The 5.5 Lux rating is listed at 1/60 in 60i, auto mode. Many camcorder camcorder set the lux rating at their slowest availabel shutter speed.

The XL1s was 2 lux at 1/8 shutter speed, which converts to about 16 lux at 1/60. Sounds like the XL2 could be about 1.5 stops faster.

Be interesting to hear field reports from users and what can be done in post befor ethe image becomes unusable for wedding video purposes.

Just to add a quote from Canon:The three CCD image sensors are specifically designed to capture as much image detail as possible and for shooting under extremely low light conditions. In super low light, the XL2 captures crisp and clear digital data. Under extremely bright conditions, the XL2 greatly reduces vertical white streaks and smearsNow on to the real-world tests indeed!

Somewhere on another thread I mentioned that the 4:3 sensing area of the XL2 CCDs was only 71% as large as those of the XL1. Actually, the 71% figure applies only to the reduced width of the 4:3 area. Calculating for the reduced vertical size as well, the total 4:3 area of the XL2 CCDs is only about 51% of that of the XL1 CCDs.

This also means that compared to the Sony VX2100, the XL2 CCD size for the 4:3 area is just 51% as large. The XL2 has 345,000 pixels in this area and the VX2100 has 340,000. So, the XL2 sensing area is not only approximately half the size, but its pixels are only half as large as those of the VX2100.

Since the VX2100 has remarkably sensitive CCD pixels and is the acknowledged best performer in low light, how could the XL2 compete with this Sony camcorder in this respect? Could Canon have acquired new CCDs that somehow were so much more sensitive and effective, that despite having only half the size, they equaled
the Sony sensors' performance?

It appears to me that in order to provide a true 16:9 mode, that the standard 4:3 mode has been compromized on the XL2. Of course, the smaller CCD sensing area of the XL2, gives its lenses a lot more magnification effect or "angle of view", far outdoing the VX2100 in this respect.

With the excellent 1.6X telextender lens piece that fits under the XL2 lens, this lens power is increased even more. I wonder how much of a role the desire to produce more effective lens power, played in Canon's decision to shrink the CCD sensing area?

So, you have two of the top five semipro camcorders, the XL2 and the VX2100, one having great image quality and low-light capabilities, but only mediocre lens power and the other with a powerful lens system, 24p/30p scanning, but probably less low light performance. It would seem that the choice of using one or the other, would be easier to decide, now that the XL2 has been given these more extreme characteristics (at about double the cost of the VX2100, not including extra lenses). As I noted long ago, no one camcorder is ever going to be given all the features and performance capabilities that anyone would want.

Steve McDonald

Steve,

Another way of looking at this is that the sensor area of the 4:3 mask on the xl2 is identical in dimension to the gl2's effective pixel area. Due to its lower pixel density (345k vs 380k) we could expect a modestly improved low light performance, when compared to the gl2. Additionally, I have a strong suspicion that the xl2 is using sony chips..that 680k number has a ring to it and it ain't panasonic.Add to this, canon's claim of new signal processing and their improved lux ratings (5 lux vs. the xl1s's 16 lux at the same fstop), what we are seeing is a substantial improvement over the xl1s in terms of low light performance, and the "potential" for the xl2 to come very close to the performance of the sony cameras in this respect. Most user reports from people who have actually used both cameras suggest that the difference between the xl1s and the sony cam's is about 1 to 1.5 stops.

The thing is... all of these cameras do an amazing job at handling "low" light. Unfortunately there are a lot of amateur videographers that think it'd be cool to shoot in "no" light. Well it isn't...the results in no light situations are hardly ever any good, as the gain and color balance issues degrade the signal beyond hope. Better to get a handy cam and turn on the nightshot...at least you get the cool green glow.

I think this camera is targeted at the serious amateur/professional that wants to work in the minidv format, and most of us know that you can't just walk into a cave and hope the LED's from our watches will be enough.

One last thing...I do agree with you that the xl2 does appear to have compromised the 4:3 format somewhat with this camera. On the other hand, I've used a gl2 for several years, and have never considered it a compromise. It's resolution is certainly the equal of the sony cameras, and only a hair below what i've seen from my DVX100. The biggest improvement the DVX offered in terms of image quality is in progressive mode, thus I have little doubt that the 4:3 image on the xl2 will be a big jump up from the xl1s.

