Guys:

I know I am posting this in the XL2 forum, hence I can guarantee I will not get 100% objectivity, however I am considering spending the money for a pair of XL2's. The only thing holding me back is the release of the Sony Z1U in February. From a bells and whistles perspective, can you help me clearly identify why I should go with the XL2's? This is exclusively for event and wedding videography. There will be no indie shorts, CANN or Sundance efforts, no matteboxes, no cool jibs...you get the idea...

aside from the 24p, 16:9 and interchangeable lens, I am favoring the XL2's for the very reason that you can sync a pair in timecode using a remote and using freerun mode; therefore upon capturing assets for my NLE timeline, I wont have much fuss to sync them and will make my A/B transitions a little easier.

Now, is there anything I am losing by not going with the HDV format? is there really a market for 60i in the consumer wedding space? is it worth the extra money? am i giving up low lux performance by buying the canons?

i treasure your experience, thoughts and recommendations...

John

It really only matters if your clients have HDV capable playback. Most, I am guessing, will not and you are probably best off sticking with SD - be it widescreen or not.

I think that sync method you mentioned is a great idea and useful if you already have the cameras, but I definitely would not use that as a priority based reason to buy the XL-2(s). A flash from a still camera, a slate's sticks or even a hand clap in clear view of each camera will give you perfect sync with any camera. I use a slate's sticks with 2-4 cameras all the time with undetectable results. I am able to go to frame level on the timeline and can match 4 cameras in under 2 minutes.

You'll be missing the opportunity to market yourself as offering high definition video over your competition. If it was for indie film, I'd get an XL2. In your case, I'd get the Sony HDV cam.

The camera you want to buy now should be dictated by your end broadcast requirements
Most people dont have HD ready tv's yet, so there is no point in shooting hd if it cannot be viewed on your clients home tv (their home tv being your end broadcast requirement)

Use SD now, people have it, and it's here and now. When you can no longer make money from your XL2's then sell them on and upgrade. If you want to make money here and now over the next year I'd get the XL2's

Most wedding clients, to be honest could not even tell the difference between a wedding shot on a single chip cam compared to the XL2! Your filmmaking talent will shine through whatever. I'd market yourself in 9-12 months from now with HD - no sooner it's not widespread enough. It's like saying oooh why don't I out do the competition and deliver the film on DVD instead of VHS before the time when home DVD players became common place. We are on the verge of HD, but its not quite as accessible as MiniDV or SD. Also you are going to need a more powerful editing system to deal with HD. You will save time in that too if you film on SD and use something like the Matrox RT.x100 etc. Using a hardware realtime card is far better than software realtime - it is much more time productive. If you want an HD realtime card get $7500 - $10000 out to get the cheapest on offer called the Matrox Axio.

So you know, I own an XL2 and so far I have used it to shoot weddings more than anything else

Just my thoughts
Lawrence

I have to agree with Lawrence. I don't have the XL2 for that mather :-p but he's right: HD is really unavailable for most people. I know you ain't all living here in Belgium/Europe, but here (if I'm not mistaken) almost no broadcast channel sends in HD, and almost no one has an HD set.
I think SD will still go for a while.
(Resolution isn't that important, only if you are planning to do a blowup)

And, as Lawrence says, if you are going to HD, you have to have a heavy computer, HD monitors,... and so one.
So in the end it will be much much more expensive for you, for something most clients can't watch because they don't have the material yet...

BTW: although the remark of Lawrence ('most clients can't see the difference between a single chip and your XL2 footage...') is a little bit rude maybe, he is also right I think.
Most people just want to have a great souvenir, and they hire somebody who can shoot professionally, but I don't think they know anything about lenses, resolution, CCD blocks,...

Good luck!

John,

I think that this is a difficult choice...because you are entering the market while it has come to some sort of a dividing line...we are unlikely to see any more DV format camera's developed, so essentially the xl2 is arguably the state of the art in that camp. The Sony HDV cam is the beginning of a new ballgame...one that few of us know anything about. Having nearly 10 years of dv experience gives us the benefit of knowing what its strengths and weaknesses are. You have a choice of being a pioneer, or a craftsman who uses good solid tools to create his work. Its a difficult choice.

