Howdy from Texas,

SimplyDV.com, an excellent digital video site in the UK, is supposed to have an online review of the PAL XL2 up shortly. Keep an eye on this page (http://www.simplydv.com/newsitems/canon_xl2_news.html) for developments.

Review is now on line:

http://www.simplydv.co.uk/Reviews/canon_xl2.html

time to get my reading head on...

Cheers,

hmmm.. I'm must say.. I'm not entirely impressed with the resolution of the two screen shots provided.. The guy didn't mention whether they were shot in the XL2's progressive mode or interlaced. I would hope they weren't prog!

That's a nice write-up. What do you find lacking in the images Yang? I enlarged the 16:9 example in Photoshop and thought it looked quite nice. Had a look at an outdoor scene shot on my PDX-10 in 16:9 (60i) and the XL-2 image looked significantly better. I hate to keep fueling the fire, but did you notice that he mentions "frame mode"? Is Canon using this term interchangeably with "progressive?"Frame Mode coupled with Cine Gamma certainly produces the intended cinematic feel, although it could be argued that this is a subjective judgment only

All the shots were taken in PAL interlaced mode as were given to me by Robin. I've now amended the captions to emphasise this fact.

I'm always wary of uploading frame-grabs from video footage onto web pages simply because they're bound to suffer some degradation even after careful optimisation in Photoshop. However, on comparing these full-sized (1024x576) grabs with the originals that Robin created in Avid DV Express I'm quite confident that they're sufficiently well representative.

Doubtless Robin will add to these notes when he returns to base from his shoot.

Colin

<< I'm always wary of uploading frame-grabs from video footage onto web pages >>

Someone who understands! Hooray! Thanks Colin,

Given all things are equal and all screen caps from every camera will go through the same minute degradation, then this is indeed a valid base-level at which to compare image quality from. Regardless, I'm relieve that these caps were indeed interlaced.

Boyd: i found those caps to be no better than the current offerings of 1/3 CCD 60i cameras we have, in 4:3 ratio.

I agree that as long as one is working within consistent parameters there is reasonable basis for comparison. It's important that those accessing the images must also understand this, and not be tempted to harp on about this visual artefact or that bit of picture noise. There are those, of course, who'll find fault no matter what you do and how you do it!

Colin

They look good to me Colin. Of course there was obviously horizontal stretching involved though since the anamorphic DV image as recorded to tape would have only been 720 pixels wide.

To think that an accurate judgement of a camera's ability to capture images can be made from online images is rather telling, in my humble opinion.

Jay

That reviewer should really put up a screen cap of the GL2's none frame-mode 50i screen shot. The reason i'm suggesting this is that the XL2's 4:3 pixel use is not necesarrily that much higher than the GL2's.

Whilst I agree that this would be useful, I have to say that this review was put together in 48 hours with the reviewer (Robin) and the web editor (me) working 200 miles apart. I guess the main issue is that although there's always something that would have been nice, it's a question of what can be done in the time. Don't forget that we both have "day jobs" and that we're doing it for love not money.

Colin

I thought the caps looked great, but then I don't usually need the 16 : 9 feature. I just think its one more positive review I've read about this beauty of a camera. Why are so many people so immediately negative towards this camera? I know expectations were high but there is only so much possible in the format and the camera's price range. I'm looking forward to more reviews and I am leaning more towards buying the XL-2 now.

<Quote:That reviewer should really put up a screen cap of the GL2's none frame-mode 50i screen shot>

All the frame-grabs I put up from the XM2/GL2 were interlaced (50i) but only 16:9.
Thanks anyway for the positive feedback of the review.
I was particularlty pleased with the stage material.
Had to go off to shoot 16:9 stuff on the XM2 yesterday - boy, do I miss the XL2 ;-)

Robin.

For the record I just want to say that Robin and Colin did a great job -- theirs is the first serious XL2 review ever that wasn't the result of a few minutes of playing on a tradeshow floor. Congrats fellows,

Here, here!

I hope my earlier post was not misunderstood. It was *not* directed at Robin and Colin, rather their (and the camera's) critics.

