Although the XL2 looks like a really nice camera, I'm sorry to say that I won't be making a purchase this time. Without it being an HD camera, I feel that there is not enough of a difference between it and the previous model to justify the cost of upgrading. If I had the original XL1, not the XL1s, then I would probably consider it. The added resolution is nice, but I wonder just how much better the image will look in a side by side comparison, especially in standard 4:3 mode. If it's a night and day difference, which I doubt it will be, then I may have to break the bank...

I'm curious as to how many current XL1/XL1s owners plan to purchase the XL2.

I think XL2 is not for event videography like wedding, 5.5 lux, not even close to PD150. I won't exchange my DSR250.

Well I'm not in the XL2s target market, but I'm hoping the new features/additions trickle down to the lower end.

I'd buy a GL3 with many of those features. Especially the hi-res 16:9 + 30p, that'd be a keeper.

Well, the better image quality and the 24p and 30p are nice. I like the phantom power as well. It has a lot of nice new additions.

Pending output images and such, I will probably purchase one, but not anytime soon. Maybe within 6 months if it makes a beautiful 16x9 24p image.

Rick,
The differences between the XL1 and the XL2 represent far more that a little more resolution and a few tweaks. The XL2 is a fundamentally different product aimed at a different market segment than the XL1's target from the late 1990's. The difference is enormous.

Certainly, you know best what your work calls for. But unless you're dead-set on getting a HD camera (in which case, why aren't you already using one?) I think it's awfully early to be so resolute on the XL2, either for or against.

But out of curiosity if your position is firm why are you encouraging a poll?

As an indie filmaker using the XL1, I will definitelly consider the XL2, althrough I will wait for some users reviews and production maturation (a few months). According to the specs, the features set definetely worth the price, and the backward compatibility with the majority of the XL1 accessories and lenses make it even more attracting. I don't care about the missing of HD format. Here in Canada, there is no HD broadcasting I am aware of, and the HDTV sets are so rare! The true 16X9 mode, true progressive, added resolution, phantom power, full range of adjustements on the picture, and backward compatibility with the excellent Canon manual lenses, it's way over my expectations!

I will need more information before I decide. I don't like Sony cameras so they are out, the only one that I would consider is the DVX100 which I'm still looking at. I currently have an XM2

So my reasoning so far would be

I want built in XLR - I can get this from DVX though and it has them next to the mic holder IIRC which is better for on cam mics, but the back ones on the XL2 would suit me more for off cam micing.

I would like barrel markings - DVX has them Canon manual lens would (Not sure if the manual lens is as good as the DVX's though)

A "pro" style look is important - I shoot a reasonably amount of out in the field news style stuff where there is a risk of arrest if I look like an activist just filming a demo. Looking the part with a good looking camera would definately help that.

16:9 - Not important but I might not be knowing what I'm missing here.

Interchangeable lenses - Unlikely I'll need that

Price - DVX wins hands down

LCD - Puss on the Xl2 (2") compared to DVX

BNC for video out sounds like a nice idea. I've never used a camera like that but I've always hated the crappy video out plugs.

So from that I'd almost convince myself the DVX is the way to go, but I don't like the look of it. The proof will be in the pudding. Roll on footage.

I really want to see the specs on the audio for the Xl2. That could be a clincher for me as I don't want to shoot Double System if I can afford it but want good quality audio.

Aaron

I would like barrel markings - DVX has them Canon manual lens would (Not sure if the manual lens is as good as the DVX's though)


Personnally, I am always amazed by the quality and performances of my 14X manual and I always thought that it was one of the best lenses available in the prosummer market segment (removable or fixed).

But I would like to have some users input on that. I beleive that Ken own both the DVX and the Xl manual lens, perhaps you could compare them?

Ken,

I guess I didn't make myself clear. I'm not dogging the XL2. I think it's a fantastic camera, the best thing in it's class. I would be lining up to get one, _If_ I didn't already own an XL1s. Of course there are plently of upgraded features over the XL1s, but in _my_ case, not enough to justify the cost. That's why I was asking other XL1 users their position on purchasing the XL2 -- to see someone else's point of view...and maybe persuade me to upgrade! (Yes, deep down inside I want to buy one. But for $5000, I can wait a year or so for an HD model).