Everything said by others above is true, I'd like to add 3 thoughts.

I think the xl2 is a better hand held camera, which I think is important for weddings. It's shoulder mounting will give you a much steadier handheld shot, in exchange for some of the flexibility the smaller sony cam will offer. There's also something to be said for "lookiing" more professional during a wedding. You're more likely to be getting people asking for your card. The xl2 will probably have more of this "effect".

I view my xl2 exclusively on a sony HD wega 34" widescreen. The images look great. (some have tried this with a HD LCD set and not had as good of a result, a failure of the set to uprez properly, but still). My feeling is that canon tried to make the xl2 a sucessful bridge to HD.

I took a close look at Kaku Ito's post of some steady cam shots from the sony cam. My feeling was that whenever the camera started moving, the image dropped in resolution significantly. It was bad enough to bug me. HDV seems great for still pictures, but the i-frame compression scheme leaves something to be desired when the camera is in motion.

Barry

Mathiew and Lawrence, my opinion is based on marketing ability, not practicality of camera technology. Want to know the real advantage of HDV? It isn't screen size, it is the ability to stand up and scream at the top of your lungs,

"I HAVE HD AND MY COMPETITION DOESN'T. HIRE ME!"

That's all it takes to give you an instant sales advantage.
Who cares if the market place still is SD dominated... NOBODY!
Clients will chase the new technology. I'd wager not one in ten of your clients even knows what SD means. They just want the best, at the most affordable price.

Look at buying two identical cars for the same price. One has ABS, airbags, and a racing suspension. The other doesnt. Which do you buy, despite the fact you may never need those features?

Obviously if you don't have HDV, and your competition does, and the client you are trying to woo has an HDTV, you are at a big disadvantage, regardless of how good your demo reel is.

Yes, the operator is responsible for the picture, and the camera doesn't matter (I agree about the single chip vs. XL2 by the way), but your business is going to only survive on your camera skills, but excel on your sales and marketing skills.

Plus, if you had HDV and your clients were skeptical, you should easily be able to sell them on it based on the fact that the next TV they will likely buy will be HD, and when they watch it 50 years from now on their holo-box, the HDV footage will completely outshine the one from the regular camera.

Video businesses fail because people think about the creative side over the marketing and sales side. HDV is a huge hook, seize it, because your competition will.

Lawrence, as far as editing goes, you don't need a $10,000 video card to edit HDV. Ask the people shooting the JVC HD1 cameras.

<<<-- Originally posted by Dylan Couper : Mathiew and Lawrence, my opinion is based on marketing ability, not practicality of camera technology. Want to know the real advantage of HDV? It isn't screen size, it is the ability to stand up and scream at the top of your lungs,

"I HAVE HD AND MY COMPETITION DOESN'T. HIRE ME!"

That's all it takes to give you an instant sales advantage.
Who cares if the market place still is SD dominated... NOBODY!
Clients will chase the new technology. I'd wager not one in ten of your clients even knows what SD means. They just want the best, at the most affordable price.

Look at buying two identical cars for the same price. One has ABS, airbags, and a racing suspension. The other doesnt. Which do you buy, despite the fact you may never need those features?

Plus, if you had HDV and your clients were skeptical, you should easily be able to sell them on it based on the fact that the next TV they will likely buy will be HD, and when they watch it 50 years from now on their holo-box, the HDV footage will completely outshine the one from the regular camera.

Video businesses fail because people think about the creative side over the marketing and sales side. HDV is a huge hook, seize it, because your competition will.

-->>>

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on some points. What you said about video businesses failing because... I think many people here (well I do for that mather) think it's just the opossite... damn, maybe I'm the only one, but I think (and I know 'a video business' isn't the same as Hollywood) that too many things in the movie sector are in hands of salespersons instead of people who really want to make movies.
Producers having more power then directors etcetera... I know this is going off-topic, so I'll quit that :-). Everybody his own opinion.

And I also think if you want to edit HD you really are have to gonna make some serious investments. Maybe not the numbers Lawrence said, and I have to confess I don't really know that much about it, but I really think you can't underestimate that.