Jay

<<<-- Originally posted by Robin Davies-Rollinson :
All the frame-grabs I put up from the XM2/GL2 were interlaced (50i) but only 16:9.
Thanks anyway for the positive feedback of the review.
I was particularlty pleased with the stage material.
Had to go off to shoot 16:9 stuff on the XM2 yesterday - boy, do I miss the XL2 ;-)
Robin. -->>>

Robin: sorry, i meant 50i at "4:3". There is bound to be tremendous resolution loss in its faux 16:9 mode. In its 4:3 normal 50i mode, the GL2 would compare rather well in, terms of resolution to the XL2's 4:3 50i.

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : For the record I just want to say that Robin and Colin did a great job -- theirs is the first serious XL2 review ever that wasn't the result of a few minutes of playing on a tradeshow floor. Congrats fellows, -->>>

Wry smile as he Googles his way around the web :-)

Thanks Chris

Colin

Colin, I was interested in your views concerning the angle of view of the standard zoom. It goes from medium-to-extra long and I would have thought a wideangle-to-long would have been more versatile. Apart from the technical achievements of the camera did you find this at all frustrating. Did you find yourself reaching into the camera bag for the 3x wideangle?

Jim

Colin won't mind if I answer for him, since I shot the tests.
There were some times when I was just hoping that the lens was going to pull out just a bit wider - but then, I'm used to keeping the WD58 adapter on the XM2 all the time - but not that it really bugged me. The stage material I shot didn't suffer because of it - indeed, the chance of getting in really tight was a bonus.
Having said that, I think that if I were to go out and buy an XL2, I really would have to consider getting a "proper" all-mechanical lens to get absolute aperture/focus/zoom control.
So in answer to your question, it really wasn't that much of a problem, but I guess it depends very much on your style of working...

Robin.

If the camera is purchased with a "real" mechanical lens, do you lose the optical stabilization?

Yes, the optical stabilisation is a lens feature.

I thought so...too bad. But I wonder why they can't make an electronic lens for optical stabilization but leave out the electronic part that sets focus and aperture and make those mechanical. I guess it would cost too much to put them all together. I sometimes forget that in this price range, the marketing gurus have it all figured out as to how much they can charge and how much it is supposed to cost for them to build the camera, and anything that gets them higher than the price point they're after for the most sales and profit per sale is a no-no. Gotta remember that it's still a consumer product.

The lens is the biggest disappointment. Your question is valid: why can't they do those things?

On the DVX, you have a true mechanical manual zoom, and also full motorized servo zoom control. You have a manual focus ring that is precise and repeatable, with all the control you'd expect from a fully manual focus ring. In fact, if you add the Century focus ring, it even gives you hard stops at M.O.D. and Infinity, giving you full precise manual focus operation. And, of course, autofocus. And image stabilization.

Why doesn't Canon offer a lens that gives you those options? If they did, it would make the XL2 much more attractive. I just couldn't ever go back to using a servo focus ring like on the PD170...

Ahh, but then you wouldn't go out and spend another 2k on a new manual lens.

Aaron

Yeah, but with a (corporate) attitude like that, I wouldn't spend the $5,000 on the camera in the first place...

The market is changing. Avid used to cripple their lower-end product to protect sales of their high-end gear. Matrox limited the RT2000 to avoid encroaching on DigiSuite sales. Nobody falls for that crap anymore. If the product you're looking at doesn't work, you go look to a competitor, not to the "next level up".

Panasonic gave us (the consumer) what we want, so we bought tens of thousands of DVX's. Canon looks like they're giving us *almost* what we want... if it had a lens with full genuine manual focus and zoom control, and full autofocus, power zoom and OIS... I'd say a good 85% of my hesitation about the XL2 would disappear.

Yeah, but the thing with Canon is that they can continue to do what you're saying they shouldn't. Because there is not a single camera in that market space with interchangable lenses. So if you want interchangable lenses, you're poked.
Imagine, if Panasonic had (does? Can they? It might be patented) come out with an interchangable lens system camera? Holy crap would that change the marketplace - well you'd hope so anyway. But until someone does, is Canon really going to care?

