GL2 vs Optura 60 at DVinfo.net

Jon Nysse · November 27th, 2005, 10:44 PM

I own a GL2 and an Optura 60. I really only notice a quality differance in low light and even then not much. I am so new to this its not even funny. What are the main differences in these cameras? Is there a reason to keep my GL2?

I mainly shoot video of my kids, some hunting and backcounty snowmobiling. I purchased the Optura 60 for its small size which I thought would be nice for snowmobiling. I have not tried either camera out in the snow yet so I dont know what to expect. I have been very impressed with the Optura 60. Please tell me if I should be keeping my GL2. What are the real quality differences?

Thanks for the help.
Jon

Patrick Jenkins · November 28th, 2005, 08:41 AM

There are some manual controls lacking between the two, but mainly you've found the difference. The color accuracy between the two (unedited) is spot on. The 1 CCD of the Optura in lower light uses more gain and gives the footage a grainy look, where as the GL2 will just have the image get dimmer without the grain.

I've used both Optura and GL cameras in projects (shorts and 1 feature). Stylistlcally, I prefer the Optura. Yeah, grain is faupax, but it looks more naturalistic for docu-verite stuff (which is what I do).

Jean-Philippe Archibald · November 28th, 2005, 09:04 AM

The optura, while it's a really nice little camcorder, is definitly less sharp than a GL2. (Althrough less sharp than my XL1...)

Patrick Jenkins · November 28th, 2005, 10:04 AM

I'm confused by what exactly this means. Sharpness is basically just an increase of contrast where there's variation in the image. More variation (edges), more contrast; less variation (smooth & plain), less contrast. Both cameras have the ability to increase or reduce this sharpness to the signal coming in from the lens. The lens/ccd[s] only resolve an image roughly .3 megapixels (DV rez). Also, the pixel density between both are pretty close (1.7 vs 2 mpixels). On top of all that, I've also A/B'd both cameras in the same shoot.

I dunno, I've used both cameras for the same project (did a feature a bit ago - GL was stationary camera, the Optura was steadi + shoulder) and really - for well lit stuff - there's very little to no difference when actually cutting back and forth. There are issues with low light (grain - as mentioned earlier), but otherwise there really isn't a visual difference. It comes down to aesthetics, manual controls, etc.

$.02

Jean-Philippe Archibald · November 28th, 2005, 10:29 AM

Oh, I am not a technical expert, I can't understand the numbers, resolution charts, etc. I'm a videographer :)

But recently I did a fake "sport news show" (two people talking) in a well lit studio. I used two XL1, one for a close up on one caracter, the other for the main shot facing the setup with the two caracters in the frame and the optura for the close up of the other caracter. The optura did a really good job, the colors matched pretty close (but a bit less saturated... I had to pump up the saturation in post), but I can saw a difference in... call it sharpness, or resolution, or anything else, but there was a difference in the visual quality of the footage.

I have used the 4:3 mode of the optura. I know that a smaller patch of the CCD is used in this mode and it can perhaps explain the difference.

Meryem Ersoz · November 28th, 2005, 12:46 PM

if you can afford it, why not keep them both? cameras in that price range don't hold their value all that well, and if something goes wrong or if you have to send your main camera in for cleaning, you have a back-up.

if you could use the cash, i would say, sell the GL2. it doesn't sound like, for your needs, that it is quite as portable or durable as the optura. the GL2 has more flexible customizing options, but if you are not planning to use them, who cares?

Jon Nysse · November 28th, 2005, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meryem Ersoz

if you can afford it, why not keep them both? cameras in that price range don't hold their value all that well, and if something goes wrong or if you have to send your main camera in for cleaning, you have a back-up.

if you could use the cash, i would say, sell the GL2. it doesn't sound like, for your needs, that it is quite as portable or durable as the optura. the GL2 has more flexible customizing options, but if you are not planning to use them, who cares?

I have someone who will take the GL2 off of my hands for a good price so that is what propted the question. I will not be out much at all so I would call it a good deal for both of us.

