You say: "Users of the GL1 will find that most things are where they expect them, although when I first got the camera, Iwas at a loss to find the Exposure Mode dial."

A photo of the GL2 at http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0208/cameracorner.htm clearly shows the exposure dial in exactly the same place as the GL1

Neil

The exposure mode dial, from the gl1 (and xl series) is the larger dial used to change exposure modes or programs, not exposure. Canon has chosen to move this feature to an on screen menu (actually a switch, green box > program, and then a menu). It's not that big a deal, it has its own separate "entrance"..you don't have to browse through a menu hierarchy...and it works fine...although I think I like the dial better.

Barry

It's disappointing to learn that the Exposure Compensation feature on the GL2 (more properly labeled the "Auto Exposure Level Control" on earlier Canon Models), is entwined in a Menu system. My digital cam is in the shop, so I fired up my L-1 Hi-8 yesterday, which has the ± dial out in easy reach. It is so easy and important to good shooting, to be able to quickly touch that dial and nothing else, to tweak your exposure, but still stay in Auto. I feel so much in control of my camera with the dial at my command. I compare having to go into a menu for essential controls, as trying to scratch a chronic itch wearing ski pants and 2 layers of longjohns. It seems the manufacturers are compelled to throw in a few missing features on even their best models, in order to save some buying incentives for the next upgrade.

I agree that analog dials are a better facility for many, if not most, features than electronic menus. But, if I had to choose a control to place into en e-menu the AE shift would definitely have been one of my choices since it's not used frequently my most shooters.

My disappointment, small though it may be, is that tiny exposure adjustment wheel carried over from the GL-1. It's just too tiny and has too mushy of a tactile feedback to give you a feeling off confidence. I think it would have been a master stroke to place this adjustment on the lens as a ring (roughly the location and width as the iris ring on the XL1s' 16x lens is). Clockwise rotations increase, counter-clock decreases. In Tv it adjusts shutter speed, in Av it adjusts aperture.

Steve

Actually the AE shift, while not on the body, is available as a custom key, which makes it pretty easy access...I agree it would be nice to have it on the cam body, but in practice the custom key is almost as quick.

Barry

<<<-- Originally posted by barrygoyette : Tom

Unfortunately, due to the constraints of the .mac site, the movies are resized to fit the .mac templates. You'll need to invest in QT pro ($30) to download them...or you can take a look at the stills on the "New gl2, xl1s..." page, which are from the clip.

Barry -->>>
Downloading the QT files saving $30 !!
Is it a PC or a MAC you are useing??
If it is a PC then you can try to find it in C:\WINDOWS\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\HQEZIWI1
and is it the file with Brian shamefully admitting his convertion to the MAC it will be named : brian%20switch2[1]

Dear Barry
I'm Roy Foster from Beaconsfield, England, writing to thank you for your detailed and enlightening review. Based on your review, I managed to track down the Canon XM2 (your GL2) and Sony TRV 950 in the same store. Although a novice to the camcorder, I have been a keen stills photographer for the past 35 years. I am therefore familiar with shutter speeds, apertures, and, in the case of the camcorder, gain. I am hoping this knowledge will help me to become a decent videotaper.
I ran side by side trials in the store of the Canon and the Sony. In my opinion - bearing in mind that these were brief videotaping tests not exhaustive and comprehensive trials and reviews like your own - the image quality from the Canon is quite stunning in its stability and transparency. It left me in no doubt that the Canon was the camcorder for me, despite the fact that I had on my arrival at the store been heavily biased in favour of the Sony, perhaps for all the wrong reasons. The Sony is in my view by far the more desirable of the two in terms of aesthetics and indeed to some degree in respect of control layout. But I felt the Canon had better image quality, and it was a noticeable difference for me and indeed for the assistants in the store.
I hope this small contribution will help those who, like me, seek to get info about these two camcorders with a view to deciding which may be right for them. It's important in my view for anyone considering this level of purchase - the Canon is retailing for around £1800 in the UK - to be as sure as they can. But I can say, however, and I think your review echoes this, that all those considering the TRV 950 should at least give the Canon XM2/GL2 a trial before making up their mind.
I'm new to DVInfo and am very much enjoying the companionship and the excellent help and guidance. Any tips you can offer an aging chap who seeks to become a good videotaper will be gratefully received. Currently I am investigating tripods, mikes, etc. for the Canon.
With best regards

Roy Foster
(royfosroyfos)

Royfosroyfos claims the GL2, "quite stunning in its stability and transparency".

-I'd say that description itself, is quite stunning in it's obfuscation.

I tested the GL2 and the 950 as well, and there was certainly no clear-cut obvious superiority of overall picture quality for either. The GL2 makes a fine picture, and does see down in lower light (along with a Lot more grain), but the Sony showed a somewhat cleaner (free of artifact) picture through most of it's range than the GL2, and resolves at least as much fine detail as the GL2, sometimes a little more.

