I do a lot of weddings, and I would like to know if there is anyone on this forum using the XL H1 for weddings. Is the low light performance acceptable? Is the latter aspect comparable to the XL2?

We shoot weddings with the XL H1 and it's absolutely amazing. The lowlight is definately incredible.

If you do a lot of weddings and are looking to have a little 'edge' on the competition I recommend it. However, it is a lot of money to spend, just for wedding videos. We are using it for weddings, promotional videos, short films, and looking to move into the commercial market.

We shoot weddings with the XL H1 and it's absolutely amazing. The lowlight is definately incredible.
How does it compare to SD cameras in low light? I used the Sony Z1U and found it very deficient in low light compared to the PD170, for example. Do you find the latitude acceptable in the Canon? Again, my experience with the Z1U was not positive in that category.

I haven't shot with the Z1U or the PD170..Although when compared to the XL2, GL2, and DVX 100A/B I find it a far better performer in low light..that's not to say that having an on-camera light or other outside lighting source are uneeded..but it can get the job done without them.

It takes a little practice though. I had to play with a lot of my settings to get it to look good. I have a custom preset for lowlight and that makes a big difference compared to just throwing it to some automatic setting.

I haven't shot with the Z1U or the PD170..Although when compared to the XL2, GL2, and DVX 100A/B I find it a far better performer in low light..
Do you mean in terms of brightness or noise levels (or both)? Is the lens faster in your opinion? Ummmm... I don't suppose you could post an image or two illustrating the differences, could you? That would be of great value to a lot of people. Perhaps a low light shot comparing the DVX100a or XL2 with the XL H1 at the same gain levels?

I have shot weddings with the DVX100 and the XL2 and the DVX100 was mucho superior in low light to the XL2. Having said that I find the XLh1 mucho superior to the XL2 in low light also. Since I don't have a DVX to compare it to directly I can't give samples. But IMHO the H1 is much, much, much better in lowlight than the XL2. So I can deduct that it is darn near the performance of the DVX....with much less noise and of course.....way more resolution.

Now, I am not bashing my former HVX200 that I sold....but it was slower than even the XL2. It is not the camera to shoot with if you even remotely think you will be doing a lot of "available light" shooting. The camera creates amazing images under really well lit scenarios. But I feel it drops off fast when light starts to diminish. If there was a "curve" to plot image quality to amount of light....the HVX would fall off fast when the light starts to decrease. The H1 would have a more gradual taper that represents it's ability to still produce decent images well past the point where the HVX has become noisy and unacceptable.....IMHO.

Ok so I went off topic a little....sorry. I guess I can't say enought about how pleased I am with the performance of the H1 over my HVX. The H1 is just so much better in low light (equally lit scenes are both brighter and less noisy on the H1). However I can't comment on the PD-150. I'm guessing that camera will still be a better lowlight option. But in my mind the H1 is the low light king in HD at this pricepoint.

My brother and I compared several HD and DV cameras back in February and weren't particularly impressed with the Canon XLH1, especially considering the price. It's even harder to hand-hold than the XL1/XL2, it lacks a proper LCD screen, and in our tests the low light shots were so grainy we're still wondering if we did something wrong. See samples at the link below:

http://www.videomem.com/camera_comparison/2006-02-15/index.html

It's hard to see clearly in these web samples, but the XLH1 low-light results were distinctly noisier than video from other HD cameras. And more thorough reviews than mine by some of the most respected professionals in the industry give the edge to Sony for clean HDV images in poor lighting, so I don't think I'm out of line in making the same observation. But people who own the XLH1 seem to be happy with the low-light results, so I suppose it's partly a matter of personal preference.

The bottom line for me is that the XLH1 costs too much for my purposes and isn't ergonomically convenient for hand-held videography. I've bought three Sony HDV cameras and associated accessories for about what one XLH1 would have cost, and I'm happy with the results for wedding video work. If there was an HDV version of the Canon GL1/GL2 cameras at a reasonable price I'd take a look at those, but until then I don't see Canon being very popular for HD wedding videos.

Forgive me but that test says all settings are at auto. The XLH1 will crank the gain up all the way if you don't give it enought light. I would never ever use auto for gain. At +12 it does get noisy and at +18 it is worse. But I can see how you would hate it in that example. Never, ever let the camera auto adjust gain. It will almost always ruin you images. And for the record those are unacepptable levels of noise.

