and movie equipment, so require systems that provide the options to capture every aspect of my subjects. This means that I need lenses from ultra-wide to super telephoto (I use mainly Canon XL, Nikon Nikkor, Red Eye, and Optex lenses). The Canon XL camcorder range provides me with the right tools for my work. The XH camcorder range does not.

The small size, weight and compact package of the XH camcorders provide a good option for those who do not require a wider range of add-ons and extra pro-quality lenses. For weddings, I can see that the XH-A1 would be a good option.

Regarding SD and DV. There is no doubt about the quality of HD against SD, but at the moment the worldwide use per household of DVD outstrips the use of Blue-Ray by a substantial margin.

I have had long discussions with my distribution teams and production during the past few years about this very subject, but each conclusion comes back to same conclusion. Even though full quality HD indeed 'looks' better, the actual buying public still mainly watch SD broadcast programs, play normal DVDs on their HD-ready 32",42" and 50" flat TV screens, and watch or download SD quality movies (or compressed HD) from the internet.

To make a living in any subject, the product you are selling needs to provide a far larger and ongoing income source than the actual early outlay costs of the tools of your trade. My heart and eyes say XL-H1s full HD footage capture and broadcast to Geo & BBC HD broadcast plus after-sales via Blue-Ray, but the reality is XL-H1s HDV capture and kept on file, then down-rezzed to best quality SD and outsourced to SD broadcast, SD internet streaming, SD fast internet downloading, and highest possible SD-quality that will fit a DVD or dual-layer DVD disc.

I'm sure that ALL my equipment will be digital HD at some time in the future, but until the buying public are also in that majority I don't see the need to yet make that 100% move.

I might also add that even though for the past half decade my stills photos have all been sold as high quality digital files, the actual equipment that made all those files originated in 35mm film stock.

How wide angle a lens can you get for the XL2?

The XH-A1 is incredibly under-rated for the quality of DOF and images it can produce, without the need of a 35mm adapter. Plus, it's risky buying a camera that doesn't shoot HD unless you're purely a hobbyist.

In the Canon AF XL range there are the 3X SD lens (around 24mm equiv to SLR lens) and the 6X HD lens. A Century, Optex or Red Eye 0.7 X wide adapter lens screwed to the front of either of original XL lenses will get you much wider. Or go even wider with a 0.5X lens.

For example, the Optex twin 0.7X multi-coated quality lens set when used with the CANON 3X lens will convert the focal length from 3.4mm to 1.7mm.

At the other end of the spectrum, a Canon or Nikkor 600mm ED-IF lens on the Canon XL2 or XL-H1 body will be produce an image frame for shooting extreme telephoto footage at approximately 4,500mm!

...Plus, it's risky buying a camera that doesn't shoot HD unless you're purely a hobbyist.

In my view, this is completely untrue.

I love the quality of HDV and especially HD on a 32" or 42" HD TV screen, but also love the quality of XL2 full 16:9 SD footage shown on that very same TV...and more importantly, so do the buyers of that movie offered at a far lower price (due of course to lower initial outlay and production costs).

Yes, I have the option of archiving the HDV footage from The XL-H1s just in case I need to use it in a HD program in 5-years time; but in reality, I'll have already made the majority of possible sales of that footage in down-rezzed SD and by then will be filming new subject matter with another camera that probably blows HDV apart.

There is a big move towards TV being eventually completely internet-based, and the future is constant live-streaming and not downloading huge files (at least not until internet is run via huge GB per second connections). Even the latest internet-based companies in my field of work are almost 100%-SD movie based, with downloads of normal DVDs (not Blue-Ray), or real-time short clip 'tasters' streamed for instant viewing (people would never sit and wait for a full length feature film to load onto a screen).

I can't see full-rez HD footage giving me any advantage or indeed more importantly, actually increasing my yearly income...at least not this year :)

As for what I would be using the camera for, it would be for short films, and possibly skate videos (though short films come way before the skate videos). Seeing as I'm studying cinematography, the look of the images produced is what means most to me. Unfortunately, price does come into play, since I'm a somewhat poor student. At the moment, I own a GL2, but feel I need to step up to a much better camera.

As for what I would be using the camera for, it would be for short films, and possibly skate videos (though short films come way before the skate videos). Seeing as I'm studying cinematography, the look of the images produced is what means most to me. Unfortunately, price does come into play, since I'm a somewhat poor student. At the moment, I own a GL2, but feel I need to step up to a much better camera.
When you say step up to a much better camera, in what respect do you mean? What are the shortcomings of the camera you are using for what you are doing?

For skate videos, I don't think you want and XL camera, SD or HD. Typically these are done with small cameras, frequently with fisheye adapters. I'm not sure how easy it is to swing around an XL series camera to follow skaters.

Tony has a well-defined and proven need for the XL camera and the additional lenses, and I imagine quite a bit of additonal equipment. However, to someone beginning a career, and still learning the basics, I'm not sure what Tony uses would be much help, perhaps a hindrance.