And think that you maybe also are going to loose some customers if you ONLY have HD. If you give them the choice, thén you could be really strong, but if you only have HD...
You really have a point when you say many people will choose you because you can offer 'the format of the future'.
But I think people will be more interested in having a nice video, then in having it in HD and such things.
What are you going to say to some young new couples who are saving for their house and child?
"Hey, I can give you wonderfull pictures, but first you have to buy this television set and that, and that..."?
And Really, the XL2 will give you a very much more professional look, and people REALLY are going to (some will :-)) come to you and ask you card, you there... walking with such a beautifull cam professional cam ;-)

And I don't want to break your dream and plans, but don't think HD is for the next month. I personally think, looking at people around me, that it still will take some time for HD to get around.

But so far, I'm done preaching :-)
I wish you very much luck with shooting, whatever you choose :-)

Remember that the FX-1 can also shoot in DV mode (both 4:3 and 16:9), and the upcoming Z-1 can also shoot DVCAM - and is even selectable between PAL and NTSC. Furthermore, you can shoot and record HDV with these cameras but configure them to downconvert and send DV-25 over firewire. This lets you continue to work in SD for the time being, but keep archives of the original HDV footage for future use.

I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons to choose the XL-2, but just wanted to point out that buying the FX-1 or Z-1 won't lock you into HDV, but it does give you this as an option when you're ready.

<<<-- Originally posted by Boyd Ostroff : Remember that the FX-1 can also shoot in DV mode (both 4:3 and 16:9), and the upcoming Z-1 can also shoot DVCAM - and is even selectable between PAL and NTSC. Furthermore, you can shoot and record HDV with these cameras but configure them to downconvert and send DV-25 over firewire. This lets you continue to work in SD for the time being, but keep archives of the original HDV footage for future use.

I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons to choose the XL-2, but just wanted to point out that buying the FX-1 or Z-1 won't lock you into HDV, but it does give you this as an option when you're ready. -->>>

Didn't know that. Sorry, my mistake.

good responses guys, but man, no where closer a decision...i guess they both have there pros/cons. on one hand, even though the HDV format is not big now, we capture video for posterity, to be played back at the 10 year anniversary, etc...wouldnt it be nice to know that in ten years it was captured in the future format? i see the pros of the xl2 too...i mean interchangeable lens, shoulder mount, xlr inputs...at the end of the day i guess one must shoot with both and fall in love with one...i will let you all know what i decide. i guess the fact that the fx1 renders usings mpeg2 compression and the xl2 uses raw dv are another thing to consider as well.

whats a guy to do?

John

<<<-- Originally posted by John Greco : i guess the fact that the fx1 renders usings mpeg2 compression and the xl2 uses raw dv are another thing to consider as well. -->>>

In DV mode the FX-1 shoots DV, just like the XL-2. It doesn't do 24p or 30p however.

I'm curious about one other thing: the XL-1 and XL-2 are pretty big and brightly colored. Is this a liability at a wedding where you're trying to be inconspicuous? Or does the larger camera make you look more "professional"?

Personally, I shoot performance videos in the house at our operas using the little Sony PDX-10 which is black. This lets me blend into the background pretty well. I think the size and appearance of the XL series would be a problem for me.

<<<-- Originally posted by Mathieu Ghekiere :

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on some points. What you said about video businesses failing because... I think many people here (well I do for that mather) think it's just the opossite... damn, maybe I'm the only one, but I think (and I know 'a video business' isn't the same as Hollywood) that too many things in the movie sector are in hands of salespersons instead of people who really want to make movies.
Producers having more power then directors etcetera... I know this is going off-topic, so I'll quit that :-). Everybody his own opinion.

-->>>

I agree, too many salespeople in Hollywood, not enough artists.
On the other hand, any video production company, like any company, is a business. No matter how good you are, if you can't make sales, you are done.

For editing HDV (remember NOT HD!!!:) Go ask the guys in the HDV section of this forum what they use.