Why I don't already have an HD camera? Well, my day job doesn't call for one yet. But I would very much like to use the format for my private projects. Plus, wouldn't it be nice to have all the footage I take from now on in high-resolution format so when the day comes that HDTV is the mainstream I won't have to reshoot? Of course, I know that this will cost me time converting the footage if I want to show it on conventional systems. Anyway, If Sony or Panny come out with a 3 CCD HD cam this year for under $6000 I will definitely consider buying it.

Regarding all this HDV hype, can someone point me to some good pages on the subject as I guess I need to learn more about it. To me it sounds like a crock of marketting hype! MPEG2 compressed video. Worse than DV compression right? A pain in the arse to edit right? WRONG?

Aaron

<<<-- Originally posted by Jean-Philippe Archibald : I beleive that Ken own both the DVX and the Xl manual lens, perhaps you could compare them? -->>>

Chris sometimes ribs me by saying that I have "a barn load of cameras". <g>

I used to own the 14x manual lens. To some degree I miss it. It was, to my aging eyes, the sharpest lens Canon made for the XL platform. If you know exactly what you're trying to accomplish and have the time / skill to manually set your shot up that lens was (is) like a surgical scalpel.

The 16x Manual Servo is not quite as sharp as the 14x but, frankly, you'd only notice the difference on certain types of shots.

To a great degree the DVX100A's (and 100's) "Leica" lens is not fairly comparable to any of the individual XL lenses. It's also hard to make any accurate direct comparison with the XL's, since the issue of different camera resolutions and imaging options mucks-up the picture. But if I normalize the platform differences purely for the sake of aesthetic observation I would say that the DVX100A's lens at its widest setting is a bit sharper than the 3x Wide lens at a comparable focal length for the XL1. (Wide shots, in general, suffer a bit on DV.) At an intermediate focal length (close to normal) I'd say that the DVX is very close to the 16x Manual Servo, with perhaps a slight edge to the DVX lens. At 10x I think that the 16x Manual Servo might look just a tad better than the DVX at roughly that same spot.

But, again, this is purely subjective musing on my part. I've never spent time (or worry) trying to objectively compare the lenses on the two cameras. However, direct comparisons of the lenses when mounted on the XL2 will be far more camera-normalized.

Thanks a lot Ken, and you will most likely add another camera to your collection in August, no?

Aaron,
HDV is, fundamentally, a consumer/prosumer-oriented high definition recording format. That is, its goal is to deliver broad-market HD-like products at prices within Visa and Mastercard limits.

HDV is really not even truly off the ground yet so it's a bit early to judge this, too. Stay tuned to this channel, as we'll be featuring much more on this subject in the near future.

<<<-- Originally posted by Jean-Philippe Archibald : Thanks a lot Ken, and you will most likely add another camera to your collection in August, no? -->>>

Probably not in August. Confidentially <g> I've been spending most of my time with still photography lately and just got a Canon 1D Mark II (a truly remarkable camera) and a few additional lenses. This time I think I'll let the early-adopters shake the XL2 down for a while. Meanwhile, I've a DVX100 to sell here and still have my DVX100A to satisfy my 24P/Cinegamma/knee-tweak cravings for a while. Plus, like Rob, I still really love my XL1S -- shortcomings and all.

Yo Rob, I think people are confusing us again, calling you Rik:-)

I will be trying to get some hands on time with the XL-2 once they have them in stores here, I've used the crap out of my XL-1 and it's really starting to show it's age, I'm pretty sure that if I can save the money up, I will get one. At least that's how I feel right now, I still have to see how much of a difference the image is over my XL-1.

At least my wife didn't freak out when I told her I would buy one if I had the money, so maybe that's a good sign. She knows that eventually I will need a new camera, I've tried out the DVX-100 a little and it just doesn't feel right in my hands, although it does take great video.

I gotta pull all my strings at the store where I get all my gear and see what kind of deal they can give me. If I had some kids, I would try to sell them!

Rik, it would make perfect sense for you to get the XL2 since you have all those extra lenses, and since your XL1 is on its last leg. How many times did you have it repaired in the last year?

I wonder if the XL2 supports only Firewire Basic like the XL1 and XL1s?

Rob -- yes -- FireWire 400 (plain vanilla IEEE1394) on the XL2.