I saw neither having poetic advantage of any stunning "transparency" visible in their video, a quality I've seen earned by a few very elite optics, imaging to Film that can actually capture all that rarified resolution.

As to "stability", if this refers to the camera's image stabilizers, I wasn't immediately struck by either one's being altogether much different than the other, but they both do have very effective OIS systems.

I went for the Sony for it's much smaller size and unobtrusiveness, and better LCD. The GL2 had a slighter more magnified viewfinder image which I'd normally prefer, but since the cameras share the same size .44" vf of equal # pixels, that advantage became a wash w/it's slightly coarser image. -Both could use better.

See the haru web comparison page for some impartial framegrabs from these cameras:
http://www4.big.or.jp/%7Ea_haru/temp020829/0208_3CCD.html

While it is harder to tell some of the diffs there, as opposed to viewing actual video, you can see that quantum leaps in quality are not generally the order of difference.

<<--"psurfer1": As to "stability", if this refers to the camera's image stabilizers, I wasn't immediately struck by either one's being altogether much different than the other, but they both do have very effective OIS systems. -->>

That makes sense, since I believe Sony still licenses Canon's image stabilization technology for its consumer and prosumer cameras.

So you "...went for the Sony" WHAT? TRV950? VX2000? PD150? (I gather the 950, but you "obfuscated" a bit on that point. <g>

<<<-- Originally posted by psurfer1 : Royfosroyfos claims the GL2, "quite stunning in its stability and transparency".

-I'd say that description itself, is quite stunning in it's obfuscation.

I tested the GL2 and the 950 as well, and there was certainly no clear-cut obvious superiority of overall picture quality for either. The GL2 makes a fine picture, and does see down in lower light (along with a Lot more grain), but the Sony showed a somewhat cleaner (free of artifact) picture through most of it's range than the GL2, and resolves at least as much fine detail as the GL2, sometimes a little more.

I saw neither having poetic advantage of any stunning "transparency" visible in their video, a quality I've seen earned by a few very elite optics, imaging to Film that can actually capture all that rarified resolution.

As to "stability", if this refers to the camera's image stabilizers, I wasn't immediately struck by either one's being altogether much different than the other, but they both do have very effective OIS systems.

I went for the Sony for it's much smaller size and unobtrusiveness, and better LCD. The GL2 had a slighter more magnified viewfinder image which I'd normally prefer, but since the cameras share the same size .44" vf of equal # pixels, that advantage became a wash w/it's slightly coarser image. -Both could use better.

See the haru web comparison page for some impartial framegrabs from these cameras:
http://www4.big.or.jp/%7Ea_haru/temp020829/0208_3CCD.html

While it is harder to tell some of the diffs there, as opposed to viewing actual video, you can see that quantum leaps in quality are not generally the order of difference. -->>>

I did compare the XM2 to the 950 and found the XM2 to be optically superior. Also, the XM2 autofocus was superior to the 950, much faster lock-on, no hunting. It's worth adding that I was at the time biased in favour of the 950. Others in the store felt the same about the differences.
I didn't actually buy this particular XM2 but eventually purchased from another store. I am very, very pleased with my XM2. I agree that the viewfinder in the XM2 is superior, I find it a joy to use. The XM2 LCD on the other hand is more or less useless as a recording monitor in sunlight, and the 950 is definitely better in this respect. Again, the XM2 viewfinder is so good, I don't find this a problem.

I have not regretted my XM2 purchase and I stand by my original comments.

royfos

<<<-- Originally posted by royfosroyfos : <<<-- Originally posted by psurfer1 : Royfosroyfos claims the GL2, "quite stunning in its stability and transparency".

-I'd say that description itself, is quite stunning in it's obfuscation.

I tested the GL2 and the 950 as well, and there was certainly no clear-cut obvious superiority of overall picture quality for either. The GL2 makes a fine picture, and does see down in lower light (along with a Lot more grain), but the Sony showed a somewhat cleaner (free of artifact) picture through most of it's range than the GL2, and resolves at least as much fine detail as the GL2, sometimes a little more.

I saw neither having poetic advantage of any stunning "transparency" visible in their video, a quality I've seen earned by a few very elite optics, imaging to Film that can actually capture all that rarified resolution.

As to "stability", if this refers to the camera's image stabilizers, I wasn't immediately struck by either one's being altogether much different than the other, but they both do have very effective OIS systems.

I went for the Sony for it's much smaller size and unobtrusiveness, and better LCD. The GL2 had a slighter more magnified viewfinder image which I'd normally prefer, but since the cameras share the same size .44" vf of equal # pixels, that advantage became a wash w/it's slightly coarser image. -Both could use better.