The XH-A1 is a nice step up from the camera you have. If cost is a big factor, I believe a well-maintained used XH-A1 (not the new s) can be gotten for a very reasonable price.

The XH-A1 has a lot of controls for image, has excellent physical controls and it produces an outstanding image. It has been used successfully on feature films, including the $20 million dollar Crank 2.

As I said before, I'm not sure lens interchangeability is a virtue unless one knows exactly what lenses will be used and how they will be used.

I'm not sure what kind of short films you plan to do, but the XH-A1 no doubt would work for you, and it is a huge step up from the GL2.

I have very high standards for the look that I want to obtain when making a short film or just shooting random scenes working on my cinematography, the GL2 isn't living up to my standards. Lack of depth of field, not a wide-angle lens at all, has a tendency to shake if the wind is blowing too hard and you're zoomed in a lot, filming in low-light isn't the greatest either.

I have very high standards for the look that I want to obtain when making a short film or just shooting random scenes working on my cinematography, the GL2 isn't living up to my standards. Lack of depth of field, not a wide-angle lens at all, has a tendency to shake if the wind is blowing too hard and you're zoomed in a lot, filming in low-light isn't the greatest either.
Regarding your list...
Lack of depth of field... are you meaning you want a shallower depth of field? If so, the cure is bigger chips or a 35mm adapter, or it's a lens wider open (lower number f-stop). The 1/3" chip cameras will all give the same results and smaller chip cameras will do worse as far as shallow depth of field.

Not a wide-angle lens at all... an adapter can help, and an adapter would probably be needed on any of the fixed lens cameras. The XH-A1 is quite wide on it's own, and the adapters/converters available for a reasonable price (Canon and Century for my money). A changeable lens camera is great if you can afford the lenses. One such camera, the JVC HD series has changeable lense, but most people who bought it with tight budgets ended up using only the inferior stock lens. The excellent wide-angle lens listed at $13,000... 3x the cost of the camera. The price has come down to about $8-9,000, but it's still not an option for most people.

has a tendency to shake if the wind is blowing too hard... I think this is probably more a function of the tripod and head and the way the camera is attached. All the smaller cameras will be similar in similar conditions mounted on similar equipment. If you want shots in very high wind, clamps and other mounting devices might be needed. For long telephoto shots it may be necessary to spend more on a tripod and head than on the camera.

low light shooting... a standard definition camera is generally superior to the HDV cameras out now. However, rather than considering the XL SD camera, you might want to think about a used PD170. This camera is legendary as a low-light champ, and it comes with a wide angle adapter, so you don't have to buy something additional. Yes, it is SD, but it has been used for feature films. From what you've said, I think this might be a great upgrade over the GL2 for your current needs. (It shoots 3:4, but has a 16:9 mode, though this cuts off part of the chip. However, for your current requirements. This should be okay. Otherwise, if you want a native 16:9 camera, I would still recommend the XH-A1.)

low light shooting... a standard definition camera is generally superior to the HDV cameras out now.

If you want hdv and low light you can consider a sony fx1000, I have seen comparisons against a vx2100 and if not zoomed in the fx1000 was equally light sensitive. It is missing xlr's but guess that the Z5 has the same lens if you want that option?

Lack of depth of field,
Moving to a 1/3" chip from your 1/4" will make a difference, but its still not going to give you huge DOF. But that's life with 1/3" chips :) We learn to deal with it creatively, and the DOF issue hasn't stopped people from making commercially successful theatrical projects with Canon HDV camcorders. If DOF is extremely important and you're on a tight budget, I'd recommend seriously looking at something like an HV20/30/40 in conjunction with a 35mm adapter. The consumer controls are kind of a bugger to work with, but the end result can be made to look quite spectacular; you just gotta put in the extra time.


not a wide-angle lens at all,

Well the XH-A1 definitely has a nice wide angle, and of course you can add a WA adapter. I personally have not felt the need to get a WA adapter for my XH-A1 because its lens is already very wide.


has a tendency to shake if the wind is blowing too hard and you're zoomed in a lot,

Well... that's not really a camera issue :) A better and/or heavier tripod or head is going to help here. The XH series is somewhat heavier than the GLs so that'll certainly help, but its probably not the cure all.


filming in low-light isn't the greatest either.
The XH-A1 is pretty decent in low light. Not the best, but totally adequate. Having said that, for narrative work/short films that shouldn't be an issue, since you control the light. Also if for some reason you shoot with poor lighting a lot, you can probably forget about using 35mm adapters since they suck up a ton of light.


Bottom line, for a student of cinematography that wants to shoot short films you absolutely cannot go wrong with the XH-A1. The massive amount of image control and tunability is incredible, the images are extremely sharp, color is fantastic, manual controls plentiful and it has a robust XLR audio system. Used these things are just over $2,000. Honestly just a few years ago the thought of a professional 1080P 24fps camcorder for two grand was just a silly fantasy.

Lack of depth of field...