I have relatively recently acquired a PD170 and a Mac G5, as well as a PDX10 and other supporting gear, and, of course, a tidy bit of debt to be overcome, which I'm perfectly happy to do with my new tools.
So, given that, I'll not be getting a new, "serious" camera again until...next year? And when I do get another camera...gosh, I don't know. I think I'll keep walking, on towards bigger chips, more resolution, more standard lens choices, and go for a DVC200. The XL2 is cool, variable frame rates, "native" 16:9, and what not, but I think I want a cam that will help me into a broader range of job opportunities, as well as allow me to grow exponentially as a cameraman/filmmaker. I'm turning out to be more of docummentary style filmmaker, and couldn't take a step backward in the way of light sensitivity, whether or not I'm in a position to control the lighting.
So that's me, at least for now. I am admiring this new, unknown camera, but somewhat from a distance.

I most certainly will get the XL2 once it lands on our Belgian shores! I'm still using my now 6 years old original XL1 (one of the first in Belgium), with Anton Bauer light and batteries and Sennheiser wireless mike to shoot for a weekly fashion show. It has never let me down, and I've taken it everywhere with me: the Egyptian desert, Miami Beach, all major cities in Europe, ... in all types of planes.

Better low light performance is critical to me, as is the compatibility with my AB add-ons. They both seem to be OK. I will most likely get the XL2 body, and use it with my old lens, end decide later which lens I will choose: the manual one or the new 20x automatic one. I really like the stabilizer, would hate to loose it, but am used to true manual lenses, from my broadcast background.

I've been holding back my money for an XL1s and will probably buy the XL2. As the DVX is, like the Sonys, considered "Pro-Gear" here in Germany (unlike the XL1s), the XL2 could be my way to affordable 25p.

Of course, I'll have to wait and see for the actual street price when it hits the road here in Germany. And I'd like to see some of the reviews first. I only once bought into a hype,
a Radeon 8500 graphics card, and while it's a fine graphics adapter to the very day, the terrible drivers issued bei ATI kept me from using it's full capabilities until it was out of fashion again.

Taught me to better check out how it performs first!

Aaron: I have one question for you:

" how many NLE's support editing in HDV " ?

The answer to that question scares me at night. Heh. One HDV
(yes, it *is* HDV) camera has been out quite a while already and
you can still edit it in a couple of applications.

Now you might want to talk about AspectHD (if i remember
it correctly) for Premiere so it supports HDV. I'll rephrase the Q:

" how many NLE's NATIVELY support editing in HDV " ?

That scares me even more.... must be a difficult thing to
implement huh (to anyone who is curious, yes it is!).

I really really dislike it being MPEG2. That is just wrong to me.
MJPEG would've been far better as a format, but perhaps not
at 25 mbps. Keep in mind that this whole HDV is 5-gop MPEG2
to boot. I understand why they did it (try to decrease the effect
of compression) and why they probably went with MPEG2 in the
first place (try to stay as compatible as possible within the DV
standard so less changes are needed throughout the process).

It just feels plain wrong. I've seen some footage at IBC last
year and it looked very bad in my opinion. BUT, that was
ofcourse not under any controlled conditions, so I don't really
want to comment on it. I'm hoping to be able to really test the
format hands on in my own setting compared to another camera.

DV is more like MJPEG and I guess the format just wasn't
compressing well enough for an HD picture.

I feel that the only way to truly do HD well is to go to another
format all together (also for 1080 in the near future), possibly
recording straight to harddisk. Then again, that would have
costed a lot of more money for them and the industry would've
needed to come up with a true prosumer HD codec which it is
struggeling to do (Cineform seems to do a great job though!).

Ofcourse, these are my personal "feelings" on the whole HDV subject.

Will I buy an XL2?

Dunno yet. As it stands, I don't have any camcorder at all. I'm getting ready to shoot an educational/documentary film (as soon as I finish all my preproduction work, which is taking a lot longer than I'd planned on), and I'm not going to buy anything at all until I'm ready to shoot - until then, it's just junk collecting dust. But I plan to use the camera for a long time after that on a lot of different things, including more eductational and documentary style projects and entertainment/feature style shoots. So to me, versatility is probably the most important thing in a camera, and the XL series modular design makes it pretty much the way to go.

I'd been planning to get an XL1s (back when I still thought I'd be ready to shoot this month). Now I'm starting to wonder if I want to get an XL2 or just look for a good deal on a used XL1s from an upgrader looking to get rid of one. I'm torn. I really would rather have the XL2, but since I'm just getting started it may be a lot smarter to go with a cheaper camera. With the XL series, it's easier to do because I can always upgrade just the camera body later and keep all the accessories I accumulate.

On the other hand, some of the features on the XL2 are really nice for some of the projects I plan to do later. The increased resolution, especially, is a big selling point (although I want to see how real world footage comes out first). I'm also really excited about the native 16:9 and progressive scan features (again, I want to see how it comes out in the real world).