I think that canon made the right move...more people are watching content in 16:9, more of us own HD sets...having a camera with full resolution 16:9 seems like the right direction to me. The xl2 is an appropriate bridge product while we await the mystery that is HDV.

Barry, I have no doubt that a camera with .236-inch, 4:3 CCDs can indeed produce an excellent picture and do well in limited light. An example is my Sony TRV730, a MegaPixel Digital8. It's effective sensing area, with 690,000 video-active pixels, is only about .21-inch, on a single CCD. Yet, this camera delivers an outstanding picture, for a 1-CCD model, especially considering its price. It does quite well in limited light. Any complaints about low-light functions with it have been from people who used the J-PEG still picture capture and didn't understand the light limitations of its very fast mechanical "progressive" shutter for that mode.

So, with much larger pixels on a slightly bigger sensing area than my TRV730 and 3-CCDs to boot, the XL2 could very well produce a great picture. My contention is that relative to the VX2100, which has
twice the CCD sensing area and pixels twice as large as the XL2, it could hardly be expected to match the VX2100 in limited light. This would include most indoor situations, except where special lighting is provided.

But, we'll have to wait and see how the XL2 does in the real world, where number and size comparisons don't count much against actual, observable performance.

Steve McDonald

Hmm. Different companies seem to have different standards for 'minimum' light, even Sony publishes different low light ratings for the same cameras in different markets. So Canon's 5.5 lux might be close to Sony's 1 lux than expected. You also have to take into account that the 5.5 lux rating might be with the standard lens, and possibly you can attach a lens with a wider f/stop. Also, if you use 30p or 24p the camera may become 6dB more sensitive to light or more, as I believe the DVX100 does.

the low light cabality of this camera is better then the xl1s after doing some tests...

for one thing you can go 18db and use noise reduction to get a softer image but blacks stay black and the shot is saved

for more info see my frame grabs

http://www.emptyloft.com/xl2/

Wouldn't the NTSC version technicly have better low-light than the PAL version? The pal version says its low-lux rating is 5.5lx at 50i at 1/50 shutter; the NTSC version says the same for 60i at 1/60 shutter. Once you turn the NTSC model to 24p shouldn't the low light be better since the shutter becomes 1/48 thus allowing more light in?

Actually you can shoot at 1/24 in 24p mode.

And as far as the NTSC models are concerned, why stop at 1/60. You can shoot at 1/30, 1/15 or 1/8 even.

Then there's the gain... go up to +18db.

Low light performance is highly subjective. What is acceptable to one person at 1/15 gained to +18db may not be acceptable to another. How you define "low light" might be different from how somebody else defines it, so I'm not sure how a superlative like the word "better" would have much relevance here.

Just add light!

To be meaningful the low light rating should include the follwing information:

incident light level (e.g., 12 lux)
aperture (e.g., f/1.8)
shutter speed (e.g., 1/60)
gain setting (e.g., 0 dB)
Output (e.g., 20 IRE)
Target reflectance (e.g., 18% gray card)
Video signal to noise ratio (e.g., 30 dB) for luma and chroma.
numbers in above example are for illust5rationpurposes only

Anyone seen those sorts of number published for any camcorder recently? I've heard that some camcorder makers have used something like slowest shutter, max gain (without regard for noise), max aperture and something like 20 IRE from a bright white (~94%) target to deliver their low light spec.

Hi folks

In addition to the XL1, I also own the Sony PD150 used mainly in Wedding reception halls and other low light situation. It pretty well beats the Xl1 hands down. Color balance in low light is much better than the XL1. With the Xl1, the color balance icon would always be blinking indicating that it can't get a lock on the white balance.

How does the XL2 compare to the PD150 under low light conditions? If it betters it, then this is good news for me. In any case, I'm waiting with abaited breath as the XL2 is being launched here in Canada on the 16th. Woohoo!!!

Regards

I really want to buy this camera but after looking around here and asking one or two people. I have still don't know if the XL2 is any better in low light than the XL1s. I don't care about lux ratings I would like someone who has used both and been able to compare the two. I shoot music videos and weddings and I need good low light performance and the XL1s was really disaponting for me and don't want to make the same mistake twice. I know the PD-170 and DVX are good low-light performers but I like the XL's form factor and would like to use it's new features. I won't buy it though if it handles like the XL1s in lower lighting conditions. Resorting to 12db or higher gains which makes my footage look like I switched to a Canon ZR-40!