See the haru web comparison page for some impartial framegrabs from these cameras:
http://www4.big.or.jp/%7Ea_haru/temp020829/0208_3CCD.html

While it is harder to tell some of the diffs there, as opposed to viewing actual video, you can see that quantum leaps in quality are not generally the order of difference. -->>>

I did compare the XM2 to the 950 and found the XM2 to be optically superior. Also, the XM2 autofocus was superior to the 950, much faster lock-on, no hunting. It's worth adding that I was at the time biased in favour of the 950. Others in the store felt the same about the differences.
I didn't actually buy this particular XM2 but eventually purchased from another store. I am very, very pleased with my XM2. I agree that the viewfinder in the XM2 is superior, I find it a joy to use. The XM2 LCD on the other hand is more or less useless as a recording monitor in sunlight, and the 950 is definitely better in this respect. Again, the XM2 viewfinder is so good, I don't find this a problem.

I have not regretted my XM2 purchase and I stand by my original comments.

royfos -->>>

The adjectives and superlatives I use are not intended to confuse or obfuscate. I believe the value of a forum such as this is to help and advise each other as and when we can. Certainly, I'm enthusiastic about my XM2. By "Stability" I mean the picture is very stable. This may not be good cammyspeak, but I'm sure most readers will understand what I mean. By "Transparency" I mean that the XM2 has a delicate, transparent quality to its image.
I'm sorry if I my choice of words has offended some readers, certainly was not intended.

royfos

Hi Roy

Thanks for sharing your perceptions. I am a generation behind, but have much preferred the image quality of my Canon GL-1 versus my Sony TRV-900. Although, in this case, the Sony's autofocus is better.

I do wonder why people differ so much in their judgments regarding image quality. I cannot imagine anyone preferring MY Sony clips over my Canon clips. It might be just that I have learned better how to use the Canon or maybe the subjects that I shoot are more suited to the Canon.

Clif

<<<-- Originally posted by Clif Anderson : Hi Roy

Thanks for sharing your perceptions. I am a generation behind, but have much preferred the image quality of my Canon GL-1 versus my Sony TRV-900. Although, in this case, the Sony's autofocus is better.

I do wonder why people differ so much in their judgments regarding image quality. I cannot imagine anyone preferring MY Sony clips over my Canon clips. It might be just that I have learned better how to use the Canon or maybe the subjects that I shoot are more suited to the Canon.

Clif -->>>
I also wonder why our views differ so greatly. I think part of the problem seen from my vantage point is the difficulty in getting to try the various camcorders at the same place and time. I was actually very keen on the 950 and managed to find a dealer who had the 950 and the XM2 and who, importantly, was prepared to let me subject both to a decent trial. Having spent an hour recording from both the XM2 and 950 and then replaying results via a Sony 32" TV, it was clear to me and others who were sharing the experience that the Canon XM2 had a distinct edge in respect of image quality. I know my superlatives have caused one or two readers irritation, but images really did appear more stable. Also, oddly bearing in mind your comments, the XM2 autofocus was faster and more reliable, i.e. no hunting. But clearly, a one-hour trial is not an in-depth study and I would advise anyone considering the XM2 to judge for him/herself. Since my XM2 purchase I have managed to find several areas of dissatisfaction, although I still love the camcorder and still feel it produces great images. Although I am new to cammys I have been a still photographer for many years and have some excellent still equipment that allows me to be discerning in respect of image quality.

Good to hear from you Clif! I'm really enjoying the community spirit of these pages and the opportunity to 'speak' with other enthusiasts like yourself.

Best regards

Roy

Hi Roy

Your comments regarding the GL2's autofocus make me think I will get one in the coming year. Still, I recognize that quality comparisons can be situation dependent. At the present time, I am quite immersed in a project of making DVDRs of Chinese dance performances. I have 10 hours of video from each of my Canon XL1, Canon GL1, and Sony TRV-900. The stage is subjected to lighting extremes. I use spotlight mode on the Canons, but there is no such mode on the Sony, so I adjust the exposure level down. Under these circumstances, the Canon's images are clearly better than the Sony's. I used to have a Sony VX1000, and its images were not much better than those of the TRV-900.

With bright and even lighting, the image quality is about the same. However, I cannot recall ever preferring a Sony image over a Canon image as long as both were in focus. On the other hand, some have reported that the resolution of the GL1 is below that of other cameras. The GL2 is reported to be better than the GL1 in this regard.

I guess autofocus can also be situation dependent. It is easy to see how it might be difficult to focus on dancers spead out across a stage when there is a stationary background behind them to focus on. The Sony TRV-900 handles this better than the GL1, which I use more for closeups. If the GL2 improves upon the TRV-900, the latter might become a tape deck.