Waiting on an XL2 also means I pretty much can't shoot before September, but that's not really a big deal. This is an entirely self financed "it's done whenever it gets done" kind of project, and I've only spent a couple hundred bucks on preproduction stuff so far, so I'm not waiting desperately for a return on investment. Plus, I'm still putting everything else together, so it may very well be September before I'm ready to shoot anyway. I decided at the very beginning to do this right, not fast.

Real world prices will also play a factor. Nobody actually sells the XL1s at MSRP, and the same will almost certainly be true of the XL2 - although maybe not in the first few months when it's a hot item.

Right now, I'm leaning toward the XL2, but it's hard to say. All else being equal, it's certainly the camera I want to get. :)

Unless something real HD comes out in the next
month or two I will be buying an XL2. Why?

I have had an XL1 for over 5 years. It has been a wonderful camera,
but it is literally worn out. The camera now can only record
after the first five minutes of tape and before the last twenty minutes
without constant drop outs. The transport is just about toast,
but this is only after thousands of hours of head wear.

I have an EOS adapter and a couple of nice Canon 35mm lens.
For wildlife videography I was happy to learn that the XL2
will still work with this EOS set up. In fact, I will have even a greater
magnification with the XL2. Those reasons coupled w/ true 16x9, 30P
(my favorite frame rate), and XLR inputs w/ phantom
makes the XL2 a real winner imo. I also
appreciate the fact that I can buy the camera without a lens.

I think this approach was a good move from Canon, and that the XL2 is more of
an olive branch to their past XL1 customers who simply want an great SD
upgrade now. Canon has not forgotten them nor left them out to dry.
Not a revolutionary upgrade, but a solid evolutionary move.

The only additional things I would have
really liked to have included would have been an SDI output
(uncompressed) and the hi res. viewfinder. ;)

Doesn't Canon plan on making some kind of HD camcorder
in the next year anyway? That *should be* the REVOLUTIONARY camera imo.
I really hope that camera is NOT HDV, but in fact a much better
codec such as H.264 or DVCPro 100. 25mbps just IS NOT ENOUGH bandwidth
for HD using MPEG-2.

If it has to be HDV because Canon joined that "club",
I surely hope they'll have an SMPTE 292 jack for uncompressed 292M output to
hard drive or VTR from the camera's processor.

HDV is fine for talking heads, but it won't work
for nature videography as blowing grass, leaves and rippling water will
result in a hideous macro block mosaic. A talking head seems to barely hang
together in HDV.

If today's XL2 was HDV only, I doubt I would be interested.

I'll definitely be buying as soon as I can. I recently aquired a DVX100a in addition to my XL1s and I was shocked at the difference in image quality. If the XL2 brings the XL series up to or surpasses that quality I''l be really happy to have two cameras that between them (and the EOS lenses) cover all the filming bases I'm ever likely to encounter. As tools they dovetail nicely.

if you want to make nonfiction documentaries then you can stay with xl1/xl1s, there's really no point in upgrading to xl2. the biggest feature with xl2 is the 24p.

if you want to make fiction movies with the intent of transferring to film or not then xl2 is the only way to go. 24p mode is simply too much to pass up for any moviemaker that wants the 'film-look' and don't want to 'fake it' in post.

i just got my xl1s in january and want to trade it in for xl2 soon as it comes out.

I have owned a Pany DVX-100 and a Sony PD-150 ( and really beat up one I admit) and this looks like one of the best and most complete cameras to come out for us Pro-DV shooters in some time! I am still waiting for some big reviews but I am already getting my cash ready for this camera. I own 4 Canon cameras ( tow MX-2's, one XL-1 , and a MV-6i for capture) and I really love their look so Canon is my fav vs Pany or Sony so I can't wait . Bring it ON!!!!!!!!

I have an XL1s that has been great but I really should have a backup camera. I will consider a XL2 after I get to play with one for a bit, but I may look for another XL1s, then wait a year or so and see how the 2's are holding up.

I do like the fact that the lens system carries over; I love using my Fujinon Optex 14x as well as the EOS adapter.

This is a poll.... right? Then my answer is "Yes"!

