Canon GL2 or Sony TRV 950 at DVinfo.net

August 18th, 2002, 10:51 AM

I want people's opinion on which one to choose. I like the quality of the GL2, but I also like the size of the TRV950. Do you guys think the TRV is just as good quality wise? or should I go with Canon all the way? Thanks.

Steve McDonald · August 18th, 2002, 06:09 PM

Although I've always gotten better performance and durability from Sony camcorders, than from Canon models, I see the comparison like this: The TRV950 is a dumbed-down version of the highly-regarded predecessor model, the TRV900. However, by all accounts I've heard so far, the GL2 is a significantly improved version
of the GL1. If you think a 4-lb. camcorder is large, you probably haven't packed around a 17-lb. BetaCam or a 35-lb., two-part U-Matic "portable" videocamera/recorder.

Steve McDonald

Barry Goyette · August 18th, 2002, 06:40 PM

I've never used the trv950, so I can't vouch for its quality. If you are looking for a camera you can sneak into a concert, then the size issue might be warranted. If anything, for quality handheld work, you want a larger camera, not a smaller one, as the camera's own inertia acts as a steadying force. The Gl2 is an excellent camera, with substantial professional controls; the trv950 isn't really in the same league.

Barry

Peter Butler · August 19th, 2002, 03:39 AM

Well I did have a quick go of the 950, I can't compare it to the XM2(GL2) because I'm still waiting for that to be released. But what I can say is that although the 950 had a great picture I did find the controls fiddly. The zoom was quite sensitive and was hard to get a constant speed. Beacuse it's so small it's harder to balance and therefore get a steady shot. You also don't get as many controls for example control over left and right audio. I used to film on a broadcast camera so I really want a camera that has as close to broadcast as possible without being to big, which is why I'm going for the XM2(GL2). If you want a camera mainly for going on holiday and for general family outings then I might be inclined to get the 950, it's slightly cheaper and like someone's already said it's a lot smaller.

Peter

Joshua Wachs · August 19th, 2002, 10:56 AM

Is the 950 the one w/ the touch screen they showed at DV Expo? Clearly one of the stupiest, imho, ideas for a camera I've seen in a long time - who wants constant fingerprints on their screen?

Peter Butler · August 19th, 2002, 11:16 AM

Yep that's the one, although you do get a plastic pen thing with it so you don't have to get smudges on the screen. I can imagine it get very annoying having to keep using the pen and I'm sure if you're anything like me it would end up getting lost within a few weeks.

Joshua Wachs · August 19th, 2002, 11:27 AM

Brilliant.

:-(

Frank Granovski · August 20th, 2002, 05:57 AM

I've used both the GL1 and PD100A ("pro" version of the TRV950). I can't say I like one more than the other. However, I have played with the TRV950, and found it to be disappointing. It's seems like a well-built, solid cam, but I found it difficult to hold because it lacks a ridge or something for your fingers to get a firm grip. Also I found it to be front heavy, and pulling to the left. I imagine that it's a good "tripod cam." Another thing, the size of the TRV950 is only slightly smaller than the GL1, and I find the GL1 easy to hold---and it's balanced---when compared with the TRV950. Furthermore, I've read that the GL2's video quality is superior to the TRV950's footage, but I have not yet seen the new GL2. From the GL2's specs, and from reading owners' reviews, I think the GL2 is the better cam.

August 24th, 2002, 04:14 PM

The picture quality of the GL2 and TRV950 are very close and both very good. I ran some tape through both of the same subjects, and found the Sony 950 to have the slight sharpness edge, but not dramatically so. I tested the vx2000 at the same time, and was struck at just how similar the pictures did look on a monitor. There are some differences to be found if you're looking for them, but all three produce video of nearly the same quality. I think their real differences lie elswhere. --Mainly, the GL2 has the longer lens range, and more manual audio control; The TRV950 is a much more compact unit (as far as when when compactness and non-intrusiveness matter), with a bigger/better LCD screen. This allows the 950 to be used hand-held in unique ways, still keeping pretty good tabs on focus/exposure/audio in the LCD, which the bigger cams w/smaller screens really don't allow. The GL2 and VX2000 are virtually identical in size and shape; The VX2000 still rules in low light. (GL2 sees in lower light than TRV950, though.) Most manual controls are duplicated (in one way or another) on each camera.