I will read over the site again to see if I missed something.

Let me start by saying that the XL-H1 is overpriced if you are just doing wedding videos. I agree with that. But if you are shooting narrative work and do events occasionally then that changes.

I have heard and do agree that the FX1 and Z1 are the cleanest of the HD cameras but they are generally considered less sensitive too. They also don't do true 24fps either so they lose a lot of versatility in my book.

Anyway......the Sony could be considered the cleanest at the maximum gain settings. I have read this and concur with it. However in those shots you can see the XLh1 is producing a slightly brighter image indicating that either it is slightly faster or that it has a higher gain when in auto mode.

Either way the amount of noise in the H1 footage is not a good representation of what I am seeing in real world use with my H1. The camera is much cleaner than that in general. However if I turn all the lights off and crank the gain to +18 I am sure I will see noise. No doubt.

our tests the low light shots were so grainy we're still wondering if we did something wrong.

The XL H1 does not compare favorably on full auto.

Best,
Christopher

Agreed that running on auto was a contributing factor here, but part of what we wanted to test was how well the cameras work when allowed to go all-out in dim lighting. If we observe that the XLH1 is more sensitive than other low-cost HD cameras but achieves that result by introducing an unacceptable amount of noise, then locking the gain to an acceptable level would restrict its sensitivity too. So from what I see the XLH1 isn't more useful in dim lighting than a Sony FX1/Z1U running at a higher gain level, which works because the images are cleaner.

Out of curiosity, what's the maximum gain level XLH1 owners find acceptable for wedding work in dim lighting? Can you post an example of some footage shot under these conditions?

As far as 24 fps is concerned, the XLH1 has to simulate that too, correct? And I'm personally not a big fan of the whole 24 fps thing, so it's an academic discussion for me. Life doesn't happen at 24 frames per second; neither should video. :-)

The XL-H1 does indeed get 24fps through an advanced algorithm in the DIGIC processor. However when viewed on screen it has a perfect 24P cadence spread evenly out across 1 second. Every frame occurs at it's natural even 1/24 of a second. Very similar to how Sony F900 achieves 24P.

The Cineframe mode of the Sony literally doubles frames or skips frame or whatever to create it's 24fps mode. You can literally see jumps or hiccups in the motion pattern. I used to convert 60i to 24 in software and it had that same jarring look of an uneven cadence. So there is a huge difference in the perceived motion to the end user from the Canon that just looks plain smoother than the Sony.

The Sony is a great camera for what it is. But it is limited by the lack of a really good 24p mode that I use all the time. Again I am talking about a camera that can do a good job at all types of things. If all you need is 60i video HD then the Sony is a good choice. And damn affordable for what a great image it produces. But I feel the XL-H1 will do a fine job in a low-light setting. Much better than the HVX200 or HD100. The Sony will probably be better....but again....it doesn't have the flexibility of the H1 or HVX as far as different frame rates to achieve different looks.

Here is how I see it.

FX1= Superior low light and great all around event camera, needs help getting a decent film-look

HVX200= Superior Film Look camera, very poor low light....wouldn't suit event video well

XL-H1= Damn Good Film Look, Damn Good Event Camera, way better low light than HVX but just a little inferior to the FX1 in low light

Overall...I get the most bang for my buck with the H1. I can accomodate many different shooting styles and look damn good at all of them. The HVX still has the better gamma curves....the FX1 has a slightly better low light event look.

And to go one last step. I have shot a lot of weddings through the years. And while receptions get very dark.....I have never seen anything as dark as that final shot with the guy and the candles. So that is indeed a worse case scenario that I doubt will arise very often. If it does.....then it is a sad state of affairs as all of the cameras look like caca to me at that setting.

Arguing over which one has slightly less noise when they all look terrible is a mute point.

IMHO.

Plus...its 1080i can make very nice 720p "overcrank" slow motion for wedding videos.

XL-H1= Damn Good Film Look, Damn Good Event Camera, way better low light than HVX but just a little inferior to the FX1 in low light

Probably the reason the XL-H1 is *slightly* worse than the FX-1 in low light is because it has nearly 50% more pixels horizontally jammed into the same chip size.

It's amazing the H1 is still close when you think about it.

Well, it certainly seems that people who own the XLH1 are happy with it. My take on sub-$10K HD cameras for event work is as follows:

Sony FX1/Z1U: best overall 'bang for the buck' and the most similar to typical DV cameras in terms of design and operation. Not good I guess if you like 24 fps delivery, but other than that works well.

