okay, before you guys come with pitchforks and torches, let me just say i've done quite a bit of looking around for this critical decision (3-5 grand isn't a trivial investment!).

Okay let me just tell you my story first. Back 2 months ago I started hunting around for a camcorder that's great and i will be happy with. something that will last me a while. I set my eyes on the XL2.

Okay so I saved, and as the date for release on the XL2 got closer, I start seeing people flaming this camcorder and suggesting the dvx100. I brush these people off as just being loyal to a brand name.

the XL2 gets released. more flames shot up against that camcorder. now i'm having doubts. now people are suggesting the dvx100a! What on earth? and from time to time, i see people saying "i would buy the dvx100a even if it were $1k more than the XL2". is the dvx100a really that much better?

my friend and somewhat amatuer (he doesn't devote his life to this, he's a software dev but does "film" for fun) said that i should get the XL2 anyway, since it is a big camera and therefore will be able to hold a steadier shot than any palmcorders, which the dvx100a pretty much is. yes, it does have true 16:9, no squeezing. but really, is it worth that $1.5k more?

My instructor at pittsburgh filmmakers just shakes his head and say "the best way for you to decide on 1 is to take both on a field test". Yeah, that's a pretty obvious panacea to the problem, but where on earth am i going to find both around pgh, let alone borrow and test them side by side?

so basically this is to those who have used both the XL2 and the dvx100a. what do you think?

thank you for any information. I hope you guys don't see me as a freak, posting so much!

like any new ca, ther will be disbleievers.. but follow ur senseis advice ;)

Sorry Peter, but that sentence makes no sense at all. What are
you saying?

Jay: your instructor is correct. Better is such a relative term and
totally depends on a lot of other things. Best would be to try it
out. I can't imagine you do not have a pro video shop somewhere
around your area where you at "least" hold the two camera's
(when the XL2 becomes available). There formfactor is SO
different that even this is an important thing to do and see.

A good shop should have no issues with you trying the camera
out in the store.

But the best thing you can do if you really can't physically get to
a camera is make lists. Make lists of what you want, need or
don't want/need.

Let's begin with a short question list:

1. what will you be using the camera for? (filmmaking, documentary, commercial wedding work, tv broadcast etc.)

2. do you want/need to be able to swap lenses

3. is true 16:9 important

Some questions might be more easy to answer by you than
others. Other questions are:

1. how much money do you have

2. do you need to buy more than just a camera (think lights, audio equipment, support equipment, editing system etc.)

3. could you get buy with a second hand or lesser camera

4. how much experience do you have

Sorting out what you have done, what you want to do, what you
need to get and how much money you have might steer you in
the right direction.

Although new camera's are great, a lot of the "older" camera's
like XL1s, GL2/1, VX2000 etc. are fine camera's as well.

The newest and greatest is not always what is best for
everybody! In my mind people should help you guide your way
to a camera and not say "the XL2 is crap", or "go with the DVX".

That are un-informed personal (brand) opinions. They say and
mean nothing. It is your hard earned cash you are putting on the
line. And you want a camera that works for you, not something
somebody else wants for themselves or "thinks" is the better
brand for example.

Also keep in mind that the XL2 is a new camera. Not a lot of
people have it yet and less people have actually produced
something with it! Each camera has its own weaknesses,
strengths, look and particular way to get the best from the
camera. This holds true for the XL2 as well. We need to learn
to get the best image from this camera as well.

There are plenty of aftermarket devices that will turn a "palmcorder"into a shoulder-mounted, stable setup. The XL2 is not truly a shoulder-mounted camera either. My definition of of an ideal handheld camera is one that sits on the shoulder and is so well balanced that you can virtually let go of it without it tipping one way or the other. That means not only balanced front-to-back (the XL2 is pretty nose heavy) but with the center of gravity as low as possible also.

Rob
Peter means that when a new camera comes out, the people that just bought the old camera will flame it for a few months regardless of how good it is. He also suggests that Jay take the advice of his instructor and try both out.

I agree 100% with Peter, however the choice of camera is also dependent on what you plan on shooting with it. The DVX100 is a bad choice compared the the XL2 for sports shooting, but might have a slight edge for indie filmmaking.

