After dilligently reading througn all of the posts on the XL-2, and reading some fine evaluations, (plus some nitpicking), I have decided that there are too many problems with it.

So, I think I will sit this dance out. And so, tomorrow, I will stick my $5K+, back into my savings account, until the updated version comes out within the next 6 months.

I of course will continue to read the reviews on this cam, from all of the good folks here.

AN updated XL2 will likely take longer than 6 months. I think the XL1s came out 3 years after the XL1. Or do you mean the next new camera?

I'm having a similar debate, not whether I think the XL2 is worthy of my money (it is) as it is the best out there in this price range, and to me, easily worth the money over a DVX100, but instead is it the camera that is going to last me the next 5 years. I'm still happy with my 7 year old Canon XL1 cameras, so at least I'm not forced into it.

For the money, if the XL2 has no switchable line in on the XLR inputs, an iris control thats like shiftin gears in an 18 wheeler, inherent audio noise, and lack of cine gamma punch. If thats the case, then theres no way it's a better value than a DVX100A.
Just the lack good audio and pro audio features makes the camera a bad investment. If according to all the prior posts about how important audio is, then why risk buying something that gets half the job done. Are you going to buy a DAT recorder to get hissless audio? All this makes no sense.
Never buy a first release camera. The DVX 100A came out a year later with all the improvements from the previous version. The DVX's audio is the best audio that you can get from any camera in its price range. Clean, noisless, perfect. comparing the DVX and the XL2 at this point is like comparing a Porsche ( the DVX) and a Ferrari ( the XL2), but the Ferrari has 2 flat tires, and is running on 4 cylinders.
If you want a camera to make it in the pro world, at least try to emulate the features of other pro gear, or in the end you alienate your customers, which I feel Canon has done.

Paul

I'm perfectly happy if you have no interest in buying an xl2...but let's not be making statements that aren't true

1. the DVX sound circuits are far from perfect, in fact I just put the xl2 and dvx through a series of tests and they produced nearly identical levels of noise in every situation.

2." Xl2 has a lack of cinegamma punch"...I'm not sure what you mean by that. I posted some tests and it seamed to be doing exactly what it should...and in my opinion looked better than similar tests I've seen from the dvx....but maybe you could elaborate.

3. While the lack of an internal line/mic pad may leave us all feeling a little flaccid...I think the points that Laurie made in addition to the wisdom of don palomaki indicate that this really isn't that big of a deal...and in fact may be a better situation....ie if you want a lousy pad in your circuit its a $45 fix....if you want to record it right, then do it right in the first place.

4. "there's no way its a better value than the dvx". Now we're getting personal so I should just stay away...but you're right. The xl2 isn't a better value if you don't want true (beautiful) 16:9, a decent ramping zoom, 3x-20x reach, shoulder mounting, unbelievable OIS.

Yeah, I know, the DVX has the LCD, the cool focus indexing...and damn you gotta love that wide angle lens....but... I'm lucky, I happen to own both cameras. I get the best of both worlds...but just because the XL2 is now my #1...I don't really feel the need to dog the DVX because of it.

Barry

<<<-- Originally posted by Paul Pelalas : For the money, if the XL2 has no switchable line in on the XLR inputs, an iris control thats like shiftin gears in an 18 wheeler, inherent audio noise, and lack of cine gamma punch. If thats the case, then theres no way it's a better value than a DVX100A. -->>>

You seriously think a DVX100 is better than an XL2? Come on...

XL2
Interchangable lenses
much higher magnification stock lens
better image stabilization
higher resolution/true 16:9, better ergonomics
a nicer looking picture from what I've seen

A DVX100 may be a better choice if you are on a tight budget and all you plan on using it for is indie film making. The weak lens alone excludes it from most event use. I suspect, since this is your first post, that you are a DVX owner that is upset that you no longer have the best camera out there. Sorry, that's progress.