Panasonic HVX200: lots of potential but impractical for HD event work due to memory cost and capacity constraints. Could be used now as a widescreen DV event camera, and for HD in 5-10 years when memory gets cheaper. Every shooting mode you could possibly want, including true 24 fps recording.

JVC HD100U: best choice if you like a shoulder-mounted form factor and full manual shooting; not good if you want autofocus occasionally for run-and-gun shooting. Stock battery lasts about 20-30 minutes, so budget for a bigger battery.

Canon XLH1: out of the price range of most event videographers, especially if you need two. Too heavy to hand hold unless you're a body-builder on steroids, and even then it would probably be a stretch. No LCD panel. Good resolution but grainy in low light, similar to earlier Canon video cameras.

As other reviewers have noted, all of these cameras can produce a pleasing HD image when used properly and within their particular limitations. If someone gave me an XLH1 I'd probably keep it, but it would be my third choice of the above four cameras for spending my own money (with JVC last).

Canon XLH1: No LCD panel.Sure, it has an LCD panel. It's smaller than what you'll find on other camcorders, but it's definitely there, so please don't say it doesn't have one. I use it all the time.

Sure, it has an LCD panel. It's smaller than what you'll find on other camcorders, but it's definitely there, so please don't say it doesn't have one. I use it all the time.
Chris, have you done any low light comparisons with the XL H1? Or do you know of any on the net?

Okay, it has a small LCD panel you can access by flipping up the viewfinder, which is rather awkward. My apologies for not being clearer on that point.

Good resolution but grainy in low light, similar to earlier Canon video cameras.

As other reviewers have noted, all of these cameras can produce a pleasing HD image when used properly and within their particular limitations. If someone gave me an XLH1 I'd probably keep it, but it would be my third choice of the above four cameras for spending my own money (with JVC last).

Your choices are based strictly on wedding video requiremetns. The oroginal question was is the XL-H1 viable for weddings. And I do believe it is. It however is not necesarrily the best price for a "wedding" only camera. However....I use it for many applications, mostly non-event or wedding. But it factored in heavily that I can use it for weddings when the occassional extra money comes in handy.

I don't see how you would ever choose the HVX over the H1 for event work as it is very limited with P2 cards and storage. Not to mention the low-light issues. When I priced a Cineporter or Firestore for the HVX the cost was so high it pushed me into the price range of the H1. So I opted to go that route.

Chris, have you done any low light comparisons with the XL H1?Sorry, no I haven't; low light has never been a concern for me.

Sorry, no I haven't; low light has never been a concern for me.
I assume you don't shoot weddings? Lucky devil...

Any chance you or someone else could post some comparisons with other HDV cams and maybe the PD170? Pretty please?

I used to shoot weddings up until about six years ago before I priced myself out of 'em. Regarding low-light performance. Don't let this make or break your purchase decision because there isn't all that much difference between cameras in this regard. Sure there's *some* difference which is quantifiable, but it really ain't all that much of a difference, and so many other factors carry a much greater impact on how you shoot than low light.

For example, compared to the PD170. I guarantee, if you switch from the PD170 to the XL H1, what you'll be cursing isn't the difference in low light performance, but the rather significant difference in weight and form factor instead. Choose the camera which is most comfortable and logical for you to hold and to use. There are ways of accomodating low light situations, but you can't change the weight of the camera. In my book, ergonomics, format, workflow, budget etc. all are far more important considerations than low light performance because there is less of a difference between cameras in low light than there is in all these other categories.

On the XL H1 in low light, just bump the gain up to +12db. It's very clean, more than adequate for wedding work. Shooting in 30F and/or dropping the shutter to 1/30th kicks up the low light performance a notch. Stay at full wide (most of my reception work was always at full wide) and enjoy a max. aperture of f/1.6.

Finally, where there's no light, just add light. I used a 20-watt onboard light for weddings and never had a single complaint about it.

While I agree that all cameras are close when it gets to very low light, not all cameras are close when it comes to "moderate" light. What I mean is I have used cameras (HVX and XL2) that looked hoorible shooting under average indoor light conditions. That is, situations that through the years I have found to produce "acceptable" results when shooting video in them looked unacceptable with these cameras. I am not talking about winning an award for best images. Just good decent looking images given the circumstances. Both the HVX200 and the XL2 performed far below this threshold for me. They looked dark and dingy in these environments and the colors would be so drab. The HVX was particularly noisy also.