I use a Sony Vaio for editing the video. Only once have I been able to capture from a Canon camcorder. I usually copy to the TRV-900 and capture from it. A Video Vegas readme file indicates that there are some "issues" with Sony Vaio computers and state that there is a "fix" that comes on the Vegas CD-ROM. However, I have not found the "fix". If anyone has solved the problem of capturing from a Canon camcorder onto a Sony computer, I would like to know how they do it.

Clif

No offense taken, Roy.
But while it's good to hear that the GL2 performs so much better for you than your previous videocam, I think it wise in this 114-post GL2 "love-fest" to point out that we're talking about prosumer DV, here. The very best of the breed right now still do not even better the quality of well-shot Super-8 film. Since a number of posters seem to have designs on making a feature for potential film blow-up, it seems worthwhile to put things into perspective.

I am not trying to slam the GL2. It's picture is right up there with the best, and it has the real advantage of a wider range of focal lengths. I bought the TRV950, for that same kind of quality in a smaller lower-profile package, w/a larger and better LCD screen. Others enjoy the VX2000/PD150 for it's superior low-light sensitivity. Each one of these cameras has a few other + & - points in it's corner, but the fine distinctions generally that can be made about the differences in picture quality (aside from in low light) between each are really only useful if planning for film blow-up, in which case you're doomed to a really poor film print with any of the three. (Fwiw, the finest details would remain from the TRV950/PDx10's footage...) On the other hand, for broadcast, they could all intercut w/each other, and no one would notice.

So I repeat: Make your buying decision about these 3 cameras based on criteria other than just ultimate picture quality, which has proven to be one of the least significant differences between them.

Last, just to clarify comments about the GL2's viewfinder, it is .44" w/180K pixels, the same as the 950's. Canon has magnified it just a little larger in the eyepiece, but the gain in viewing size (which I'm otherwise all for) is made less useable by the slightly coarser viewing image that results, already "just " acceptible for discerning detail imo, in the 950. Neither wins there. By comparison, the VX2000 has a larger .55" vf panel displaying those 180K pixels, so it's next (slight) step larger finder makes for a somewhat better (smoother) viewing experience. -Here's to hoping that the Next generation of top DV cameras has significant improvement in vf size and resolution over what we're seeing now. Better color viewfinders are possible and deserved. Make sure to write your manufacturer of choice about it if you care about seeing what you shoot clearly.

You make some good points -- but frankly, retiring this thread would be a mistake in my opinion.

There are plently of people (me included) who have and will continue to benefit from this thread...

If you are tired of the discussion, stop reading. Otherwise, this thread is a great place for people to voice and discuss THIER opinions, just like you have.

Bye.

Heidi,
This GL1/GL2 forum, in general, is a platform for discussion of these cameras. Unless someone has specific additional comparative information to add to this thread's topic I recommend that new questions and topics should be placed in new threads to better facilitate our members' topical scans.

I was only responding to the previous post's "Post Subject" which suggested getting rid of this thread. I'm sorry I said anything...

We certainly would not remove this thread; it's full of much good stuff. I think that 'psurfer1' simply suggested that it not be endlessly extended and meander far off topic...at least that's how I interpreted the post. Sorry for the semantic confusion, if any.

A thread should never be deleted unless it's spam or if off topic to the point it's useless. The GL2 thread is beneficial to anyone that is in the market for a GL2. Discussions that share user insight and information is priceless. To discard info would be a mistake. I can't tell you how many times that I have searched the newsgroups etc and got helpful info that is ten years old. Searchable data archives should be left intact for whatever research someone will be doing at any giving time.

Michael Pappas
Arrival Entertainment

Don't worry; we very seldom delete threads. Intentionally, that is... the occasional prairie fire may reach the server shack and wipe out some posts, as it did a few months ago. But Fire Chief Jeff assures me this won't be a problem in the future.

I see no reason to lock up the thread. 115 responses is nowhere near our record anyway. On occasion we may split the thread, as Ken did recently, when the conversation branches off into a new topic.

I wouldn't characterize this as a "love fest" either; we welcome all legitimate criticism as long as it's factually and professionally written without any emotional or passionate overdrive. Hope this helps,

Bass

The gl2 works well in low light situations, but like most other cameras, it does need some light to produce a quality image, so my recommendation would be this. If you intend to shoot with available room light at night, if at all possible change out lower wattage bulbs with higher ones...better to get more light than you need, and then stop down, or use ND to get it to look dark and moody. I've shot a lot in typical rooms lit with 60 watt bulbs, and the camera functions fine, with no gain added. As you increase the gain on the gl2, the grain will become noticeable...you can minimize this by turning down the sharpness, and I've found using this technique, the gl2 has no more grain than the gl1 or xl1s in low light situations, while at the same time it is noticeably sharper, and cleaner color-wise.