Hi, I got in late last night from Alabama and woke up to Christmas Morning! The XL2. What a beautiful thing it is. I spent a lot of time today reading all the posts on it. This is my first impression. Canon, THANK YOU. I had the XL-1 and now the XL-1s. I loved the video I got from both of them. I travel all over and this is my camcorder of choice. Excellant picture quaility, soft colors, great feel and zoom control, and that IS can't be beat (try videoing a tree sloth up in a tree, from a boat on the Amazon river with anything else). But, Canon has also allowed me to keep the toys I love. Namely, my 3X, my 14X, my 1.6 extender, my battaries, car chargers, macro filters, case, and all my other goodies. I can buy the lens now and wait till I need the body, or buy the body and wait for the lens. Canon has done us all a great service buy making it all compatable. But, in answer to the question about buying one. Well, yes, on January 17th, 2006 (or sooner if needed). Bob Safay

On paper, the specs are nice and impressive. Except for one: 5.5lux low-light rating just plain sucks. Sorry, but I was expecting the XL2 to surpass the DVX100A, not just playing catch-up. The only real plus it has over the Panny, aside from the interchangeable lens of course, is the native 16x9 CCDs.

Overall I am somewhat disappointed. But before I commit to this point of view, I'll wait to see the picture quality and read up on the unbiased reviews

5.5lux... sheesh!!!

Hi,

I have to say - as nice as it sounds -this would have been a killer tool 2 years ago.

Things have changed so much in that time that I think the XL2 - again - nice as it is - is a pale version of what most of us expected from Canon.

Progressive scan, 'true' 16x9 (Hmmm...) and some image tweaks -but still SD, 25mb/s DV. I dunno - sounds like the PD-170 issue again - 'same thing - only a bit better'. Perhaps some of our expectations from Canon to produce another revolutionary camera for the market were a little inflated. Except for the PS, there's really nothing here that I can't get from my (admittedly ageing) DSR-500.

Clearly we're in a 'bridgeing' time right now - HD is the new kid on the block but it isn't the standard yet - SD is the standard but its days are definitely numbered. It must be difficult to decide exactly where to place a product in this changing scheme of things.

Great Camera - and certainly an improvement on the XL1 - but I won't be selling my car to buy one anytime soon.

Best,

DW

Yeah it would be hard to place a product in the changing market, but hey why not change the market yourself? Take a risk why don't they? Panasonic did and it worked for them. I guess you could say they are changing the market with this HDV bollocks, but oh well.

Aaron

Jacques, you have a very valid point. I thought HD was set to be based on H.264, not MPEG-2. I too think MPEG-2 sucks. The world deserves better. I guess I should have read up more on the subject before posting. Maybe I will get the XL2 after all. That is, IF the image quality is _much_ better than the XL1s.

NO

I'm interested to see what this Canon SDK is. Now it's all major speculation but if they could give us access to graphic processing, I'd say it'd be a bloody interesting piece of equipment. Imagine being able to apply film looks and other things in real time to the image.

Aaron

I've lost more jobs over the past year because the aspiring filmmaker wanted to shoot 24P and my "XL-1S wouldn't do that". I shoot mostly independent shorts and features on DV. I am usually the DP and I bring a boatload of equipment to the table. Jibs, dollies,track,lighting, sound, specail effects...the works. Seems like everyone wants 24P lately because it is the new buzz word in the DV arena. Funny thing is 99% of my clients will never transfer their projects to film. Hell, they'll be lucky if they provide their crews with copies on DVD or video. Festivals are projecting direct from DVD, MiniDV, and BetaSP regularly.

I'll buy it as soon as it becomes available.

I like the interchangable lenses because I have an AC to pull focus when I shoot. I like all the in-camera settings. BNC-good. XLR-good. New, bigger, viewfinder- definatly good.

I'm sold.

With all the discussion about HDV here, I will point out a few things about the origin of the DV format and its relationship with high-definition video.

The beginning point for what was first called "DVC" and later shortened to "DV",
is interesting. The DVC Consortium of numerous electronics companies, that joined together to develop the format, had high-definition in mind, from the
first. In fact, it was intended to be a miniature high-definition format and the standard-definition version of it was a secondary function. After spending a few years doing little with what they'd designed, market realities led them to realize that the SD version had an immediate and practical app;lication.

So, the Consortium polished up the SD version of the format and put it on the market. Sony was one of the key players in this and wanted to use their established 8mm cassette for DV. But, the other members felt that this would give Sony too much of an advantage and they wanted to minimize the carry-over popularity of the Sony 8mm HandyCams, to DV.