Having used both the XL series and the DVX camera, ergonomicaly, the XL's are much more suited to my taste in what a camera should feel like in my hands, so that's my current choice.

Charles,

I felt the same way, until a few days ago when I installed an Anton/Bauer Dionic 90 Battery system on the back of the camera. It's heaven. Not only can I shoot all day, but the camera is now balanced.

Matt

In terms of experience using varous cameras... I've used the DVC80, the GL1, GL2, VX2000, PD150... and yeah I believe that's it (aside from the cheap consumer cameras). In terms of experience doing filming, let's just say i haven't taken real classes, except for the one i'm taking now. I treat this largely as a hobby, but a more serious than trivial hobby nonetheless.

If I get one of these 2 mentioned cameras, I would probably want to do some "filmmaking", basically just narratives or indies. I've never really done full-length narratives before, the current project for the class i'm taking now is a documentary shot with a PD150.

I think I've located a photo shop nearby... I could probably call em up and ask them if they carry both models and try them out.

about the XL1/2, do you people find it somewhat awkward that you're forced to use a viewfinder and no LCD screen? I was thinking about the tripod mount, and how you'd have to lean forward see any image at all. okay well I understand that the XL2 offers a flip up for the 2 inch LCD.... so this question is more relevant to the XL1, but is 2 inches for an LCD big enough for most?

I don't think 2" is very big for an LCD, but I'm a viewfinder type guy so I don't care much either way that the XL2 doesn't have a big flipout LCD like the DVX100.

I actually like the viewfinder and find the two inch screen plenty in flip up mode. I only wish you could disconnect the eyepiece all together that way.

Right now I'm shopping for a small production monitor to hook the camera to, and much prefer that to any flip out LCD.

The right one for you is the one that feels best in your hands.

Period.

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : The right one for you is the one that feels best in your hands.

Period. -->>>

(cough)and it doesn't hurt if it is white with red trim(cough)

white with red trim? what?

<<<-- Originally posted by Jay Lim : white with red trim? what? -->>>

Just a little joke on my part, as the Canon XL series are white, with red bits. I'm just kidding though.

The XL2....it's white....with red trim.

I worked with an XL1s, PD 150 and PD 170.

Finally got a look at a DVX 100 for a few minutes the other day.

The one feature that I really like is that the aperature control is completely proportional -- no stepping like the Sony or Canon. If subtle aperature control is important to you, then the Panasonic is the answer.

Now if Sony or Canon can just get rid of those dang steps in their aperature controls!

Dean Sensui
Base Two Productions

cant wait till the 18th.. hmm.. maybe my DVX's wil start collecting dust..

maybe..

but i love my itty bitty Pannys...

I've owned my DVX100 for about a year and a half now (one of the originals) and I love it. Every time I shoot it just gets better and better.
I would agree that if your doing sports type work, the cannon might be better for zooming. aparently the cannon does a better job.
Either way they are both very nice cameras.
Here are a few things I don't like about the DVX:

1.The focus ring does not have much friction so on the fly focusing can be a bit jumpy when you first put your hand on it.

2.The aperture wheel is a bitch to find some times while shooting In a hurry. (could just be the operator).

3. The on camera mic sucks in a big way. but I suspect that most all on camera mics are not that great anyway.

Don't get me wrong though, I absolutely love my DVX.
The video this thing takes was worth every penny.

Question for those who have seen the XL2... is the microphone that comes with the camera connected using XLR? from pictures I see it doesn't seem to be so. does it make a difference to users like you?

also, my professor told me that the XL1's had problems with its sound recording (i believe sampling rate?), and that it didn't record at true 48khz or something. he told me that if he were buying a new camera, and if canon had fixed the XL1's sound problem, then he'd go for the XL2... so did they fix it for the XL2?

Regarding XL1 audio -- The XL1 series doesn't have "locked audio". In other words, the number samples per frame aren't exactly the same. It's an issue that has to do with the MiniDV vs DVCam format.

DVCam, on the other hand, has "locked audio" or a precise number of samples per frame (generally 48,000 or 32,000 samples/second).