However I found that even my old XL1 would produce a better image than these cameras in the same settings. The colors were vibrant and true and the image would be overal brighter. My old DVX was the same. It would produce really good results in these "average" settings. In my opinion the XL-H1 produces images of the same quality ubder the same circumstances. Yet with 2-3x more resolution.

Again....I am not talking about virtual darkness....just situations that border on being a tad underlit. The H1 delivers the best image I have seen in this environment. Would I prefer to add lights to the scene? Of course. But if I don't I still get a darn good image. However in the same exact setting with the HVX200 it looked very dark and noise creeped in as to create a really poor image. I added an on camera light to the HVX to try to get acceptable footage. With the light it still looked noisier than the H1 with no added light.

I really like my H1 as you can tell.

:)

Don't let this make or break your purchase decision because there isn't all that much difference between cameras in this regard.

I assume you're only talking about HD cameras, correct?

For example, compared to the PD170. I guarantee, if you switch from the PD170 to the XL H1, what you'll be cursing isn't the difference in low light performance, but the rather significant difference in weight and form factor instead. Choose the camera which is most comfortable and logical for you to hold and to use.

With an IDX battery on the back, the Canon would be a perfect fit for me, weight and ergonomics-wise.

On the XL H1 in low light, just bump the gain up to +12db. It's very clean, more than adequate for wedding work. Shooting in 30F and/or dropping the shutter to 1/30th kicks up the low light performance a notch. Stay at full wide (most of my reception work was always at full wide) and enjoy a max. aperture of f/1.6.

Alas, that isn't possible in many situations. For example, a wedding ceremony I shot last year took place in an incredibly dark room, and I was 30' away from the B&G. It just wasn't possible to stay wide. I couldn't use an on-camera light because it would have ruined the atmosphere. My Sony DSR250 was able to produce an image that was acceptable - grainy, but bright enough to see by. My Sony Z1U was so dark, even at 18db, that I could barely see anything -- literally.

However I found that even my old XL1 would produce a better image than these cameras in the same settings. The colors were vibrant and true and the image would be overal brighter.
You found the XL1 produced a better image than the XL2?

I assume you're only talking about HD cameras, correct?That's right. Nothing beats the standard definition PD170. Speaking strictly in general terms, among 1/3rd-inch camcorders, SD usually outperforms HD in low light, because fewer pixels covering the same size image sensor means those pixels are larger and therefore gather more light.

For image sensors of equal size:

Less pixels means lower resolution but they are larger pixels which get more light.
More pixels means higher resolution but they are smaller pixels which get less light.

Image quality is always a trade-off for better low-light performance.

But this generalization is offset somewhat by what happens in the camera's DSP. The processor might artificially brighten the image and intentionally oversaturate it.

Alas, that isn't possible in many situations. For example, a wedding ceremony I shot last year took place in an incredibly dark room.Hmm, that's a job I would not have taken. When I did weddings, one of the first questions I asked any prospective customer was where are we shooting and how is the light there. If it was someplace I've never been before, I'd scout it. If it was too dark with no way to add light for whatever reason, I'd tell them that it wasn't right for video and turn them down. I didn't want those kinds of headaches; that's somebody else's problem. When I first started doing weddings, the hardest part of the business was figuring out which jobs to walk away from.

The example I gave was for a wedding that was scheduled to take place outdoors. Rain forced it indoors. There are countless situations like that; you can't always be in a situation to make sure the shooting conditions are optimal. Hence the great importance of a camera with decent low light ability and latitude. The Z1u is poor in both counts IMO. That's why I got rid of mine. I'm hoping the XL H1 is better, but I'm sure not going to spend $9k if it isn't.

Let me answer your question about the XL1 being better than XL2. Quite simply....yes. I am not talking about resolution though....simply it's ability to render rich accurate colors in "moderate" lighting. I found the XL2 had a fast drop-off in color when the lighting started to approach a less than perfect lighting condition. I watched countless videos I shot in the same room under the same lighting (albeit 2 years apart) and the XL1 had a brighter more robust image than the XL2 in this scenario. I am by no means making a statement that the XL1 is a better camera. Just that it is more forgiving in "moderate" lighting.

I don't see how you would ever choose the HVX over the H1 for event work as it is very limited with P2 cards and storage.