I think the zoom on the gl2 is a tad slow. And it certainly isn't capable of the type of rack zoom you would find from a lens with manual zoom. I don't ever notice it, as most zooms I do would be of the super-slow-crawl type, and rack zooming is an effect that needs to be used judiciously...but if you need it...this camera won't do it. On the other hand the gl2's focus ring has a nice mechanical focus feel to it, making it a good manual focus camera capable of relatively accurate cine-style focus shifts.


Barry

Ok I don't know what happened there...I'm responding to a Bass's post and then his post disappeared....I'll go looking.

Barry

Thanks for your reply Barry (don't know why my post disspareared by the way).

I agree with you slightly "overlighting" and then manually "underexposing would be the way to go to get somber but clean images.

Thanks for your reply about the zoom.

Is there some kind of shoulder pas for the gl-2? That would be good.

Bassbooster

Your post got moved to startt a new thread..."same old low light question"...

For a shoulder mount. I use an image 2000, and it works fine...Chris likes one from varizoom I think that is a little beefier (and a bit more expensive)...and habbycam makes one almost identical to the image2000, for a few bucks less.

They'll all do the job.

Barry

I'm going to move these replies over to the other thread.

I moved it because the questions relating to low light were a new topic, and not a direct response to Barry's review. As a new thread, the subject is better organized and easier to locate. Will probably pull these last few posts out and move them over later today.

Hi Barry,
thanks for the review.
I own a VX2000 which I use with a Sony 1.7X extender for shooting wild animals and birds, but I am not really happy with the combination. You said that the Gl2 lens is extremely sharp. Do you think I would do better with the Gl2 or would I have to go to a camera with an interchangeabe lens in order to really get really good long shots?
Does someone have shots or the Gl2 at 20X ?
Mike

If you really want to step up in sharpness, you'll need to go with the XL1s and the EF adapter and Canon EOS EF lenses. You get an effective bump of 7.2X in magnification and the sharpness factor goes way up. Sharpest 1/3 inch chip image in my opinion.