Without locked audio there might be a slight amount of drift, but not enough to render the material useless. In fact, it's hardly noticable unless you're trying to combine audio tracks from a pair of cameras. In which case there might be issues with phase shifting under certain conditions.

Overall, the sound quality is good enough for almost everything. If you use a good mic and place it well, use good cables or a high-quality wireless system, then the results will not be objectionable at all.

Dean Sensui
Base Two Productions.

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : The right one for you is the one that feels best in your hands.

Period. -->>>

Well ya know Chris, that implies that he ought to be shooting narrative film handheld and I'm not sure that's the best suggestion I've heard. If Jay is going to shoot narrative, then he really ought to have some good legs under his cam, not to mention a good fluid head.

I went into B&H in New York and tested both DVX100A and XL2. Let me say up front that just looking at the XL2 filled me with lust before my brain kicked in. It just looks cool - almost like a "real" movie camera. And native 16:9, OMG! The DVX looks like a brick.

I shot the same slow pan on each - back of the showroom to the front of the store. Same closeups, etc. Cine-Like D on the DVX, Cine-Gamma on XL2, 24p on both. Superb results on both, but the DVX had a slightly sharper look that the XL2 when viewed on my TV from a DVD I burned. Better saturation and a more filmic look than the XL2, even though the DVX was in "squeeze" mode and the XL2 was 16:9 native.

Sound recording on the DVX (I had my own Audio-Technica AT897 shotgun with me) was clearly superior.

The 3.5" LCD on the DVX was a real bonus that Canon shouldn't have left off of the XL2.

Jay HAS to get to a camera store where he can do a similar test, even if he has to get on a Greyhound bus to get there.

Hi Jack,

nice, you got to test both side by side :) by the way, does the 16:9 anamorphic on the DVX display as a well proportioned letterbox on the LCD?

lol, getting on a greyhound in the middle of a busy semester isn't going to be wise, but i'm still trying to find a store nearby that carries either of these (the last store i mentioned was only digital still cameras).

<<<-- Originally posted by Jay Lim : nice, you got to test both side by side :) by the way, does the 16:9 anamorphic on the DVX display as a well proportioned letterbox on the LCD? -->>>

Hey Jay, I didn't use the ana adapter in my test at the store, but this is what I know from others' posts. With the ana adapter on the DVX, the LCD shows a tall, skinny image. Someone - Century, I think - makes a "reverse anamorphic" adapter to straighten the image out to 16:9, but I think is for the eyepiece only, not for the LCD. It ain't cheap, but neither is the Panny anamorphic adapter. I am also lead to believe that a professional field monitor would straighten out the image as well, but again, we talking big bucks.

If you're just starting out, I assume you don't have the $50,000 to take you movie to a 35mm film print and that your final output will be on VHS tape or on DVD. If you think your film will be most likely viewed on a TV set, then the DVX squeeze mode will be just fine. If you think you might be using VHS or DVD at a film festival for projection on the big screen, then it's not going to look quite as good, but that's not the fault of the DVX - NONE of the 1/3" chip camcorders look overwhelming on the big screen. On the other hand, several feature films have been made with this type of camera, and outside of this geek community of ours, I haven't heard anyone complain about small chip video blown up for the big screen. The quality of the final product still depends on script, actors, camerawork, lighting, sound and editing. Most everything else is über-geek bullshit.

ok well, either way, if i get the dvx100a, will i be able to transfer true 16:9 from it? like if i set it to anamorphic 16:9, will it transfer as full frame 16:9 onto my computer? i don't really like to have to use letterboxing so :)

<<<-- Originally posted by Jay Lim :
also, my professor told me that the XL1's had problems with its sound recording (i believe sampling rate?), and that it didn't record at true 48khz or something. -->>>

your prof is exactly right, there was an audio frequency issue with the xl1(not the xl1s) that showed up in some of the editing software at the time... specifically, earlier versions of premiere... but it was fixed a long time ago... you can probably find all the details by doing a usenet search at www.deja.com.

one thing that you can do is rent both cameras for a day... or go to your local videographers group and see if someone will bring 'em in for a demo.