Actually im a former xl1s owner and current owner of a Sony DSR 500wsl who upgraded to a dvx100a. Just because it has native 16x9 capabilitys and a fatter lens does not make it a better camera. What the xl2 has and what it lacks are pluses and minuses and the minuses add up more to me . I need line level inputs via xlr, its standard on all pro cams, why not the xl2? When I stacked the cameras against each other in terms of pro features, and had to make the purchase decision, I had to go with the DVX. I was in no way constricted by budget, I decided based on features. Progress is when Panasonic released the 100a one year after the 100. Though I'm not a Panasonic camera fan at all, they showed me they we're serious about pleasing there customer base. If Canon would step up and take there video division as serious as there lens division, maybe ill get an xl2. But for now as long as my clients drool over there final product, and the DVX is making me money, I can't se the economic or artistic value in spending more money on a camera thats in the prosumer category, but lacks in a few industry standard features. Canon burned me before, I refuse to be burned again. Ill elaborate more if needed , but im currently on a shoot in California and Im using a borrowed laptop.

<<<-- Originally posted by Paul Pelalas : Actually im a former xl1s owner and current owner of a Sony DSR 500wsl who upgraded to a dvx100a. Just because it has native 16x9 capabilitys and a fatter lens does not make it a better camera. What the xl2 has and what it lacks are pluses and minuses and the minuses add up more to me . I need line level inputs via xlr, its standard on all pro cams, why not the xl2? When I stacked the cameras against each other in terms of pro features, and had to make the purchase decision, I had to go with the DVX. -->>>

You can never argue against "the right tool for the job". However, just because it is the right camera for you, doesn't actually make it superior, regardless of the price.

In my case, my 7 year old XL1 is a better camera to me than a DVX100, due to the lens configuration, ergonomics, OIS, versitility of the shutter control, and I could go on. However, I would never make the statement that it is a better camera than a DVX100, just better for me right now.


Plus you say never buy a first release camera... Most of the guys buying XL2's right now will make up the price of the camera in two or three jobs (or less). The time to buy a camera is when you need it. If you need an XL2 now, buy it now. Plus, I'd rather have the first generation of new technology than the last generation of old technology.

Paul

Again..I was only questioning statements you made that were not based in fact: and the need of a few people to knock a camera (that most have never even seen in person, yet alone used) just because they happen to own another one. I've owned a lot of cameras myself..and the only one that didn't stand up was the xl1s...so we agree on that...but the xl2 is a whole different deal (in my typically humble opinion).

Barry
------------------------------

Let the truth be told...

I guess you can't expect to put negative comments in a XL2 forum and not have people bite back :)

I currently don't have a camera at all and was orginally going to buy the DVX100a but have held out for the XL2. However i don't think the XL2 has meet my expectations, i was hoping for a more polished camera and was expecting it to be easly better then dvx100a.

"Xl2 has a lack of cinegamma punch" - Barry, the colours seem very dull to me when compared to shots i've seen with the dvx100a? Maybe there is a way to overcome this but i have yet to see it. I am also still waiting to see some 24p cinegamma footage online from someone.

At this stage i don't think anyone can say that either is better then one another unless you refer to your personal circumstances of use. I know personally i'm still on the fence.

These are all just tools of choice. I tend to become mighty leery of superlatives... "best" this and "better" that... what it comes down to is, the right one for you is the one which feels best in your hands, which produces the images you like. They all have their own little peculiar shortcomings. You just weigh the factors and use the one you're most comfortable with.

Tre

I'm curious about the statement that the colors seem dull to you compared to what you've seen from the dvx100a...And I'm only questioning because I've heard it several times from others...and I don't really know where it is coming from.

Up till now I've only seen 3 direct comparisons of the two cameras posted on the web. the first was posted by Johnnie over at DVX user, unfortunately he was comparing apples to oranges as he had a scene file applied to the DVX image which pretty much negates any analysis of the comparison. (despite the fact that many of us thought the color on the XL2 looked much more accurate.)

The second was Marty's footage...which did seem to reflect some colors that were duller on the xl2...however... marty was shooting in poor light, and the xl2 image didn't appear white balanced, and was 1/3 stop dark. (on top of this, marty feels his camera is defective). I encouraged marty to make his test more definitive...but he declined.

The last was my own comparison...I don't know how two cameras (even two of the same model) could be closer than in these tests, which were performed in decent light, both cameras were white balanced according to the same procedure. ( I ran through this test several times, with the same results each time)

All I can say is that the footage I have viewed on my set at home, and on several other sets has been anything but lacking in color.....