Jeff

I'll second that recommendation of an XL1S with EF adapter- you'll be amazed at the increase in image sharpness as well as magnification....be prepared to carry a tripod as there's no image stabilization (even IS lenses can't be handheld)...also be prepared to manually focus as AF will not work with an EF lens...aperature will still be controlled via camera and works perfectly....

~~~a few drawbacks I know- but it's the way to go if you want to televideo something from afar- nothing else comes close!

Be prepared to be stunned- from flies and hawks to lions and zebras- the EF adapter will meet your expectations.

Thanks Barry for doing a terrific review of the 3 cameras. I need to get a back up for my XL-1 (it's getting on in years) and share your affinity for the frame mode. I am considering a DVX100 but not to happy with taht camera's image stabilizer (I do a lot of hand held shooting and am also getting on in years). I'm now leaning toward the GL-2...is the stabilzer capabilities as good as my XL-1? How do you think the GL-2 would be for outdoor/sunset event coverage on the fly? I also have considered getting a new XL1s but really don't want to duplicate my camera inventory (betacam, DV500, and XL1). Could the GL2 match up as 2nd camera for my XL1?
Thanks again for your input, Best, Craig Hollenback

Craig,

I just got a DVX100 myself (my Gl2 went down for repairs, right before I was to start a big project)...and I have to admit that I'm really sweet on this camera... I haven't noticed any problem with the stabilizer...but I don't do much without a tripod, stabilizer, or at minimum a shoulder mount.

What I have noticed is a definitely improved "motion" when in progressive scan versus frame mode on the gl2...substantially smoother..which may counter any gains from a better optical stabilization scheme. Additionally, this is the first DV camera that I have seen that looks good in a wide shot...it doesn't go all fuzzy like every other DV cam I've seen when you pull back to include a lot of stuff in the frame.

As far as the xl1, gl2 matchup...I'm not sure, I've only used the xl1s... In that case, the gl2 has better detail and contrast, and maybe a little more noise...but with a few minor tweaks to both images in camera...you can get them looking almost identical. The xl1 probably wouldn't match as well as you have a lot less control over the image.

However, I'm sure the xl1 would be no match the DVX100 at this point...the panasonic has about the smoothest highlight range that I've seen, whereas the Xl1 is known for being pretty harsh on the highlight end.

Barry

Great info!...
In a nut shell, my situation is this...I've found myselfs doing very high end casual weddings at an exclusive Island Resort. Generally the entire event is over in 1.5hrs. Lots of run and gun shooting along side a journalistic style photograper. Little time for set-ups...combo of settings...shaded garden, sunset beach ceremony location, then wrap-up into early evening dinner.
I've been using my XL-1 with an me66 mic and a sony wireless. Camera mounted dimable Frezzi light and .6 Century wide adapter. All handheld...slow zooms, pans close-ups etc. Handheld for 15 minute ceremony.
I continue to do corporate projects(for about the past 15 years) and use the DV500 and Beta for that, the XL-1 for run and gun.
I'm getting a bit paranoid about the the old XL-1 flaking out and have been lugging the 500 out to the island as a back-up.
So, I need to get another camera....and would like it to be light enough to hand hold easily...perhaps with the help of a shoulder support if needed for addional stability etc.
Initial thoughts were for the DVX 100...light to carry...good audio inputs, built in wide angle (the Century is a pain to put on and take off the bayonet XL-1).
Based on your positive review of the DVX100...it sounds like it might just be the way to go...plus it makes for good marketing conversation to corporate clients about trendy 24p etc.
I thought that rather than 24p(the sample I shot at a rental house seemed a bit jittery) I'd use 30 p...closer to the XL-1 fame mode. Have you tried that setting?
Thanks again....and any additonal thougts would surely be welcomed...I want to make this purchase as non emotional as possible!
I really appreciate you unbiased feedback.
Best, Craig Hollenback

I agree on the 30p...the 24p looks to jerky to me...but the 30p is beautiful..one caveat though...when you go into progressive mode...you lose gain control (which makes sense) and autofocus(which doesn't). On the run and gun thing...the DVX is incredibly well balanced, it feels very light in your hand...and you don't need to add a wide angle which means you don't throw off the camera balance like you do with the gl2( and the xl1 is already front heavy).

One other warning: get to know the gamma settings, and experiment with the footage in your NLE...the gamma adjustments have the net effect of limiting the amount you can adjust the image later in post...so if you use the high or low settings...make sure you get it looking like you want in camera (I'm paying for this now on the "big project).

Remember, the gl2 is still a great camera, and currently its almost $2000 less than a dvx. Is the dvx worth the difference?...I don't know...but I will say that I think its the best camera in the prosumer class at this point.

One question....How can you not get emotional about a new camera? I'd really like to know.

Barry

Hi Barry....well truth is...I am pretty worked up about this camera purchase!...At least not since my first video toaster...I had the 6th one manufactured...and was a beta tester for them. I used to do all the Amiga animations and artwork that ran in their ads.
The DVX100 really turned my head, but I've never really been a big Panasonic fan...not sure why though. The things that I've read though seem to prove it's reliability.
The DVX100 has lots of exciting possibilities down the road for me also....that I don't think the GL2 has. I'm looking at $3126 vs:$2121 plus $250 off rebate for the GL2...both purchased through a friend in the biz The thousand difference while not small is not as critical as having the right camera for the job I've found. One nice corporate shoot would make it up quickly. The Island wedding thing crept it's way into my routine and so far it's been a pretty good gig. The clients are very high-end and consequently, there is no room for equipment failure...hence the additional safety camera. The plan would be to use the new camera as primary and "retire" the XL-1 to emergency.
One last question...how is the zoom control on the DVX100 vs: the XL1...perhaps I just didn't have enough time to try it, but I couldn't get the DVX100 to creep smoothly from a start to a gradual stop.