Hi, found this on a german forum:

http://www.wrc.de/xl2spuk.wmv

It is footage from a basement with no extra light but a small flashlight.

Setting was +12db and 25p (PAL model)

Looks great, almost no noise in the material!

Cheers, Peter

Footage does look noise free but there is tremendous purple fringing around the basement windows.

Too bad it wasn't at full resolution. It's true; the low light is not grainy at all. I really wonder how it compared to the Sony PD170? I also noticed the purple tint, but I'd probably attribute that to the sunlight CTB, and probably some slight color correction.

Hm.. I didn't even notice the purple fringing, but now that you mention it, yes, you are right.

But I as an XL1 (without the "s") owner was somehow impressed that there was no vertical smear at all from any of the light sources. With my cam I always have to make sure to keep the lights out of frame not to get those ugly highlighted vertical lines on the footage.

When I download the footage and try and play it, I just get a black screen with audio which sounds like it's from a movie. I hear some low music soundtrack with a voice with a German accent saying "Hello" in english interspersed throughout... Now that's what I call real low light footage :)

I was rather impressed by the low light video. I especially liked how the "ghost" cast a shadow on the door.

I was just wondering if anyone knew how the xl2 did outdoors at night. I am thinking of doing a documentary out of doors and there would be some astronomy shooting involved. I just want to know if this camera can do the job before I pay the price.

Lars, the camera looks extremely good outdoors at night from what I saw. Do a search for Johnnie's PAL footage. Don't know if it's still around but it was shot at night and the noise was nearly non-existent, which was a big reason why I opted for this camera myself (NTSC version).

You might want to elaborate on your astronomy use though, what and how exactly are you planing to shoot?

BTW if you do not care for 30fps or 24fps progressive scan, maybe your best bet would be the Sony PD170.

Thank you for the information. I plan on taking some shots of Venus and the Moon. I think the moon should be just fine but getting Venus might be a little tricky and that is why I asked the question. The shots will be out in the country so there should not be too much ambient lighting.

Well Lars if you plan to shoot other things than the sky, and can at least bring one light to use as a key or even a kicker, it would look much better, regardless of the camera you'll be using, but I think the XL2 is up to the task. I hate to use the gain up function myself, but it seems to work rather well on the XL2, with minimal noise increase.

Of course no camera will do miracles for you if you shoot in a no light situation. Try to shoot when the sky is clear and the moon is full to get the best natural fill light possible.

Hi all, in the middle of filming a childrens dance show so I've got some nice low light/highcontrast footage if any one wants to see some, any ideas on were I can post/upload it too???

Mike

i don't wanna speak for chris, but he has offered hosting here in the past. pls get in touch with chris hurd.

I've been working as Technical Director and Associate Producer on an indie horror film that's being made in Wellington, NZ. One of the things we are up to is filming in very low level illumination. I've been experimenting with see what I can get away with.

You can see my tests at: http://www.livejournal.com/community/blackspotfilm/2878.html

I think a little more light is needed so that I can close the iris down and get a little more dof, but am not disappointed with what I was able to get.

I only used the manual mode with the stills I've posted.

I don't know what your personal preferences are or what type of film you are making. But to me that level of noise is completely unnacceptable. I never turn my gain up beyond +3 and I avoid that too. This camera is great but the noise at +12 is just too much.

Other than for event video like a wedding reception where the hall is dark I would not use +12. It is acceptable for a wedding video but not for something more professional. Unless you are trying to convey a specific look.

I quite agree with you that the noise is too much. This is all part of the testing to see what we can get away with. I keep coming away with the feeling that it is far better to have too much light than not enough.

Chris, I would personally stick with -3dB or 0dB and then just use lighting to light up your scene a little.

Even though its a horror film and you want that creepy dark look, don't feel you can't use powerful lighting and have to shoot in the dark with dim or low watt lighting.

Hard lighting with barn doors and flags can achieve a great "dark" look, as can lighting from softboxes. Kinos are really great too. If you're on a budget, try using hardware store fluorescent lights.

My biggest challenge is that there are *a lot* of night time scenes which are planned for being shot at night and on a lonely stretch of road with no power points.

I've arranged to try out using Coleman gas lanterns (rated at around 250 watts each) as fill and key lighting and careful placement of some superbright LED's as kickers. The gas lanterns may work - and then they may not, but we wont know till night after tomorrow.