I think it's the difference between loving your products and wanting to give the end user the best you can, compared to the whole corporate attitude of the suits. I'd bet the camera engineers thought of tonnes and tonnes of things to put in the new camera, to totally blow everything else away. Then the suits add up the sums, and believe they can get more money doing it another way, so that's the way it gets done. Do we get less for our 5k that what we really could have? Sure, does Canon make more money than they would have if they'd done it the way we want? - yup, so guess which one's going to prevail. It's the same in the software industry. I work for one of the big players in the PC software industry and I can tell you how many times I've been frustrated in having the product crippled just to meet ticks on boxes, or deadlines, or profit margins. As a software engineer, it doesn't make me very happy and definately doesn't make me like the job and the company. But that said, our profits keep growing every quarter and the shareholders are happy, so we're buggered. I either like it or lump it.

Aaron

I'm not upgrading my venerable XL1 to an XL2. Not at those prices. If the body only was under 2g, then maybe. I would only pay 4g's for a new body kit if it had:

1/ HD resolution (i.e. 720 lines min)
2/ 24p and 24pAdv, in addition to the old standby's (which it has)
3/ native 16x9 (which it has... kinda)
4/ no more miniDV encoding or storage format... something else, like hard drive packs.
5/ min 10bit image and colour processing from A->D. Even better to capture raw images off of the CCD's to a hard drive with software based/tunable encoding.

And the sad thing is that ALL of this technology IS possible right now, and no one is making it into a cohesive package.

Heck, I would pay 10k for such a beast.

/A

Yeah, but the thing with Canon is that they can continue to do what you're saying they shouldn't. Because there is not a single camera in that market space with interchangable lenses.
There are other cameras in that market space (if you define market space by price):

The JVC DV5000 is the same price, but it's got 1/2" chips, an industry-standard lens mount, interchangeable lenses, and a picture quality that will smoke the Canon or any other 1/3" to 1/4" CCD camera.

The Panasonic DVC200 is a little more expensive, but equally superior to the "prosumer" cameras.

If you go by price, the Canon is not even really in competition with the DVX/PD170... those cameras are $3300-$3400, where the Canon is $5,000. The JVC DV5000 is $5,000. That's who Canon's real competition is. And it's *serious* competition.

If you go by "filmlook", then yes, the DVX is the only competitor, but it's still $1400 less.

I just knew someone would assume I mean price ;) Damn, should have made that clearer. What I was thinking of was features like progressive, smaller formfactor (Therefore less on tripods, cases etc), image manipulation tweaks like cinelooks etc.

Aaron

So who will be selling the pal xl2 in the states? OR better yet on the west coast? I checked with birns and sawyer and they laughed at me upon my very mention of the word pal, so it looks like it' back to the drawing board, any suggestions?

Check with our sponsor ZGC (http://www.zgc.com) on the east coast. They've brought in PAL XL1's before, they'll probnably do it again with the XL2. Give 'em a call.

Thanks chris, I've dealt with them before and chris (at zgc) was more then helpful I have no problem giving them business. I'll call them on monday.

The questions regarding the 20x Lens are pivotal for me. I am currently in search of a camera that I can use for nature videography.

One of the things I like about the XL2 is the reach of the Tele Lens. Unfortunately, if this lens performs poorly: is unable to hold focus, etc, then I will need to buy the 16x manual lens. The problem with the 16x lens is that the reach in 16:9 mode ( if I am reading the specs correctly ) is only 68mm. Hence, I personally do not see an advantage in buying the XL2 if I don't have a reasonable tele capability.

Scott, my advice would be to wait until you can try the camera out yourself. Don't worry too much about others are saying this early in the game.

I've used both the XL1 and the XL1s, and I, for one, have never had any problems the lenses "holding focus," not once.

Jay

Here, Here Scott. I shoot almost nothing but nature & XL1 & XL1s are both brilliant on focus & zoom. XL2 should do even better at 20x.

Scott

The telephoto "reach" of the 16x manual lens is 690mm. See my article, "Guide to Canon XL2 Lens Options (http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxl2/articles/article04.php)" for more info.