People seem to forget...
Every HD TV sold today supports 16x9x480p and will continue to do so for quite some time. 480p looks just great on the typical 50" and under HDTV bought by most consumers. Most of the sets have the circuitry to improve the look of the video signal coming in, just like regular SD sets do.
Same goes for PAL sets.

If you shoot 16x9 progressive, your final DVD will be just fine for a long time. And there are some excellent ways to uprez content to 1080i used throughout the broadcast world.

Just focus on what you want to do.

From the peanut gallery (being someone who does neither weddings nor, as yet, film-festival fodder)...

Without anyone being at all "wrong," your question hasn't really been answered despite the scattering of opinions. Probably because there simply isn't an absolutely correct answer here. But John, to my mind, you may have come closer to answering your own question than anyone here: these wedding videos are intended for posterity. Brides generally want the nearest thing to perfection that their daddy's wallet can or will buy. Of course, along those lines, the poor quality of the 8mm family films my grandpa shot over 40 years ago doesn't stop me from nostalgically watching them. But if he had shot 16mm, I'd be even more nostalgic!

Even those among the pitiful masses (tongue deeply in cheek here!) who have seen HD but aren't as video-savvy as all of our friends here on DVinfo.net can see that HD looks better than DV-burned-to-DVD. I have to believe that most North American customers willing to part with a Grand or two to have a video of their wedding ARE aware that widescreen / HDTV is in their future. Those who don't have the cash and interest in a video aren't of interest to you, either.

Some customers may not care about HD right now but not just a few do, and most WILL care at some point. So, ON THE ASSUMPTION that current HDV technology is really clearly significantly better than the superb SD the XL2 offers, I'd say go that way. You can shoot HDV and offer the content either way, with a little higher cost for an HD format. If someone buys SD now, fine. In a couple years, send 'em a nice professional reminder of their option to purchase an HD version of their Magical Moment. If they aren't divorced already, I'll bet a lot of them will spring some extra cash for a disc to pop in their new Blue-Ray or HD-DVD player, or play via computer directly to their new mongo-screen. ;-)

That's one area where I do think some of our friends here are being a bit myopic. Digital convergence and HD are just about to blossom. Not a good time to decide to start ignoring it, IMHO.

Again, FWIW and no more:
Having said the above, if I personally -- Deity Forbid -- decided today to have a go at doing weddings, I'd probably just get a second XL2 and target the lower income market with the best SD around to begin with, and work up from there. In 6 or 12 months when I would have become confident that I could do the job well AND when HDV would hopefully have proved itself, I would make the move to HDV and specifically market to the "high end." Maybe by then Canon will have an HDV version of the XL2 body...but I digress.

I personally couldn't in good conscience market XL2 footage as HD, but you know, I've up-rezzed XL2 footage to WMV 720p and it looks very nice. One could probably "get away with it."

<<EDIT: Joe, you posted while I was still writing my tome. The above comment was not at all directed at your words about up-rezzing. I totally agree that doing so is a great idea, as I mentioned I have done. I was just making an off-hand comment about **marketing** it falsely as HD, which I wouldn't consider ethical. But nothing at all wrong with uprezzing! Just didn't want any misunderstandings here in the community!>>

Yup, I'm convinced. There is no RIGHT answer. You could go either way, but within the next couple of years we'll all be shooting something better than today's SD.

peter,

very well spoken, and good points made.

i guess for now, i will stick with the xl2. but boy, doesnt this rig look awesome for the fx1?

http://www.cavision.com/Image/MB413B2&HDVf-2.jpg

one day.



check this out...

just as i was finishing this post this was on the homepage of yahoo.

guess i am convicted now and must go with hdv.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=562&ncid=562&e=10&u=/ap/20041208/ap_on_hi_te/japan_toshiba_dvds

j/k.

John: the same kind of rig is available for the XL1/XL2 and looks
even more high profile <g>

http://www.cavision.com/Mattbox/4x4&Canon.htm

Yeah, John, that FX1 rig you linked has quite the Rube Goldberg look...not sure if it would waddle away when you turn your back...or attack! The big ol' XL rig would certainly look impressive -- yet maybe somehow less ominous!

