Difference between ZR-1000 and the GL2 Remote? at DVinfo.net

David Ho · January 12th, 2004, 08:28 PM

What's the difference between the two? I know if you buy the GL2, it comes with a remote that also has some buttons (zoom, record) etc... which one is better? The ZR-1000 seems to be quite expensive for a controller... I think it would be better just to use to one that came with the GL2?

Jean-Philippe Archibald · January 12th, 2004, 09:03 PM

The remote included with the camcorder is a wireless one with some limited features, like fixed zoom speed. With the ZR-1000, wich is a wired one, using the LANC protocol, you can have some more flexibility like variable zoom speed and focus control. It can be fixed to the pan/tilt handle of your tripod.

Graham Bernard · January 13th, 2004, 01:52 AM

Ho yes!

Sometime in the not too distant past, one chap had "adapted" the remote to be used as a type of controller. It was a natty concept. But you still had the tiny buttons and things. Try a search hereabouts or someone else will jump in with the link . . it was truly a very interesting use of lateral thinking. Personally, I got the Canon LANC and I'm very happy with it. IMHO it doesn't "feel" as robust as the more expensive ones. Can't remember the Canon catalogue/part number -Ah yes it was the ZR-1000 . . However, I've found a real need for one. It works. What I've also done is use the LANC controller "off" tripod handle. This gives more stability. However, when I need to have the LANC controller on the tripod handle I just thumb screw it back on - very quick! I suppose I could manufacture a "quick" snap type if fixing . .

Grazie

David Ho · January 13th, 2004, 09:22 AM

Hmm.. right now, I don't have enough $$$ to purchase the ZR-1000 as I probably will in the near future. So for the next few short movies I am doing, I will be shooting them on tripod and hand, but I will be carefully using a combo of handheld controls and the remote.... although I would prefer the ZR-1000 (layout looks nice), but I guess it'll do. The only thing that I wanted the ZR-1000 is because I can easily zoom in, record without having to touch the camera, which could cause sound when I record, but it is easy to work around that by just recording earlier and unrecording the footage at a later time in the scene (just takes up more tape space!)..

Don Palomaki · January 14th, 2004, 05:12 AM

Try an off-camcorder mic to avoid the sounds of handling/touching the camcorder. Also, getting the mic closer to the talent usually results in better sound.

January 12th, 2004, 08:28 PM	#1
David Ho Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 354	Difference between ZR-1000 and the GL2 Remote? What's the difference between the two? I know if you buy the GL2, it comes with a remote that also has some buttons (zoom, record) etc... which one is better? The ZR-1000 seems to be quite expensive for a controller... I think it would be better just to use to one that came with the GL2? __________________ "Everyone has a photographic memory. Some just don't have film."

January 12th, 2004, 09:03 PM	#2
Jean-Philippe Archibald Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Saguenay, Québec, Canada Posts: 1,051	The remote included with the camcorder is a wireless one with some limited features, like fixed zoom speed. With the ZR-1000, wich is a wired one, using the LANC protocol, you can have some more flexibility like variable zoom speed and focus control. It can be fixed to the pan/tilt handle of your tripod. __________________ Jean-Philippe Archibald http://www.jparchibald.com - http://www.vimeo.com/jparchib

January 13th, 2004, 09:22 AM	#4
David Ho Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 354	Hmm.. right now, I don't have enough $$$ to purchase the ZR-1000 as I probably will in the near future. So for the next few short movies I am doing, I will be shooting them on tripod and hand, but I will be carefully using a combo of handheld controls and the remote.... although I would prefer the ZR-1000 (layout looks nice), but I guess it'll do. The only thing that I wanted the ZR-1000 is because I can easily zoom in, record without having to touch the camera, which could cause sound when I record, but it is easy to work around that by just recording earlier and unrecording the footage at a later time in the scene (just takes up more tape space!).. __________________ "Everyone has a photographic memory. Some just don't have film."

January 14th, 2004, 05:12 AM	#5
Don Palomaki Wrangler Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Northern VA Posts: 4,488	Try an off-camcorder mic to avoid the sounds of handling/touching the camcorder. Also, getting the mic closer to the talent usually results in better sound. __________________ dpalomaki@dspalomaki.com

January 13th, 2004, 01:52 AM	#3
Graham Bernard Old Boot Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: London UK Posts: 3,633	Ho yes! Sometime in the not too distant past, one chap had "adapted" the remote to be used as a type of controller. It was a natty concept. But you still had the tiny buttons and things. Try a search hereabouts or someone else will jump in with the link . . it was truly a very interesting use of lateral thinking. Personally, I got the Canon LANC and I'm very happy with it. IMHO it doesn't "feel" as robust as the more expensive ones. Can't remember the Canon catalogue/part number -Ah yes it was the ZR-1000 . . However, I've found a real need for one. It works. What I've also done is use the LANC controller "off" tripod handle. This gives more stability. However, when I need to have the LANC controller on the tripod handle I just thumb screw it back on - very quick! I suppose I could manufacture a "quick" snap type if fixing . . Grazie