I'd say Other than the above features, personal taste would be the best deciding factor. Their pictures are comparable.

In response to some comments on this thread, I don't find the TRV950 hard to handhold at all, once you cinch up the handgrip to fit, the camera rests on your palm. It's made so you don't have to grip anything. The LCD touch controls are not the things you need to access while shooting on the run (which Would be stupid), they're mostly controls that do not exist on other cameras, like spot focus and internet access. The typical manual controls are laid out somewhat like the VX2000's, on smaller real estate. Useful additions are the little "backlight", and "spot light" buttons, which btw are a lot more handy than I would have thought.

I bought a TRV950 and like it, but if you only can have one camera and size doesn't matter, I'd go w/the VX2000 for it's lower light abilities. The GL2 has a few advantages that could make it the best choice, too, depending on your requirements. You can't really go too far wrong choosing among these, the best in miniDV.

Frank Granovski · August 24th, 2002, 10:01 PM

My brother has large hands, and can easily grib the TRV950. I don't have large hands, and found it difficult to grip the TRV950. If this cam had a ridge for one's fingers, that would make a lot easier to grip (for those of us with smaller hands).

Peter Butler · August 27th, 2002, 03:37 AM

Yeah actually the 950 did have a very good picture. I borrowed a friends VX2000 over the weekend to compare to the XM2 and I was suprised at how much heavier it was you can really feel the difference. The low light of the VX2000 is better but I would say the XM2 can see pretty well in low lit situations it's only when you get to really low light as in nearly black that it gives up. One complaint that many people have had is that it becomes grainy, the secret is to keep it at 0 gain and just use the aperture and the shutter and if you have to, go to 6 on the gain. Also you have an option in the set up to reduce sharpness which helps reduce the grain. But for a room lit with say a 60 watt bulb the XM2 is fine.

August 18th, 2002, 10:51 AM	#1
Mikey310 Posts: n/a	Canon GL2 or Sony TRV 950 I want people's opinion on which one to choose. I like the quality of the GL2, but I also like the size of the TRV950. Do you guys think the TRV is just as good quality wise? or should I go with Canon all the way? Thanks.

August 18th, 2002, 06:09 PM	#2
Steve McDonald Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Eugene, Oregon Posts: 366	Although I've always gotten better performance and durability from Sony camcorders, than from Canon models, I see the comparison like this: The TRV950 is a dumbed-down version of the highly-regarded predecessor model, the TRV900. However, by all accounts I've heard so far, the GL2 is a significantly improved version of the GL1. If you think a 4-lb. camcorder is large, you probably haven't packed around a 17-lb. BetaCam or a 35-lb., two-part U-Matic "portable" videocamera/recorder. Steve McDonald

August 18th, 2002, 06:40 PM	#3
Barry Goyette Trustee Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: San Luis Obispo CA Posts: 1,195	I've never used the trv950, so I can't vouch for its quality. If you are looking for a camera you can sneak into a concert, then the size issue might be warranted. If anything, for quality handheld work, you want a larger camera, not a smaller one, as the camera's own inertia acts as a steadying force. The Gl2 is an excellent camera, with substantial professional controls; the trv950 isn't really in the same league. Barry

August 19th, 2002, 03:39 AM	#4
Peter Butler Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 61	Well I did have a quick go of the 950, I can't compare it to the XM2(GL2) because I'm still waiting for that to be released. But what I can say is that although the 950 had a great picture I did find the controls fiddly. The zoom was quite sensitive and was hard to get a constant speed. Beacuse it's so small it's harder to balance and therefore get a steady shot. You also don't get as many controls for example control over left and right audio. I used to film on a broadcast camera so I really want a camera that has as close to broadcast as possible without being to big, which is why I'm going for the XM2(GL2). If you want a camera mainly for going on holiday and for general family outings then I might be inclined to get the 950, it's slightly cheaper and like someone's already said it's a lot smaller. Peter

August 19th, 2002, 10:56 AM	#5
Joshua Wachs Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 95	Is the 950 the one w/ the touch screen they showed at DV Expo? Clearly one of the stupiest, imho, ideas for a camera I've seen in a long time - who wants constant fingerprints on their screen?