Hmmm, the makings of a short movie? ;-)

Of course, there are tons of opinions on the XL2 here including my own, but to beat that dead horse: Over the last few years I've moved up from Canon ZR10 family videos, to toying with technique on the GL2, then recently up to the XL2. I'm always disposed to jump to the next Great Technology as soon as it is reasonably established, but now that I have the XL2 and SO enjoy it, HDV is really going to have to provide a quantum leap improvement in my end product to wrest the XL2 out of my sweaty palms.

If the no-kidding final-render resolution improvement for the current state of HDV technology (this involves much more than just the cameras) isn't really dramatic, I may stick with my XL2 longer than I initially imagined. Then again, if one can glance at an HDV image onscreen and see immediately that it is "better," I'll undoubtedly bite.

We already know HDV isn't full 1920x1080i but an intermediate resolution; don't know how that all plays out through the whole process from CCD to TV screen. I haven't yet personally looked at FX1 footage that wasn't heavily compressed so can't even pass judgment for my own purposes at this point. But there are clips out there that show what the camera can do if you really need to decide now.

Yup, if you're ready to start shooting weddings now, the XL2 is a sure bet; but you can do HDV now, too, if you're comfortable using an "early adopter" philosophy in your business. If you're going to wait 6-12 months to take clients, you have a little more time to let things shake out in HDV-land.

excellent point.

i am definately not looking to invest in the 'early adopter' pool.

instead i am more of, 'lets use what works and is industry-proven.'

anyone know of a good shop that would work with me on a pair of xl2's? i missed out on an opportunity on ebay for a pair that sold for 7600.

rats.

John

guys in response to rob posting this link:

http://www.cavision.com/Mattbox/4x4&Canon.htm

how does one use such a shoulder system and still shoot live video? i imagine that autofocus is off, and u are using one hand grip to support weight of rig, and left hand (if right-handed) to focus? am i correct? if this is true, how do you tele/wide zoom on the lens controls? you are already using both hands, one to focus, one to support rig?

seriously confused.

John,

The message board has a number of sponsors who I'm sure Chris Hurd wouldn't allow to be sponsors if they weren't top notch. I'm sure any of them will do right by you.

I've done most of my business with Zotz Digital. They're small and do often have to drop ship (have stuff sent to you directly from manufacturer or distributor), as they apparently don't keep a large inventory of small or low volume items. BUT, you will never in your life have a more personal and enjoyable buying experience. You'll truly feel like Brian, Tom, and Christie are "friends in the business," not just someone selling you something by phone and email. If you're buying 2 of a big ticket item like the XL2 from them (plus accessories, I'm sure), they'll bend over backwards to make you a happy customer.

And tell 'em Pain-in-the-Butt-Pete from Houston said so! That'll either get you an additional discount OR hung up on! More likely the latter, now that I think about it. ;-)

I should also mention that for the kind of money you're talking about and the wide variety of shots that I imagine wedding videography will demand, a 3x lens might be a reasonable addition to your order. The stock 20x really is a "long" lens.

Yes please consider our site sponsors. They are hand-picked by
Chris and are the best in the business with good prices and great
service. You will also be helping to support DVInfo.net since we
have no real annoying banner systems and such.

Thank you for your consideration!

thanks guys. duly noted. i have not ordered the equipment yet. to be quite honest i see myself buying the pair of xl2s the same time the z1u comes out in january.

I've had an XL1 for a few years and last week I got the Sony FX1. I'm watching on a HDTV, and the HDV camera blows away the "old" technology. The fact that Sony priced it below the XL2 is also going to put a lot of presure on Cannon to lower the price. It seems that many on this forum want to put down HDV because it's a fairly new format, but I saw the same thing when I bought my first Sony VX1000 11 years ago. At that time a lot of people were shooting and editing SVHS and saying that they would prefer a JVC SVHS camera to the DV format because the lens was better on the JVC. It didn't take these people long to realize that even though you have a great lens you still end up with crappy SVHS with blurred chroma compared to the really clean look of DV. I'm seeing some of the same analogies now with DV and HDV. The Sony HDV is SO much better than standard DV and I think that it will become the popular format fairly quickly. Anyone faced with a buying decision now should get the Sony HDV and master HD even if you can't deliver it yet. I realize that this is a Cannon thread, so the good news for those that might still want a XL2 is that they will be cheaper soon.