I also am thinking that for scenes where we don't need to see any source of light (torch or headlamp) that we can try working with day for night and grade it in post.

That's what the screen test is for - sorting out the problems before we do the principal photography in another month.

Thanks for your suggestions!

Color Finesse for Adobe After Effects will convert daylight footage to look like night. But from my experience even when converting footage it looks much more realistic when there are highlights on subjects created from some lights. You more or less get flat or even lighting when using the sun.

Your other option is to use headlamps from cars, maybe with some diffusion... you can also get additional 12volt bulbs for some lights like the Lowell Omni light.

I guess in the end it all depends what you need to light.

Good luck with your project though, it sounds interesting.

You might want to check out a book entitled "Lighting for Digital Video and Television" by John Jackman (I think I got that right).

He talks a lot about lighting the exact types of scenes you are referring to.

Best,

Matt

On b&h, they state that the XL2 is 5.5 Lux with f/1.6 in 60i Mode. Is the noise reduction feature making up for the poor 5.5 rating? BTW-Im not quetioning the XL2, ive seen plenty of extremely low light footage with almost no noise, im just curious as to how its possible with a 5.5 lux rating.

John

Those ratings mean squat, since lots of manufacturers will get to a level where the image is unuseable to claim better low light numbers. It's a grey area, for example it can be tested with the gain cranked all the way up, sometimes even with a night vision effect, in order to get better sounding numbers.

And since the manufacturer and only the manufacturer makes the final call as to what is acceptable footage in low light conditions with their product, you can be pretty darn sure that what is an acceptable image to their biased eyes probably won't be for a serious camera operator.

Trust your eyes, those numbers in the consumer and prosumer world are marketing gimmicks and nothing more, just like the frequency range of a mic without a +/- 2db specification. They are not an accurate measure based on a standard across the industry.

As an XL2 owner I can attest that it is indeed a fantastic camera in low light situations.

I agree david, the footage speaks for itself. Even if it is a more accurate number though, it wasnt a good marketing move by canon.


John

From the XL2 manual : Minimum ilumination is 0.7 lux in 60i, 1/8 shutter, F/1.6 aperture, +18dB gain, with the 20x IS lens, in manual mode. But no indication what IRE a, say, 90 % white card produces. This corresponds to 5.5 lux at 1/60 shutter.

I love this camera but I personally feel the low light capabilites are not its strong suit. I consistently have to bump the gain to +3 or sometimes +6 to achieve the same exposure as my partners original DVX100 (non A). The quality of the image is still very good but there is a little noise. My point is that more pixels crammed into a smaller area of a 1/3 inch CCD means that it will be less sensitive to light.

In addition the XL2 seems to have a slight saturation decrease or color shift when in low light. I undersatnd this happens in all cameras but in comparison to the DVX it is more pronounced. And the DVX is generally not considered to be a good low light camera. As an example under the same "not well lit environment" both cameras wide open and the XL2 gains at +3 I got similar images but the DVX retained better color in red channel than XL2. This is not scientific but an observation that I have made. The XL2 seems to really shine when you give it proper lighting.

Remember if you are doing dramatic work you should always properly light the scene. Even if you light it then underexpose to achieve a dark look, it started out well lit.

I'm in the process of purchasing a new camera. I'm strongly considering the XL2 but have some concerns over its lack of low light performance. The camera rates at 5.5 lux min, while Sony's PD170 rates at 1 lux.

I realize I'm not comparing apples to apples here, the XL2 is a superior camera in just about every category, but... I will have situations such as low lit weddings, church services, etc. to contend with.

Can anybody shed some light (pardon the pun) on this and possibily ease my mind on purchasing the XL2.

Thanks!
Joe

Adam Wilts review of the xl2 includes the following

"I was surprised that the XL2 is only 1/4 stop slower than the xl1s. It's comparable to a sony pd150 and no more than a stop slower than a dvx100 or pd170. At +18db, the XL2 was much quieter than the xl1s, and about midway between the pd150 and DVX100 in visible noise"

Plus 18db is a hefty boost in low light. It's a good review overall, in the March DV magazine.

Hi Joe. I have an XL2 and also a VX2000 which I believe is similar in low light performance to the PD170. The VX2000 is MUCH better than the XL2 if there is not much light. As the lighting levels drop, the XL2 first starts to show more noise, then it loses colour saturation. The Sony seems to hold up until it is almost dark. If I know I'm going to be shooting in situations where I think the lighting might be bad, I will take the VX2000 rather than the XL2. The XL2 is a good camera, but it is best to use it according to its strengths.