Thanks again...I know I'm getting close to a decision! Best, Craig

The dvx zoom is definitely not as smooth or slow as the xl1s...not sure about the xl1. But you can do a decent slow zoom...albeit with a starting and ending "bump".

Personally, I hadn't planned on buying this camera (although I'm glad I did) as I suspect that the next round of the XL series will have the same chipset and similar features as the DVX...this would be an awesome combo of utility and image quality...but this will not likely happen till next summer if at all.

Barry

Barry,
Well I really appreciate all your input...The GL2 looks like it will fill the bill for simple wedding coverage and the price point is really good....not to mention the use of all my current XL1 batteries! I think that I'll get the GL2 to cover my butt for now and continue with the DV500 for the corporate work on sticks. I'm glad to hear that you've been happy with your GL2 (except for the recent breakdown). I checked out your site..."Uncollected" looked great...what did you shoot that with? I'm sure that the DVX100 or similar is within this years purchase for me when needed...Perhaps an XL1s with 24p/30p etc. might become available soon. Again many thanks...best of luck, Craig

"Uncollected" was shot on the xl1s. Good luck with your new cam.

Barry

Be advised of the considerable difference in vertical resolution (the number of horizontal scanning lines that contribute to the image sharpness) in the three different modes that are used in these cameras. The true Progressive video mode in NTSC cameras produces a full 480 vertical lines of resolution. Interlaced NTSC mode produces 360 vertical lines of resolution, but the Frame mode of many NTSC Canon models, gives only 320 vertical lines of resolution. They all use the full 480 horizontal scanning lines that are visible onscreen, but the resolution or sharpness is diminished by the way the scanning lines are used in Interlaced and Frame modes.

The Panasonic DVX100 with a Progressive option at either 24 or 30 FPS, gives the sharpest vertical resolution, which also allows for better still images to be extracted from the footage. This is a separate measurement from horizontal resolution (the number of visible vertical lines in the image), which is 640 lines that can be seen onscreen, in all modes.

Several Sony models, including the PD150, also have a true Progressive mode, but they only use 15 FPS when in that setting and the footage is not suitable for realtime viewing, only for still-frame capture. If you like the look of 30 FPS Progressive footage (some don't), you can have the best of both realtime video and still-frame capture with the DVX100 and other more expensive models with the same
30p FPS capabilities.

Unfortunately, when the DVX100 is in Progressive mode, the image stabilizer does not operate and works only in Interlaced mode.

Steve McDonald

I should have added to my previous message that the measure of horizontal resolution is further complicated by the counting of the distinguishable vertical lines across only 3/4 of a screen with the standard 4:3 aspect ratio. The 3/4 of the width of a 4:3 screen represents the same dimension as its height. This is why DV and Digital8 video is rated at only 500 lines or slightly higher, of horizontal resolution, although 640 separate vertical lines are theoretically visible across the full screen width. Including the offscreen margins that are included in the coding, this is 720 vertical lines.

Steve McDonald

Hi Barry...I want to thank you for all your feedback about the GL2 and DVX100...Now that you've had some time to try out the DVX100...and I am about to purchase a camera today or tomorrow...I wanted to ask you how you've liked the DVX100? I understand that the stabilizer is not disabled in 24 or 30p but the auto focus in fact is. If I purchase the GL2, it will most likely always be used with the wide angle adapter (but it's nice to have the 20x for vacation, etc.) and I will need to purchase the beackteck phantom power XL2 adapter as well. I may perhaps use the still image to flash card feature for vacations as well etc. but have never used one to date. I will most likely never go out to film from the camera, but do wish to offer corporate clients a film look to video. Is the lens on the DVX100 all that it's cracked up to be compared to the GL2? Is the low light ablilties of the DVX 100 greatly superior to the the GL2? How's the 30p feature look to video compared to 30 frame mode of the GL2? I'm no longer the steadist stooter and will rely on the stabilzer capabilities of either camera for handheld. All in all is it worth the extra $1000 for the overall general and professional performance of the DVX100 along with giving up the little extra prosumer perks of the GL2? Thanks, Craig

Craig

If you haven't checked out this thread, you might want to..

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14119

As far as the low light thing goes, in Progressive...I don't notice that the DVX is any more valuable...you have no gain control, and are limited to 1/30 shutter. I haven't done a direct comparison yet, although we did a 2 cam shoot awhile back and the camera seem to have a similar sensitivity in normal light.

Both cameras have excellent lenses..yes I miss the gl2's long telephoto, but in reality for me, and I think most shooters...the wider Leica lens is a dream, with more zoom-room in the area that I shoot most.

The combination of the great wide lens and the true progressive makes for a wide shot that has far more detail than what can be achieved with the GL2 in frame mode with an adapter. Also, there isn't a heavy hunk of glass throwing the camera off balance.

Image quality on the whole...I'm viewing everything on an HD monitor...the dvx image is cleaner with surprisingly natural highlights. In our two camera set-up the main differences seemed to be a slight difference in sharpness, highlight rendition, and color rendition...with the dvx superior in all three areas.


Is the DVX worth the extra grand?...I think this really depends on your budget, and what you want to do with the camera. For me, I'm wanting to shoot original creative material --short films, music videos etc, in typically controlled situations, and the DVX is a professional camera designed for this purpose. The Gl2 is a consumer grade camera with more attention to ease of use, and may function better in run and gun situations.

On a side note,If you've been following the ladyX series, my episode runs next week...almost all of it was shot on the DVX...except the cafe seen which used both cameras. You might want to check it out.