hey, answer me this, anyone.

okay, so the DVX100A has 2 modes for 16:9, letterbox and squeeze. these are my assumptions for these 2 recording modes:

letterbox:

the CCD records a 16:9 image, making the top and bottom parts of the CCD non-firing. the image you see on the LCD/viewfinder will be letterboxed. when transferring to computer for editing, the footage will have the visible letterboxing tops and bottoms.

squeeze:

the CCD records a 16:9 image, making the top and bottom parts of the CCD non-firing. the image you see on the LCD/viewfinder will take up the entire screen, but your image will be squeezed horizontally. when transferring to computer for editing, the footage will have no letterboxing tops and bottoms, and therefore is "true" 16:9 when transferred.

am i right in my assumptions? this is a kind of bummer if so, because i dislike having to see what i'm taking squeezed on my LCD. i don't mind image information being squeezed when recording, but squeezing on my LCD is like telling me to take footage while drunk.

I can't say how it looks on the DVX LCD, but it ain't "true" 16:9.
What it does is the same as letterboxing, only stored different.
It crops the bottom and top and then vertically stretches the
picture to full height and then storing that to tape and flagging
it as 16:9.

So yes, there is a 16:9 signal on tape which you could call true
16:9 (tape/format wise). But it has the exact same lower
resolution as the letterboxed version so you will not gain much
(you can argue that you might gain a slightly less compressed
signal, but that has yet to be proven to actually increase quality
by a visible amount).

thanks for the info Rob :)

does anyone else who owns or has tried the dvx100a have any info on what i would see on the LCD/viewfinder under these 3 settings?

aaaah bummer. i didn't realize that the XLR microphone that appears in so many pictures attached to the DVX100A was not in the kit!

Can anyone "bottom line" this for me?

I'm shooting a full length film in the near future on DV.

We currently have been using a Sony TRV 950 and a Sony VX 2000.

We have been looking at the following cameras:

Canon XLS1

Canon XLS2

Panasonic DX100a

Our budget is between $2500-$4000 per camera. We could go a bit more if need be but would like to avoid it. We are currently planning to purchase two of the same cameras.

What questions should I be thinking about or asking of these models?

Any suggestions on what my best route would be?

My Apologies for the lack of information, but I will fill in any blanks requested to get a proper suggestion out of you guys.

tnx

-Hal

Hal, the XL1S is discontinued. The XL2 is over your budget. The DVX100A is probably your best choice within your budget. The right camera for you is the one which feels best in your hands.

Chris-

I have seen several places selling old stock or used XLS 1's such as B & H which is I was thinking maybe this one.

If I am able to go 5k (or so) per camera is there anything else I should look at besides the XL2 or the Panasonic?

I spent 6 years learning to shoot, light and mic based on a TRV-900 and accessories. When I was ready to upgrade so that the equipment was in my way less, I thought that a big LCD was mandatory and I favored those cameras. Fortunately I waited long enough for the XL2 which caused used XL1s to drop into my price range.

FWIW, my handheld and tripod shooting drastically improved due to the XL1s eyepiece versus a flip out. And I didn't realize it but the eyepiece has a near/far nob so you can monitor the eyepiece from a foot or so away when the cam is on a pod. On top of all that, the configurability of the XL series makes for versatility between run and gun vs studio shooting. Add to that that you don't have to sacrifice zoom (10x on the Panny, 16x on the XL1, 20x if you get the new lense) on the XL1 for wide angle because of the interchangeable lense.

All that just to say that the lack of eyepiece is not a slam dunk negative and I dare say that the configurability of the XL1 is a feature that you may not appreciate until after you've used it. It was a pleasant surprise for me.

Hal, another thing to consider is to only use one camera rather than two for your shoot, in which case you can spend more on your camera line item and perhaps get a better one. Consider that many features are shot with a single camera; two cameras simultaneously can be a compromise in lighting; and that after the shoot is over the only thing that counts is the quality of the image that will be associated with this project forever. However, this needs to be weighed against the potential time lost by having to shoot all angles with one camera. Sometimes, it takes longer to work with two cameras. It's a scene-by-scene choice. Just a thought, though.