Richard

I absolutely agree with Richard. When I got the XL2 I was very concerned about it's low light quality. The biggest issue is that the saturation seems to just fall off the face of the planet if the light drops below a certain threshold. That is normal with any camera but the threeshold for the XL2 seems pretty high! (meaning it starts to lose colors sooner than you'd expect).

I think it is best suited for scripted, dramatic, work on well lit sets. I would not reccomend it to event video that is strictly in dark conference rooms and banquet centers. I mean....it will work but you'll definitely be gaining up and probably won't see as much color as others. If you do plan to use it for these events then invest in an onbaord light. I know....I hate them myself but in most of the shots it really helps make the image clean-up and only once in a while does it have that "fake" camera light look!
It has saved my butt several times.

I didn't see any general threads regarding iighting, but since low lighting on the XL2 is the subject of my current question, I thought this might be the place. I am fairly new to the XL2 and I purchased it for a few reasons, partly because of the great price I got, the form and style of the camera, and a mostly because of the imagery. I have really liked Canons for a long time and I really loved the way that the XL2 captured imagery (especially in well lit settings - the colors are beautiful). For most of my endeavors, I plan to have alot of light control, but in two weeks, I am shooting a series of interviews for a project. I scouted the location and discovered that the room that I will use is abysmally lit. It is a quiet subdued church library - very contemplative, etc- but dim as can be.

I am a little concerned about this. I have both the VL-3 and the VL-10 as well as a small light kit I am borrowing that includes thin stands and 80watt standmount lights for lighting the subject for interviews and I am not concerned about that....but the rest of the room behind the subject will be providing a contemplative backdrop for the interviews. There is a window in at the back of the room where some diffused sunlight will come it, but the walls of the room will pretty much be dark, especially if the lens is zeroing on the sun light from the window...

Here is my situation...I wanted to look at getting some larger stand mount lights to provide basic area fill for a room that size and I look at oniine vendors only to find a pretty vast price range for photo and video light kits. B&H offers great stuff for great prices, but it still seems that a basic kit for what I was looking at was between $300 - $400....

So, today, I went to Home Depot and bought a work light stand with two 500 watt halogen work lights with independent swivel on a 6 foot telescoping stand. (Sure, the stand is yellow but I've got 1000 watts of light here - I figure I can paint the stand black or silver for about 2 or 3 dollars)

The whole kit cost under $30 and is very durable - no it does not come with a travel bag or case - but it seems like basically the structure of the lights are similar to some of the ones I saw marketed for a WHOLE lot more money.

I figure I just needed some light to throw into the room for the XL2 to work with.

Did I do wrong here....can I expect nightmares for a light like this on digital video, or did I stumble onto a secret of the accessory (sp) industry?

If I find the time tomorrow I hope to set it up in my garage and shoot some mock interview footage to see how if all comes together, but if anyone has some lighting knowledge, would you mind throwing down a few facts in my direction.

Thanks a whole bunch...

PS..I love my XL2

-Jon

Jon,
I only have a second but let me say this. There are a lot of very professional videos out there that look amazing and were shot with "home depot" style lighting. I'm not saying this is the best method but anyone will agree that it's how you use them. Before I knew what I was doing we had access to a few pro light kits and the results were bad anyway, if you know what I mean.

Basically your technique for lighting is probably more important than the lights themselves. IF you can have both then even better. If you aren't familiar with 3 point lighting techniques then google it and do some reading. IT will help you more in 2 weeks than buying an expensive light rig!

Good Luck!

I appreciate all the responses on this. I'm beginning to believe the at the XL2 is NOT the right choice for me and my work load.

I do have another question though.... the discussion that spawned from this on using "Home Depot" halogen lighting intrigues me. My question is this-- is there a difference in color temperature with halogens in comparison to studio lighting??
I realize if all your lighting is "Home Depot" style, then white balance will do the correction, but can you mix studio and "HD" halogens.


Joe

Joe,

I would echo the comments made by Marty. Remember, part of what you pay for in dedicated video lighting is the ability to 'control' that light. With the HD lights, you get an on/off switch and that's about it. Any other method of contolling those lights will be up to your ingenuity. A light designed for video work will likely have a definite Kelvin temp output, perhaps barndoors for controlling spill, softbox attachments, gel attachments, scrims for reducing the light w/o using a dimmer which will alter the color temp, quick change bulb housings to get to the required light output without over/under doing it, etc.