After negotiations, they made a deal to develop a new and smaller cassette and Sony agreed to wait for a certain time before they'd use their 8mm cassette for a digital format. Hence, the delayed introduction of Sony's Digital8 format. The main purpose of Digital8 was to provide a backwardly-compatible means for transition from analog to digital, for the HandyCam owners. If Sony had been able to dominate the Consortium more, we'd be using the larger 8mm cassette for DV today and Digital8 would never have existed by that name. Personally, I think the larger cassette would have had advantages.

The main point is that DV was first intended to be used for HD and the specifications for that were written into those for the entire format. The original HD version for DV called for the recording frequency to be raised from the SD level of 13.5 MHz, to 23 MHz and for the SD tape speed to be doubled. They didn't have an M-PEG2 compression scheme in mind.

I'm sure that the lower compression of the original CoDec would have produced better high-definition recordings than what now comes from HDV.

Someone else will have to explain why the tape speed was slowed and the compression level raised, for HDV. I'm guessing it was to allow for a full hour of HDV recording on a mini-DV cassette. The main broadcast format for the past 20 years, BetaCam and BetaCam SP, have only gotten 30 min. from their portable camcorders, so it would seem an acceptable limitation, in order to get higher quality. Another possibility is so the HDV bitstream would be compatible with that of D-VHS, which is now used for high-definition. The JVC HDV camcorders can send their output by wire for re-recording, into the newer type of D-VHS HD recorders. I wonder if the original HD CoDec for DV will ever be used?

Steve McDonald

<<I really really dislike it being MPEG2. That is just wrong to me.
MJPEG would've been far better as a format, but perhaps not
at 25 mbps. Keep in mind that this whole HDV is 5-gop MPEG2
to boot. I understand why they did it (try to decrease the effect
of compression) and why they probably went with MPEG2 in the
first place (try to stay as compatible as possible within the DV
standard so less changes are needed throughout the process).

It just feels plain wrong.>>

This really bugs me as well Rob. The other thing that bugs me in the "I'm waiting for the HDV camera" logic is how exactly do people expect to distribute their work in HDV?? I mean MPEG2 is DVD and DVD ain't HD. In the real world A camera as seriously evolved as the XL line with the new big Three: native 16:9, high res and 24/30p is amazing to me. At 5k it's pretty much perfect for most real world applications.

Most anxious to see full res tests. I think Don Berube and I should offer to do a comparison for Canon. We could use the XL1 and XL2 with and without the Mini35 for an A/B comparison. I'm really itching to see 16:9 24p through 35mm glass and DOF...yes, I'm ready to test it.

Personally, I like the new features of the XL-2 however it will probably have the same focus issue as well as it be front heavy, which turns me off from buying another XL camera.

My current XL-1 should be fine for another year or so until I decide to buy what ever camera is available then.

Cheers,
Elie

<<Personally, I like the new features of the XL-2 however it will probably have the same focus issue as well as it be front heavy>>


no focus issue if you use the manual lens.

OK, what is this focus issue?

Aaron

yes, I will buy the Xl2.

Depends upon the low light capability. Thats been the disappointing thing about my XL.

<< what is this focus issue >>

There is no focus issue. Those who suspect a focus issue are those who have not actually used this lens yet. Supposing is not the same as knowing.

Chris, that's what I was thinking. How can anyone who hasn't even used the camera, go on saying there is a focus issue. Was there one with the Xl1s (Not xl1)?

Aaron

Aren't they referring to the focus issues that the 16x lens supposedly had on the XL1, and wondering if there is an issue like that with the new lens?

Not all 16x auto lenses had that issue. In years and years of handling these things I can count on one hand the number of duds that I have come across. My point is how can you judge it if you haven't tried it. Forget the internet, forget the Watchdog and these boards. What is your own personal experience. That's what counts. You don't know until you have it in front of you, that's my point.

I agree 100%, Chris. Everything right now is just speculation. Ultimately, we all have to determine on our own whether a particular cam meets our needs. And I never had the focus problem. I just knew that a number of people have claimed to have focus problems. For the most part, the XL1 lived up to my expectations (other than low light performance).

My XL1 is good for 90% of what I shoot. If I'm doing a short film, I can borrow a DVX100 easily to get the 24p. Sure I'd love to have both in the same package, but I think I'm going to keep saving up for a larger chip camera, or a downpayment on a house.

My other issue is that I'd really need two if I was going to get one, since I would no longer have matching cameras (assuming the XL2 footage looks different than the XL1), and for the price of two, I'd rather just keep saving for a used DSR500, or said downpayment on house.

Who needs a house? You can't take pictures with a house.