...its still not going to give you huge DOF.Sorry but I have to hammer on you guys just a bit, because your terminology is backwards. This is an information site, and we want to be sure that we're putting out correct information. The GL2 and any other camcorder with small 1/4" chips has no "lack" of depth of field at all. Generally speaking, the smaller the sensor, the deeper the field of focus. The GL2 actually has huge DOF, and that's not what you're looking for.

What you guys want is shallow DOF, or less DOF -- not more. I know that you know what you want, but please take care to describe it correctly for the benefit of other folks reading the site. And while not everyone (such as myself, for instance), desires shallow depth of field, many people consider shallow DOF to be a critical element in putting together a film-like look. So as you're working to attain that characteristic, it's important that you describe it correctly... otherwise the confusion is going to lead to more confusion, therefore yielding conflicting advice and information.

What the GL2 has: lots of DOF. Huge DOF. Is not lacking for depth of field.

What you want: less DOF. Shallow DOF. Depth of field which has a narrow plane of focus.

I've worked trade shows before (DV Expo and VideoMaker Expo) and have had people come up to the camera counter saying, "I'm a filmmaker and I need a camera that has more DOF." And my reply is, "these cameras already have too much depth of field, and if you're a filmmaker, then you're probably looking for less DOF, not more."

Shallow depth of field = out of focus background = part of the film-like look = less DOF (not more DOF).

Hope this helps,

grr, I'm still torn. many of you say good things about the XL2, and many of you say good things about the XHA1. Given that I can most likely find a used 35mm adapter in the classifieds section and buy that at a later time, I would probably obtain the look I want more with an XHA1 and an adapter than I would an XL2 and an adapter, yes?

I just really don't want to make the wrong decision here. and who knows, maybe neither of these cameras are the one for me, but I'm having a hard time figuring out what is.

I reckon the XL2 would be the mistake. Still most my clients want a SD output however when the initial meeting take place when I mention that I will also give them a HD file of their project / film etc they are even happier.

It will just make you more future proof. I always try and buy best product of what I can afford with the best technology.

My 2C worth

And on top of that, HDV source makes a better 16:9 SD product. Period.
Bill

This is an obvious question, but have you seen and handled an XL2? The camera is quite different than you might expect if you have not seen and handled one. You may or may not like it.

The XH-A1 is more similar to the GL2, just a bit larger

And on top of that, HDV source makes a better 16:9 SD product. Period.
Bill

Hi Bill. Having owned an XL2 before getting my XH-A1, I would not agree with such a blanket statement. The XL2 makes great SD footage, and it stands up very well against HDV material, especially when there is a lot of moving fine details in the image. Not surprisingly due to the heavy compression involved, the HDV codec is not as solid as DV and you can see degradation when the image gets too "busy". The XH-A1 is also noisier than the XL2, this has been commented on since the XH-A1 first came out.

Richard

...many of you say good things about the XL2, and many of you say good things about the XHA1.

Well, this is an XH thread, so you'll hear a lot of good things about the cams. ;)

I think Jack Walker got it right with recommending a gently used Sony PD-170 if you can live with SD footage. If you can find someone willing to part with theirs, that is. Low light is awesome, but 16:9 footage suffers a bit. You will not get any client "wow factor" when they see the PD-170 camcorder, though. Just had to mention it, because some clients can be that way.

The XL2 wouldn't be a top choice unless you don't want the extra "kludge" of a 35mm adapter and will shoot mostly 16:9. The XL2 video lenses can cost just as much as buying a 35mm adapter and a good 35mm lens. At the time XL-2 was released, no other Canon camera in the same price range offered the optics of the XL2. Ever since Canon put the excellent optics in a one-piece camcorder, my desire to have an XL series has gone down drastically. Unlike the PD-170, though, the XL2 has native 16:9 sensors, so you'll get better 16:9 footage. You can also get a very good CRT EVF for the XL2. Again, money is the limiting factor.

Since you are studying cinematography, you'll appreciate the depth of picture customization possible with the XH series. Add the Canon CONSOLE software, and life gets a lot easier. Sony may offer the same customizing options in their competing cams, but I can only speak for what I have used.

That's all I have to say about that.

Having owned the XL2, XL H1, and now the XL H1S (and having extensive experience with the XH A1) I'd say go for the XH A1.

I loved my XL2 at the time, but sans interchangeable lenses, the XH A1 really has so much more too offer. The amount of image control is really staggering compared to the older XL2.

Unless you have a large XL lens collection, I'd go for the XH. It also shoots widescreen SD if that is what you need as well.

I think I'm going to buy a used XHA1 and a used 35mm adapter. that should give me the look that I'm striving for. (and yes, I know I'll have to purchase lenses, but I already have some, and I also have a contact that I can get more from)

does the XHA1 shoot in 24fps?

Sure does.

It records 60i, 30p, and 24p (24p is laid to tape without any pulldown).

Richard,
Let me get specific then. I produce a much better SD DVD with the A1 than with the VX2100. I am not a pixel peeper, so I don't get involved with compression types and ratios and so on. My clients don't either. My product is better with the A1. That's all. I don't know a thing about the XL2, but I imagine it's a fine camera.
Bill