And I don't think this is what paul was referring to regarding cinegamma punch (actually cinegamma does the opposite of punch...but thats another story)

One last thing...I know I'm coming off as a defender of the great white camera...but you should know that I bought the xl1s right after it debuted, and spent the next two years using my Gl2 and DVX100.( the xl1s relegated to the closet). If I didn't feel that this was the best DV camera I've ever used...I'd just shut my mouth and go back to the gl2 forum.

Go try one down at your neighborhood store...stop listening to what everyone says...don't believe any pictures anyone posts...try it yourself....then make your decision. The DVX100A is an excellent camera...so is the XL2...either one would be a good choice in my book.


Barry

<< you can't expect to put negative comments in a XL2 forum and not have people bite back >>

I'm about to rant here, but *none of it* applies to Paul Pelalas or Tre Stylez. Instead there are other specific people I have in mind who shall remain nameless, heh.

Negative comments in any of our camera forums are fine but I'd prefer for them to come from people who are actually using that camera. I would not want steadfast loyal fans to "Brand X" coming into the forum for "Brand Y" and telling those folks their camera is better. I mean, that's why we separate the boards into different categories... so the brand-loyal fanatics can pretend the other guys don't exist. ;-)

Then there's the type of person who comes in and says, "I would never buy this camera because..." and rattle off what he's heard or what he's read about it that he doesn't like. Well, if you're no longer interested in it, then what are you still doing in its forum. I can forgive such an act by such a guy maybe once. The issue is when somebody camps out in the "Brand Y" board continually pontificating about what's wrong with it... as if it's his mission to convince everybody that because he thinks it's bad, they should too. I have a problem with this guy. If he doesn't like it, that's his business. But he needs to pack up and move on to another one of our camera boards. It's not his responsibility to talk other people out of the camera. Let the actual owners, the people who are really using it, report about it themselves. They'll discuss the good with the bad, and from actual experience, too. Interested parties will then make an informed decision one way or the other based on that direct feedback, be it positive or negative.

We cover a broad variety of camcorders here and the market is diverse enough so that there's something for everybody. If you don't like Brand X, then get out of the Brand X forum. The other people that are looking at Brand X are intelligent enough (the ones we get at DV Info Net anyway) that they'll draw their own conclusions about Brand X one way or the other, and they'll do so based on actual owner's feedback and not some non-buyer's rationalizing of specs, numbers, rumors or whatnot.

There, I've said it. Rant off. Continue with the usual.

<<<-- Originally posted by Tre Stylez : I guess you can't expect to put negative comments in a XL2 forum and not have people bite back :)
-->>>


There is a difference between negative comments that are factual, and negative comments that are pure opinion. Make sure you know which are which before making a choice. The only true opinion that matters is your own, and you can never formulate that properly by listening to other people. Beleive it or not, not everyone on the internet is right.

As Barry says, the only way to decide which camera is for you, is to go down to a camera store, and actually try one. Shoot some test footage then decide. You wouldn't let some guys on the internet decide who you should marry, or where you should buy a house, why let them (us) tell you which camera to buy?

As far as the XL2 not meeting your expectations, I understand. I've been constantly let down by Ferrari for not producing an F360 convertible for under $30,000.

Chris, you're right. All the gripes (Mine included) boil down to the fact that, for what I wanted, Canon didn't deliver. Or to be more precise, they did deliver in some aspects but not in others which makes the decision very painful now.

I wanted the Canon body style, that's pretty important to me, but I also wanted good all round lens with manual/servo lens control like the DVX, and a decent iris control, OIS and a nice wide. I expected as standard, Line level in on the XLR, and I was *hoping* for underscan on the EVF and to actually get a good sized LCD. I didn't get any of these.

So there is no "best" or "better" as you say, it's stupid to talk like that.

Aaron

Barry,

I think it safe to say that the examples i have seen with the dvx100a have had certain tweaks to get the nice vibrant colour i have seen. So yes it is like comparing apples to oranges if we are talking about standard footage but lets say i want the orange(XL2) to look like a apple(DVX) can the XL2 look like the apple is what I’m interested in because it would look damn nice as a apple ;) . Is there anyway you can get the colours to look more vibrant? Especially in 24p mode for people like myself who wish to get the cine type look.

I wish i could go down to my local store to check, however in Australia the DVX-100a is available on "order" and the XL2 is not even out here yet as far as I’m aware. Getting a test model would be very unlikely so i really have to rely on people’s opinions and order from overseas.