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Lohman : John: the same kind of rig is available for the XL1/XL2 and looks
even more high profile <g>

http://www.cavision.com/Mattbox/4x4&Canon.htm -->>>

IS it just just me or does it seem odd that the FX1 is capable of having what appears to be a follow focus connected to it, yet the XL2 (which I own and love) does not? What does that say about the lens design of Canon when 3rd party companies have developed accessories for follow focus for DVX and FX1 yet nothing for Canon? I'm just pondring this and not slandering in anyway.

I do weddings with 2 DSR-PD170's and have been amazed at the low light capability of this camera. I tormented myself trying to decide between the XL1s and my first PD170 then again between the XL2 and another PD170. The PD170 produces really beautiful images at the weddings and events I've done and I use no extra lighting, not even an on-camera light. There are times I have to crank up the gain at darker receptions but I can go up to 9 db without causing any significant detriment to the picture and even if I have to go higher it is not that bad. If HDV is not imprtant and based on how you said you were going to be using cameras and what was and was not important, I'd go for the PD170 as a cheaper camera better suited to what you will be using it for. The PD170's price has and will come down further because of the Z1 and FX1.

Two cameras are not adequte for the way I want to cover events. I need to get a third camera when finances are right. For me, I'm waiting on the Z1 to see how well it fares in the low light arena. If all is well with it I will purchase one and use it in DV - DVCAM mode with my PD170s and use it for 16:9 DV and HDV productions when I can get by with a single camera for an entire project.

Good luck on your venture.

lamar:

thanks for your kind insight...yeah i see bh has the 170's around 3k.

but for 300 more, i could shoot the fx1...

I'm not trying to be smart here but I don't understand your statement. I'm pretty sure you could get a follow focus that would work for the XL1 - 2. It's just a spring loaded arm that presses a wheel aginst your focus ring with a geared mechanisim that allows you to adjust the focus. It mounts on the (normally 15mm) rails that you can get to mount your matte box on. For those of us with servo controlled perpetual focus rings I don't see any use for it. So I would think that makes it better suited to the XL2 with its interchangeble lens capability.


<<<-- Originally posted by Marty Hudzik : <<<-- Originally posted by Rob Lohman : John: the same kind of rig is available for the XL1/XL2 and looks
even more high profile <g>

http://www.cavision.com/Mattbox/4x4&Canon.htm -->>>

IS it just just me or does it seem odd that the FX1 is capable of having what appears to be a follow focus connected to it, yet the XL2 (which I own and love) does not? What does that say about the lens design of Canon when 3rd party companies have developed accessories for follow focus for DVX and FX1 yet nothing for Canon? I'm just pondring this and not slandering in anyway. -->>>

There are follow focus units for the XL series of black manual lenses. I don't think any work with the white "servo focus" lenses.

As several have indicated the system does exist (and is even
better) for the XL1(s) and XL2. They have a fully manual lens
including barrel markings. There is a follow focus system available
for it without any problems.

Indeed not for the auto lenses (which wouldn't make much sense
since there is a full manual lens).

My point was about the design of the auto lenses. Not the manual ones as they obviously have real barrel markings and manual capabilities. My point was only that the design of the stock lens "servo" controls does not allow third party companies to make a follow focus for it. I mean they could but it would never be consistent and would ultimately be useless...right? Hence if you want that type of system you have to fork over the cash to canon for the manual lens and then pay for the follow focus rig too.

IN a way I guess it is canons brilliant plan to force us to buy more canon stuff!

The cool thing about the DVX focus is if you add century optics focus ring adapter setup you can create reproducable pulls and what not. Maybe the FX1 will do the same?

Keep in mind that you do NOT have to BUY the XL2 *WITH* the
default lens! You can get the body only package with the manual
lens directly to not toss away the money you basically would've
spend on the servo lens.

But ofcourse people then want the servo abilities again so
perhaps the DVX is a better choice for those people. No camera
can please everybody.