I want a GL2 but put my mind at ease...

[Rich Stone]

I want to shoot high quality wildlife videos of creatures ranging from bugs to bison. I looked at the XL1S but it looks too big, too heavy, and too complicated. (Bad back, can't carry all that stuff anyway.)

All of my friends suggest the Sony VX2000 because it is apparently good in low light. It is lacking in the zoom department though.

The camera shop guy recommends the GL2 and I really do like it. I'm just sort of nervous about its low light performance because it gets pretty dark in the woods sometimes. Am I wrong to worry about that?

I'm also thinking about getting a Century Optics 2x teleconverter lens for it *but* my 35mm experience with that sort of thing wasn't the best. That could be due to cheap glass though. Has anyone used that particular lens and is it any good?

Would the GL2 with the teleconverter be adequate for most wildlife or would I be better off to look at something else?

Thanks,

Rich

The GL2's gain goes up to 18 now as opposed to the GL1's 12. So it's a tad better in low light. I don't know this for sure as I don't have one yet, but that's the word on this cam right now. However due to the denser sensors (higher resolution) and thier being the same physical size (1/4") I have a hard time believing it's all thatmuch better. But my GL1's low light sensitivity really is'nt that bad.
There really is'nt much out there in the three chip prosumer category that can beat the Sony VX2K in low light, however I eventually went with a GL1 for it's longer telephoto and somewhat nicer glass. I am upgrading to a GL2 soon myself so the true answer to your question would be interesting to know for myself as well.
Either way, you're not going to go wrong with a GL2. It's a VERY good cam.

[Frank Granovski]

Adding a 2X adaptor will steal even more light. The Century adaptors are the best. They use German glass; and the company also makes the best filters: B+W and Heliopan. I don't know anything about Canon's tele adaptor/s, but Canon too makes very good lenses and adaptors. (I don't know which is better FOR THE GL2.)

A camcorder with lower lux would be the VX2000, or you can spend more and buy a cam with even bigger CCDs, like the JVC DV500. However, the GL2 is easy to hold and "ergonomically" sound to operate easily. But..., if you're going to use lots of zoom, do invest in a good tripod.

Like Gargoyle says, the GL2 is a very good cam. For about the same price, you get more lux with the VX20000, but less zoom. (You can always spend more to get a DV500 or even better---and with this cam, you can mount different lenses, with lots of zoom.)

Hmmm, bison, you must be Canadian.

[Jeff Donald]

The use of a 2X teleconvertor placed in front of the prime lens will not lose any light. When a 2X teleconvertor is place bewteen the lens and the camera body (like in 35mm SLR's) you lose 2 stops of light. I've done wildlife documentaries and sold nature footage to stock agencies for years. Low light performance is not that big of a deal unless your doing a night time project. Long telephotos are mandatory for most nature work. The 20X Canon lens combined with a 2X teleconvertor is the range you need to be in.

Jeff

[Bill Hardy]

Just an added note, if you take a look at my DUCK MOVIE you will see a bit of footage at 40x zoom, which is marked on the movie. This compressed video shows some aliasing however. To me the actual DV looked surprizingly unpixelated, probably due to Canon's Pixel Shift technology. I may also get a Century 2x teleconverter in the near future since Frank has a good opinion of the manufacturer, but the unpixelated 40x digital zoom is a big plus. Check out the 7.2 MB duck movie and judge for yourself.

http://homepage.mac.com/bhardy3/iMovieTheater13.html

[Rich Stone]

Thanks for the replies everyone.

I've been struggling with this forever. heh. I'll go ahead with the GL2 then.

Thanks again,

Rich