You wanted a perfect camera, Aaron? Well, who can fault you for that... I sure can't. After years of development you'd think they would have delivered a flawless piece. I'm in agreement that the line-level input issue is definitely a major oversight and will probably stick out as the biggest sore thumb on the camera. Question is, does that make it a deal-breaker. And of course, that sort of discussion is always encouraged here, because it's productive. As far as another XL lens... well, the future is wide open and anything is possible, I guess.

"As far as the XL2 not meeting your expectations, I understand. I've been constantly let down by Ferrari for not producing an F360 convertible for under $30,000"

Now c'mon mate, i find that statement just a tad silly. I have expectations personally and thats what i'm basing it on. If you want me to cut down on your analogy its rather simple. Consider the panasonic to be a lamborghini convertible under $30,000 :)

I actually own 2 canon digital SLR's and quite a few canon lenses but i'm no brand loyalist i'm simply wanting the best i can have in my circumstances. If i can get the nice colour i want out of the XL2 using y and x settings then thats great and i might want the camera!.

I'm not being a fanboy here, please understand that and be a little open minded,

Ooh I get to argue with chris...I don't think I've ever done that before. After listening to the three sound experts weigh in on this (Laurie, Don, and Jay Rose)...it seems like this is a mole hill...I just checked my cable bag...And I already have a 40 db pad in my kit...bought it for the gl2.... go figure.

Aaron--I can hear you on the underscan...but otherwise the LCD, though small, works very nicely...and it is way more accurate than the big LCD on the DVX for judging exposure. I don't think the pop out LCD works with the XL series design...its just not made for holding out in front of you (too damn heavy. It would be nice to have on a tripod...but really the new one is nicer than you think.

Tre-

I haven't tried to really tweak the image yet...but I can't imagine that you won't be able to oversaturate the image to your hearts content. Remember...images posted on the web...including clips are basically innacurate representations as the NTSC color space is severely limited, compared to SRGB (web standard). I remember the first clips I saw off of the dvx on the web...they looked boring as hell...then I shot my first movie with it...it brought tears to my eyes man!!! Ok...I haven't cried since I was 19......Look all I can say is the colors on the xl2 look very bright...The image quality has more integrity to it than any other camera I've used. I think that with minor tweaking you could make either camera look like the other in terms of color.

Barry

I've shot with a lot of cameras over the years and have never seen one that I'd consider perfect, although the old CP16R 16mm was pretty close in terms of being very useable for what it was designed to do.

The thing with DV cameras is that the digital format has allowed manufacturers to make consumer cameras that are very close to professional cameras in terms of the quality of their images. Not AS good, but close enough so that lots of low budget independent films have been made with cameras that were and are considered consumer cameras by their manufacturers.

From my point of view, the fact that the XL2 is the first 1/3" chip camera to offer real 16:9 is excellent. The shoulder mount is excellent; interchangeable lenses are excellent, and how long the camera runs on a cheap battery is excellent, as well as its relatively low weight. The quality of its image is good enough for not all but some professional work, and it's certainly good enough for low budget DV filmmaking.

The negatives that have been reported include, at the top of the list for me anyway, the lack of XLR line in; no underscan in the viewfinder; and a longer lens instead of a wider one. If this is going to be a person's only camera and if he or she is going to do serious work with it, then those are serious drawbacks. But...my feeling is that life is never perfect and you can always figure out ways to work with what you have to work with.

Assuming that I planned on buying a 1/3" chip camera, if I planned on shooting 16:9, I would probably have to go with the XL2. If 4:3 was going to be my main thing, I would most likely go with the DVX100a. However, I would test out the 16:9 mode of the Panasonic, as well as the Canon, before I bought anything. I'm fortunate in that I live in an area where I can rent most any camera I might be interested in. I would rent both of those for a day and check them out under real conditions before making a decision.

The reason it's essential to check them out in person is that there are many factors other than the chips and the audio that might make one camera preferable over another. The way the lens focuses, how sharp the viewfinder is, if the viewfinder has a wide enough range of adjustment for your eyes, what information is displayed in the viewfinder, what items are menu-driven vs controlled by switches, how the aperture ring works, how smooth the zoom is, the overall feel and balance of the camera, how the stabilization works, how solid the whole thing is, and many other things as well I can't think of off the top of my head.