Once again, thanks for your candor....I checked out that thread...very interesting! Don't have any info about the ladyX series...is it on cable? Would love to see it. Thanks, Craig

Craig

Lady X is not on cable... yet. I wouldn't be surpised to see the entire series run on IFC someday soon, though! Read all about it right here, at ladyxfilms.com (http://www.ladyxfilms.com/). Hope this helps,

Thanks Chris...terrific concept...makes the gears start turning! Loved Le Fem Nikita...who knows what wil come of this? Tnx, Craig

>Unfortunately, when the DVX100 is in Progressive mode, the image stabilizer does not operate and works only in Interlaced mode.

????

No, it works for me in 24p unless I am crazy.

Has anyone noticed the electronic ringing on the two Canon Still Life comparisons done by Barry in his first post? Jump back and forth between the GL2 and the PD150 test patterns and its quite apparent---there with the GL2, absent with the PD150. I first noticed it on my GL2 and I posted it on this site as a HALO problem. Frank refered me to a site(see my post) that described various problem issues and there it was. An edge effect caused by over sharpening produces a phantom white line at the interface of a dark and light object. I did not notice it for weeks after getting my camera but now its the first thing I look for. Kind of like a paper cut.
I sent my GL2 back to the factory to correct this "problem" and it was returned, as was, with a note stating that it was "normal". I was just getting ready to send it back again when I visited Barry's evaluation to see if it was addressed. I didn't find any comments on it but it sure showed up in his Still Life photos. If all you other GL2 owners also see this condition, I may not return mine to the factory again but just enjoy the other good features of this camera.

Howard

I would hardly say that the "ringing" you noticed is absent in the pd150 images. Yes it is slightly less obvious, but it is still quite noticeable. Is this difference a flaw?...not necessarily.

Firstly, by specification the images from these cameras are designed to be viewed on an NTSC monitor, not on a web page viewed with a high resolution computer monitor. The fringing you notice would not be viewable in the specified viewing format, and in fact the fringing is a primary component in making the image look sharp in the lower resolution (ntsc)environment. (ask any prepress professional why we over-sample our scans, and then unsharp mask them (the source of the fringing) prior to printing...it produces a better, sharper result than simply scanning at the resolution of the litho screen, and not sharpening typically results in a slightly blurry image)

Secondly, this effect can be minimized by turning down the sharpness in the camera settings. In the review, I noted that I felt the image of the gl2 is slightly oversharpened...especially when viewed on the computer..and I have many times recommended here that the sharpening be turned down 1 or 2 points. I think this procedure would produce a similar amount of fringing compared to the pd150.

You would be hard-pressed to find any video camera (or even digital still camera) that doesn't produce some amount of sharpening artifact, especially when shooting a black and white line chart like mine...remember, as I said in the review...much of the data gained from test charts should be taken with a grain of salt...and is only valuable if you shoot black and white lines for a living.

Cheers

Barry

Yes, the DVX steady shot (labled "OIS" and shown by the little hand icon in the display)works in all modes- and quite well.

Barry has bought a DVX100 himself, and I would be interesed in his feedback now that he's had it for a while.

A new DVX100A is being sold now with some nice upgrades, including electronic 16:9 OR letterbox and several other useful features.

I am EXTREMELY happy with this camera, as it addressed many of the issues I had some problems with on the GL2-- a very good camera for the money, but lacking a few features I desired in a pro camera. Most notably, the DVX procudes a superior and sharper image, with more accurate color rendition-- albeit, and a price jump from the GL2.

Barry
Do you remember what the sharpness was set at when you did your evaluation of the GL2?

Howard

The comparison shots for all cameras were shot with all settings at default, which for the gl2 would mean the neutral or 0 position...this doesn't mean that sharpening is not applied at this level, only that canon's engineers decided that this level of sharpness looked best to them. I feel that for many purposes, this level of sharpening is a bit high, so I usually have mine set a step or two lower...but the best way to set your camera is to view the footage at a variety of sharpness levels on the intended output device....a higher level of sharpness might look better if shot in good light and displayed on an ntsc monitor, a lower level might look best on a computer monitor or for footage that is shot in lower light ( to minimize noise caused by increased gain).

If you've never done a custom preset sharpness adjustment, just be sure to turn the preset ON after you've adjusted the menu settings(button on the side of the camera)...a "cp" should show in the lower left of the screen letting you know that the adjustment is being applied.

Neil-As for my feelings about the gl2 as referenced to the dvx100. I think the gl2 is the best camera priced at $2000, and I think the DVX100 is the best camera priced at $3500. Is one or the other better...yes...do the math. In my ladyX film we did a scene with both cameras...the diner scene...and in some respects--sharpness and highlight rendering--the dvx100 proved superior by a slight margin. But I doubt that anyone could definitively pick the gl2 shots from that scene.

These are two cameras intended for completely different markets...so I'm not sure that any comparison is fair...in many respects the gl2 offers much more for the money in a significantly lighter/smaller package than does the dvx. Does this make it a better camera?...well yes, for someone who only has 2 grand to spend, and wants it for vacations, parties, hiking etc. For someone making their first indy DV epic, The DVX makes a lot of sense considering the next step up is many thousands of dollars more.

When I reviewed the gl2, I was very happy to see that in many respects it held its own against two cameras priced $1500 above it. Is this also the case with the DVX?..yes and no...yes the gl2 still has category leading performance that produces an image quality very much on par with the dvx...but on the other hand the dvx has raised the bar for cameras in its market sector, and thus has a slight edge over the gl2 in terms of image quality, and a significant bump in terms of functionality.

Barry