Which has the better picture quality? I'm undecided about which one to go for. Is the XL1 really worth the extra money?

Thanks

I don't know about picture quality, but the GL2's video resolution should be higher. They are both great cams, but the GL2 is the better "hand-held," if that's what your after. The big plus with the XL1s, however, is that you have a wide selection of lenses. The GL2's lens is fixed. Personally, I think these 2 cams cater to different types of shooters.

Which has better pic quality? XL1s or GL2? I'm looking for a cam to make short films and want the best quality in a semi-pro cam. Is the Xl1s worth the extra money? Apparently the XL1s can use many different lenses but I heard that if you have say a 16:9 lens on the XL1 then you can't zoom....or move it around much as the image distorts. Is this true? Or is that only with the GL2?

Thanks

Re: "Which has better pic quality?"

Picture (still) quality doesn't indicate video quality. Do you mean playback horizontal lines? That would be higher with the GL2, but the XL1s would have "cleaner," more color accurate footage. Personally, I'd rather have a cam that plays back 400 lines with "rich" footage, than a cam that plays back 500 noisy lines with poor color saturation/accuracy. Then there is the matter of lux. The XL1s would need less. My pic would be the GL2, but that's my pic. Perhaps go to a shop and look both these cams over, to see which one you like more.

Well, i'd want the camera which has the more "film look"

Myself and my partner use both an XL1s and XM2. The XL1s is my mainstay as I prefer something closer to full size which is easier to control as a total manual camera. My partner, on the other hand, finds the XL1s much too cumbersome and heavy for prolonged hand held use so she has opted for the XM2 and uses the semi-auto AV and TV modes whilst maintaining manual focus. I tend produce most of the formal, controlled shots whereas my partner is more of the run-and-gun variety.

My impressions seem to indicate that the XL1s has a slightly warmer or richer quality to the video than the XM2 but we very successfuly match footage shot with either camera in our productions.

As for sharpness, I'm not too sure. Sometimes it seems the XM2 is a little sharper although that may be an illusion created by it's very slightly cooler video.

One thing is certain, they are both great cameras. If you're on a budget then the price difference alone will be a great deciding factor. There is also the question of purpose, as an all round camera the XM2 is hard to beat with great pictures, ease of use, portability and manual controls. The XL1s has a few more pro features, weighs about three times as much as the XM2, and has the advantage of interchangable lenses. I find that the main advantage is that I can manually control most aspects of the camera (gain, white balance, audio levels, shutter, aperture, etc.) without scrolling through menus or twiddling with unfeasibly tiny controls. There is also another bonus to the XL1s, which may at first seem a little superficial but is of importance when your in my line of business. That is looks. The XL1s looks like the business. OK - It's not a professional DVCAM, but to a client it's big, it's in your face - 'These guys must know what they are doing!'.

If those things are not important to you I would go for the XM2, you won't be disappointed and that leaves you with change to buy the rest of your kit...

A lot of people on this forum seem to think the GL2 has better picture quality, to give a straightforward answer to your question.

Thanks for your replies.

What are the lenses for the XL1s like? Any good 16:9. I have heard that you cannot zoom, or do much tracking/panning when using the lenses. If that's true I don't see much point in using one for filming.

I'm only going to be using it for short movie making as a hobby, but I'm being tempted more and more by the XL1s.

About 'film look':

I find that this is somewhat overstated by proponents of camera X over camera Y and by the video community in general.

Bottom line is - it's video. The only thing that looks or performs like film is film. Video is a different medium with different properties.

Footage from an XL1s looks no more like film than that from an XM2. It looks like video. We always use Frame Mode when shooting with those cameras because we like the look it generates, we do not however profess to be producing 'filmic' footage.

Our 'filmic' look comes from good framing, lighting, editing, pace and sound design. These are the elements that make people say - "Hey! That's just like a film."

I'm sorry but these technical arguments over a "film look" annoy me as they concentrate upon trying to force one media to mimic another whilst largely ignoring the creative qualities of a production which truly create that 'film look'.

Personally, I think that a lot of video suffers from an obsessive insecurity about film and an awful lot of effort spent on technical quibbles over perceived quality of image. I would rather watch a well shot, well edited, creative piece of work on Video 8 than a lacklustre, flat effort on film.

So there!

Hurrumph...

:)

Yeah I know your right James. I just want to know I'm getting the best quality film, so I can work with it whatever way I feel like.

I live just over the Mersey btw James

So you're a posh scouser on the Wirral, eh?

:-)

Rants aside though, I would probably plump for the XM2. We've just had both cameras out at the weekend for a play at Liverpool Flying School, Speke Hall and the Albert Dock shooting a variety of subjects.

It is immediately obvious that the XL1s produces much warmer, smoother images. I have often seen this described as 'softer' although side by side comparison of XL1s and XM2 footage demonstrates no noticable difference in sharpness and resolution. Of the two cameras, the XM2 produces the most accurate, or honest, images whereas the XL1s seems to somewhat over-enhance colours with a noticeable shift towards red.

This is, however, all controllable. I can tone down the XL1s to a more neutral appearance or ramp up the XM2 for artificially vibrant colours.

None of this is helping, is it?

One thing is clear though - the XM2 does pretty much the same job for £600-£700 cheaper.

Thanks James. I think getting the XM2 would be the best option because I could buy accessories with the saved £700, like tripod, lights, mic etc.

Good choice. It's a fantastic bit of kit and you won't be disappointed.

Let us know how you get on.