Sometimes very small things may influence a buying decision, depending on what the immediate needs are. For example, about 4 years ago I bought a DSR250 because I had three programs that required a camera with optical stabilization and a flip out LCD screen I could see while looking at the side of the camera. In that situation, if the Canon and the Panasonic were my only two options, I would have had to go with the Panasonic because of the LCD screen. That sounds like an almost insignificant reason, but that project paid for the camera, and it was essential to have the LCD screen I could see from the side when it was folded back against the side of the camera. In another time and place, that feature might not be significant at all.

<<<-- Originally posted by Tre Stylez : "As far as the XL2 not meeting your expectations, I understand. I've been constantly let down by Ferrari for not producing an F360 convertible for under $30,000"

Now c'mon mate, i find that statement just a tad silly. I have expectations personally and thats what i'm basing it on. If you want me to cut down on your analogy its rather simple. Consider the panasonic to be a lamborghini convertible under $30,000 :)
-->>>

Ahhh... you completely missed my point.

I'll elaborate.
I've been constantly let down by Ferrari for not producing an F360 convertible for under $30,000. Who'se fault is it that I am dissapointed, Ferrari's or mine? If they DID make one, I sure wouldn't complain about wonky stereo knobs, a noisy exhaust, or ugly rims. Heck, the ENZO doesn't even have power windows, that didn't slow sales much. :)

Oh, another great analogy. It doesn't matter how cheap the Lambosonic gets, I too tall to drive one comfortably. However, I fit reasonably well into a Carrari XL360.

Well once again you are bringing in matters of opinion, i photograph cars for a living, i have my opinions also :) i just won't share them.

I never intended to bash the XL2 at all. In fact I still may purchase one in the near future. I was just a little dissappointed with some things in the camera. But that doesent make it good camera. I was blown away by the footage from Vienna and Barrys footage, I still have drool on my chin. In the next 2 weeks the XL2 and the DVX will be getting tested together from what a lighting associate of mine told me. As far as the punch I was reffering to, the XL2 and the original DVX I feel lack that look of like color reversal film. Not that its a great look, but it shows the range you can punch up and blow out the colors if you wanted to.
I would never bash a tool. I've owned many Canon products, still have my Canon 1014xls super 8 and just sold my Canon Scoopic 16mm. Canon makes awesome lenses and if they could get better user feedback in the future maybe they will make the next generation XL2 the perfect camera.
Barry if I wasn't flying out of California tommorow, I would say maybe we could get together and do some comparison shooting, have some lunch, and talk shop. I may be back in a few weeks if I get picked up for a job I have a bid on. Let me know If you would be interested.

As far as color is concerned (previous reply) , To tweak color is part of the post production process. I have yet to see any camera (HD, Super 35 mm film included) that give exactly the intended color. All of these need to be color timed (film) or color corrected (tape.digital) to attain the final intended look and feel. Getting close to the desired color is the best anyone can hope for coming directly from the camera and I stress "close". Have any of you ever shot "raw" images on a digital SLR. If so, you know what I'm talking about.

Your arguments re: camera controls, etc. that has already been answered succinctly by Dylan

Thanks Paul, and your opinions are always welcome here. Hopefully we'll get a chance to see some good comparisons and if you could be a part of making that happen then all for the better. Thanks again,

It's late and I've got a tune to finsih before sunrise, but let me just say this to all the " I wouldn't buy...iris wheel like a 10 wheeler, flat color"...whatever guys. You're really doing yourselves and others a disservice by commenting on and making decisions on something as cool as this new system, without ever seeing what it can do.

I just got back from a really interesting shooting opportunity. I'll post about it and an edited "mini" feature from it (if Chris can accomodate) in a couple of days, but let me just say that I've never shot with a camera capable of getting what I got in an off the wall and really great environment today.

This footage shows a great deal of what the XL2 can do in a dynamic real world situation...and wait till you see these "muted colors". What a shoot, and what a camera. I've built a number of music and video studios over the years and been intricately involved with all of the technological developments along the way from analog to digital audio, from 3/4" to 16mm, and all the creative toys in the process.

I've never been as high and delighted with a single creative tool as I am with the XL2. Of course YMMV.