Don't feel too bad about using HD lights and making your own lighting. After all, the entrepeneural spirit is alive and well here at DV-INFO. Just look at the Alternative Imaging Methods post count! Just be prepared to make your own lighting control accessories to go with those HD lights.

-gb-

Greg-
Thanks for the input. Yeah, I would probably put an inline dimmer to get some sort of control on output and wing the rest for softness, etc.
The reality is, this would get me by for a few months until I catch my breath on buying this new camera (DVX100A) and accessories.

Thanks,
Joe

<<<-- Originally posted by Joe Hicks : Greg-
Thanks for the input. Yeah, I would probably put an inline dimmer to get some sort of control on output and wing the rest for softness, etc.
The reality is, this would get me by for a few months until I catch my breath on buying this new camera (DVX100A) and accessories.

Thanks,
Joe -->>>

Joe,

Rather than use a dimmer, I would suggest going to the replacement bulb area at HD. There are different wattage lamps available. This would keep your color temp close to tungsten so the HD lights will blend with other interior lights. Bulb change is fairly easy. My HD light stand actually has a place to hold spare bulbs safely. Using the highest wattage available with some daylight correction gels could get you some 'extra' sunlight mailnly to fill shadows.

Also Joe, if you haven't already done so, take a look at This page (http://dvinfo.net/articles/index.php#lighting) for an excellent way to get started with lighting on a budget.

regards,

-gb-

Greg-
Excellent points! As well, I'll take a look at the link you recommended.

Thanks!
Joe

Hello everyone!
I've seen some beautiful videos done with the XL2 on this post, I'm a wedding videographer and I been doing some research for a new camera, my candidates? sony PD170 for the low light performance and the beautiful XL2 for almost everything but Low light performance I haven't heard about it and almost no one comments about it, is it that bad?
Most of a wedding is done indoors so I need good light capabilities and audio, is the XL2 good for this kind of jobs?
Would I need a stronger light for indoors, if I use the XL2?
Believe me what stops me from buying the sony 170 it's that doesn't convience costumers, they go; this little camera?
Please guys say some thing about the XL2, convince me.
Thank you.

PS. there is no better website than this!

like i say to all my clients, its not what u use but how u use it.. ive seen footage shot on a dsr570 which looks like garbage, then i see stuff shot with a vx2000 that puts it to shame..
Hell i use 2 DVX100's which have been used in numerous "high end" productions, like Blade, Oprah, MTV... if poeple have their doubts about "small cameras" i jsut show them footage taken with it.. that usually shuts them up..

Personally, at this point in time, i wouldnt go for either.. the Sonys are ok, but they have that particular look that doesnt hide the fact that its a Sony.. i dont know what it is.. call it a flavour..

the XL2.. well for the investment and as "look" seems to be a concern for you.. id say hang back fo the JVC hdv unit..
it wil be more expensive, but the option of running ENG lenses, HDV 720p @ 24fps will futureproof the investment for at least another 5 yrs..

oops ..
to answer ur question.. id say wait.. but if you HAD to buy an SD camera, id say go the XL2 simply becuase it offers a native 16:9 and progressive scan.. on top of that it offers a complete configuration which covers most aspects and elements for any particularly look.

Hi Gerry. I have a VX2000 and an XL2. Yes the low light performance of the XL2 is quite poor compared to the Sony. If you are prepared to spend a lot of time in post you can still get good results with the XL2 in low light (up to a point) but if you are doing wedding videos as a business I doubt you will have the time to do that (but of course it's your call).

Peter's point about waiting for a better camera with the new formats coming out is very true. If you are not really in a hurry you should consider waiting for a while. But if you need good low light performance right now, I would recommend that you at least try out the Sony. A bit of scepticism initially from your customers is better than a lot of disappointment when they see the results!

Richard

Richard, Peter thank you for your suggestions they are excellent your words lead to choosing the XL2 since I usually spent a lot of time on post ( it must be perfect), as you said results must be the ones that impress not the apparence of the camera but in this case the XL2 it's good looking one.

What would you guys suggest, I do or get to compensate for the low light capability of the XL2?
Thank you once againg.