I wouldn't have thought so either until I tried all the HD cameras side by side, and I suppose I'd think twice about that before spending good money on either the HVX200 or the XLH1. But the HVX200 is more convenient in terms of form factor and could be used as a widescreen DV camera until HD delivery becomes more commonplace, by which time P2 memory cost and capacity will have improved somewhat. And the HVX200 offers options the XLH1 doesn't in terms of recording formats and settings, which some people seem to be using to their advantage. Realistically I wouldn't buy either one just for wedding work due to the price, and I wouldn't get the XLH1 because of the ergonomics.

Lord have mercy, when is Canon going to release a reasonably priced HDV camera based on the GL1/GL2 body design?!? I might still be a Canon customer if they'd done that before I started my HD upgrade...

Kevin,
In addition to the issue that plague the HVX200 and storage for event work I still found it a horrible low light camera. I shot some great stuff while I had it. But all stuff shot in "event" environments was too dark and too noisy. And that is without ever using the gain. So even as a SD 16x9 camera it really is not well suited to an event.

I really think the Sony HDV cameras are the best price/performance for this market. While the H1 will do well in my opinion, it is priced outside of an event videographer budget (especially multicam shots) and really doesn't have a feature set geared to that market either. What I mean is the features that add to the cost of the H1 are generally not features that a wedding videographer is going to need anyway. So for the extra money there can be no perceived value added....if events are your mainstay that is.

Peace!

How many wedding videographer cameras do you know of that could genlock with F900's in an HD multicam shoot? :) It may a bit overpriced for wedding/event, but it sure isn't--in general--when you consider its capabilities.

My XLH1 does way better in low light in HDV mode than my SD DVX100A or B. The difference between the HVX200 and the XLH1, from what I have seen and experienced is that the XLH1 gives a much more pleasing fine grain (more akin to fast film grain) whereas the HVX goes crazy in the colored dancing digital noise department.

This is definitely a quantifiable difference in my book.

My XLH1 does way better in low light in HDV mode than my SD DVX100A or B. The difference between the HVX200 and the XLH1, from what I have seen and experienced is that the XLH1 gives a much more pleasing fine grain (more akin to fast film grain) whereas the HVX goes crazy in the colored dancing digital noise department.

This is definitely a quantifiable difference in my book.

Exactly.....

In my experience the DVX100 was a darn good low light camera too. It was much better than the XL1 or XL2 for sure. So to have HD resolution and good light sensitivity is a cool combo for the H1.

How many wedding videographer cameras do you know of that could genlock with F900's in an HD multicam shoot? :) It may a bit overpriced for wedding/event, but it sure isn't--in general--when you consider its capabilities.

No doubt that if you need the features the XLH1 offers then it's a fair deal for the price. But that wasn't the original question, and for event work the XLH1 probably isn't the right camera for most people. If you're planning to buy one anyway, it sounds like people who have it are successfully using it for events.

If you can deal with the size and weight of the camera, it is a killer machine. I was nervous switching from Panasonic to Canon because I thought I'd lose that "unique" look but the Canon is every bit as good as the Panasonic if not better because of the vast array of settings. Anyway, that's just my opinion but I can see good arguments for form factor.

Is there anyone out there who owns an XL H1 and can post some low light images at various gain settings compared against another camera? Surely there must be someone who has access to another HD camera or even an SD camera like the PD170 or DVX100a.

Is there anyone out there who owns an XL H1 and can post some low light images at various gain settings compared against another camera? Surely there must be someone who has access to another HD camera or even an SD camera like the PD170 or DVX100a.


This is in another thread and it will provide you with what you asked for; comparing HD cams anyway

http://www.dv.com/print_me.jhtml?articleId=189500064

This is in another thread and it will provide you with what you asked for; comparing HD cams anyway

http://www.dv.com/print_me.jhtml?articleId=189500064
Thanks for the link. Unfortunately it doesn't really have any low light tests. It does have overexposure and underexposure tests, but it's not the same.

One thing is sure, you draw a lot of attention to you when you put the H1 on your shoulder. No discrete filming anymore. For instance I landed with a flight at an airport in Greece. There was signs telling "No photographs - restricted military area" but many tourists took up their small mini-DV cameras and filmed in all directions. None reacted. But what if I had pulled that hefty XL H1 out of the box? I didn't dare ...
An advantage could be some thinks you are from TV and doesn't ask about permission to enter here and there ... /Johan