Great, can't wait to see some footage Jim :)

I agree, it will be great to see some more footage. My gripes haven't been about look from the small amount of stuff floating out there at the moment I think the Xl2 produces amazing images I'm not denying that at all.

Chris I didn't want a perfect camera...OK I do, but I didn't expect one with the Xl2 - to me, take a DVX and chuck the Canon body on it with the interchangeable lenses and I would have already flown over to B&H to pick mine up :).

A perfect camera is impossible, we're all different I know. But I'd still argue that if Canon had of added a few of the things that I (and others) feel were 'left out' then those who currently like the camera would still have liked it (even more maybe) and those of us who currently have issues with it, would then like it. More sales for Canon.

Then again I'm one person and who knows if Canon did surveys and what they added or left out were things people wanted added or left out....although I find it hard to believe people asked for that iris control, more tele and forget the wide, no line level in on XLR....

Also, although Jay Rose stated that if Canon had great preamps it might not matter that there is no line level in, it seem to me that it could still matter for long cable runs in noisy environments, the line level signal would be less susceptible to that noise.

Aaron

<<<-- Originally posted by Tre Stylez : Well once again you are bringing in matters of opinion, i photograph cars for a living, i have my opinions also :) i just won't share them. -->>>

I fail to see what photographing cars has to do with either of our opinions, besides my irreverant but relevant analogy. Cool job though.
I'll stand by my "try it for yourself before you decide which camera is right for you" opinion. It is a drawback for you that none are available to you locally in Australia yet. Unless you need one now, maybe you can find some local production companies using them to test out.

Why do I get the impression that, there are some overreactions in the air. For example, has anybody yet tested whether the audio of XL2 is hissy? What is true, that the seven year old model XL1 and its update XL1s has shortcomings in its audio, but the only reasonable assumption is that XL2 has completely new audio components. Besides, the noise in the XL1 becomes a problem only when one starts to challenge the system; many never notice any problem.

Having a background in electical engineering, I believe that the Canon design team must have been aware of the problem. And typically, in this kind of situations (marketing) economists ask engineers to cheat; For instance, to remove the problem of hissy sound, use software to filter out the background noise. Many people would never notice such a trick and be just happy with the product. In my experience, Canon's policy is in this sense a professional one compared to many other companies: They do not tend to hide fake solutions behind the scenes.

Finally, isn't the question of market psycology. We, as the customers, do not want to end up having a feeling of being cheated. Investing around $5000 (or euro) to a camcorder takes quite a lot of work before the investment is paid back, so we become sensitive to tiny details for we are perhaps subconciously concerned that the camcorder has shortcomings preventing us from doing something other people are able to do with their equipments.

All I can say to such concerns is: Go and check what a proper digital stereo recorder and stereo mics costs. That's easily $2000. If somebody is offering you a camcorder with wonderful video and audio with $4000, is that a plausible combination? Please do not, answer me, for this is just the question I made to myself (and I did order the XL2 immediately when the first news came out).

Well.

I didn't mean to start a war with my original post.

I was thinking more on the lines of the wanted changes folks have posted about; with, them becoming available in an updated cam, possible in about 6 months or so. It wouldn't supprise me that they are being implemented as I write.

Yes, I will still sit this dance out.

Anyone for the XL-HD?(g)

Yes it will be interesting to see what comes in the next Canon camera and more importantly, when it will come out. Sony has now announced their HDV cam (A couple of days after the Canon XL2 release, Hmm) and I'm sure JVC is not going to sit idly by, and well Panasonic, although not part of the HDV consortium will surely come up with something, and if their revolutionary attitude is anything to go by, maybe something quite impressive.

Aaron

has it not been said that XL2 is the last (absolute?) SD cam from Canon? if that is so then the next one is bound to be a HD(or HDV) guinea pig. XL2 is more like a revision of XL1s... so whoever is waiting for XL2s could be waiting until second coming! i ain't waiting, i'd rather be saved today!

<<<-- Originally posted by Yi Fong Yu : has it not been said that XL2 is the last (absolute?) SD cam from Canon? if that is so then the next one is bound to be a HD(or HDV) guinea pig. XL2 is more like a revision of XL1s... so whoever is waiting for XL2s could be waiting until second coming! i ain't waiting, i'd rather be saved today! -->>>

amen brother!