August 19th, 2002, 11:16 AM	#6
Peter Butler Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 61	Yep that's the one, although you do get a plastic pen thing with it so you don't have to get smudges on the screen. I can imagine it get very annoying having to keep using the pen and I'm sure if you're anything like me it would end up getting lost within a few weeks.

August 19th, 2002, 11:27 AM	#7
Joshua Wachs Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 95	Brilliant. :-(

August 20th, 2002, 05:57 AM	#8
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	I've used both the GL1 and PD100A ("pro" version of the TRV950). I can't say I like one more than the other. However, I have played with the TRV950, and found it to be disappointing. It's seems like a well-built, solid cam, but I found it difficult to hold because it lacks a ridge or something for your fingers to get a firm grip. Also I found it to be front heavy, and pulling to the left. I imagine that it's a good "tripod cam." Another thing, the size of the TRV950 is only slightly smaller than the GL1, and I find the GL1 easy to hold---and it's balanced---when compared with the TRV950. Furthermore, I've read that the GL2's video quality is superior to the TRV950's footage, but I have not yet seen the new GL2. From the GL2's specs, and from reading owners' reviews, I think the GL2 is the better cam.

August 24th, 2002, 04:14 PM	#9
psurfer1 Posts: n/a	The picture quality of the GL2 and TRV950 are very close and both very good. I ran some tape through both of the same subjects, and found the Sony 950 to have the slight sharpness edge, but not dramatically so. I tested the vx2000 at the same time, and was struck at just how similar the pictures did look on a monitor. There are some differences to be found if you're looking for them, but all three produce video of nearly the same quality. I think their real differences lie elswhere. --Mainly, the GL2 has the longer lens range, and more manual audio control; The TRV950 is a much more compact unit (as far as when when compactness and non-intrusiveness matter), with a bigger/better LCD screen. This allows the 950 to be used hand-held in unique ways, still keeping pretty good tabs on focus/exposure/audio in the LCD, which the bigger cams w/smaller screens really don't allow. The GL2 and VX2000 are virtually identical in size and shape; The VX2000 still rules in low light. (GL2 sees in lower light than TRV950, though.) Most manual controls are duplicated (in one way or another) on each camera. I'd say Other than the above features, personal taste would be the best deciding factor. Their pictures are comparable. In response to some comments on this thread, I don't find the TRV950 hard to handhold at all, once you cinch up the handgrip to fit, the camera rests on your palm. It's made so you don't have to grip anything. The LCD touch controls are not the things you need to access while shooting on the run (which Would be stupid), they're mostly controls that do not exist on other cameras, like spot focus and internet access. The typical manual controls are laid out somewhat like the VX2000's, on smaller real estate. Useful additions are the little "backlight", and "spot light" buttons, which btw are a lot more handy than I would have thought. I bought a TRV950 and like it, but if you only can have one camera and size doesn't matter, I'd go w/the VX2000 for it's lower light abilities. The GL2 has a few advantages that could make it the best choice, too, depending on your requirements. You can't really go too far wrong choosing among these, the best in miniDV.

August 24th, 2002, 10:01 PM	#10
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	My brother has large hands, and can easily grib the TRV950. I don't have large hands, and found it difficult to grip the TRV950. If this cam had a ridge for one's fingers, that would make a lot easier to grip (for those of us with smaller hands).

August 27th, 2002, 03:37 AM	#11
Peter Butler Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 61	Yeah actually the 950 did have a very good picture. I borrowed a friends VX2000 over the weekend to compare to the XM2 and I was suprised at how much heavier it was you can really feel the difference. The low light of the VX2000 is better but I would say the XM2 can see pretty well in low lit situations it's only when you get to really low light as in nearly black that it gives up. One complaint that many people have had is that it becomes grainy, the secret is to keep it at 0 gain and just use the aperture and the shutter and if you have to, go to 6 on the gain. Also you have an option in the set up to reduce sharpness which helps reduce the grain. But for a room lit with say a 60 watt bulb the XM2 is fine.