I was thinking of using the money to buy a mic and some more batteries and keep the rest for the next digital purchase (whatever that might be). The battery life of the Optura is not that hot but that is my only complaint so far. I am going to read the GL2 manual again and see if there is something it has that might suit my needs that I am overlooking. I really like the GL2 a lot but I am an amature and I guess at this point portability is my main need. I just dont want to regret getting rid of something that I might need in two months but at the same time I dont like things just sitting around collecting dust.

November 27th, 2005, 10:44 PM	#1
Jon Nysse New Boot Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: New Richmond, WI Posts: 5	GL2 vs Optura 60 I own a GL2 and an Optura 60. I really only notice a quality differance in low light and even then not much. I am so new to this its not even funny. What are the main differences in these cameras? Is there a reason to keep my GL2? I mainly shoot video of my kids, some hunting and backcounty snowmobiling. I purchased the Optura 60 for its small size which I thought would be nice for snowmobiling. I have not tried either camera out in the snow yet so I dont know what to expect. I have been very impressed with the Optura 60. Please tell me if I should be keeping my GL2. What are the real quality differences? Thanks for the help. Jon

November 28th, 2005, 09:04 AM	#3
Jean-Philippe Archibald Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Saguenay, Québec, Canada Posts: 1,051	The optura, while it's a really nice little camcorder, is definitly less sharp than a GL2. (Althrough less sharp than my XL1...) __________________ Jean-Philippe Archibald http://www.jparchibald.com - http://www.vimeo.com/jparchib

November 28th, 2005, 10:29 AM	#5
Jean-Philippe Archibald Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Saguenay, Québec, Canada Posts: 1,051	Oh, I am not a technical expert, I can't understand the numbers, resolution charts, etc. I'm a videographer :) But recently I did a fake "sport news show" (two people talking) in a well lit studio. I used two XL1, one for a close up on one caracter, the other for the main shot facing the setup with the two caracters in the frame and the optura for the close up of the other caracter. The optura did a really good job, the colors matched pretty close (but a bit less saturated... I had to pump up the saturation in post), but I can saw a difference in... call it sharpness, or resolution, or anything else, but there was a difference in the visual quality of the footage. I have used the 4:3 mode of the optura. I know that a smaller patch of the CCD is used in this mode and it can perhaps explain the difference. __________________ Jean-Philippe Archibald http://www.jparchibald.com - http://www.vimeo.com/jparchib

November 28th, 2005, 08:41 AM	#2
Patrick Jenkins Major Player Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Maryland, USA Posts: 382	There are some manual controls lacking between the two, but mainly you've found the difference. The color accuracy between the two (unedited) is spot on. The 1 CCD of the Optura in lower light uses more gain and gives the footage a grainy look, where as the GL2 will just have the image get dimmer without the grain. I've used both Optura and GL cameras in projects (shorts and 1 feature). Stylistlcally, I prefer the Optura. Yeah, grain is faupax, but it looks more naturalistic for docu-verite stuff (which is what I do).

November 28th, 2005, 10:04 AM	#4
Patrick Jenkins Major Player Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Maryland, USA Posts: 382	I'm confused by what exactly this means. Sharpness is basically just an increase of contrast where there's variation in the image. More variation (edges), more contrast; less variation (smooth & plain), less contrast. Both cameras have the ability to increase or reduce this sharpness to the signal coming in from the lens. The lens/ccd[s] only resolve an image roughly .3 megapixels (DV rez). Also, the pixel density between both are pretty close (1.7 vs 2 mpixels). On top of all that, I've also A/B'd both cameras in the same shoot. I dunno, I've used both cameras for the same project (did a feature a bit ago - GL was stationary camera, the Optura was steadi + shoulder) and really - for well lit stuff - there's very little to no difference when actually cutting back and forth. There are issues with low light (grain - as mentioned earlier), but otherwise there really isn't a visual difference. It comes down to aesthetics, manual controls, etc. $.02

November 28th, 2005, 12:46 PM	#6
Meryem Ersoz Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 3,015	if you can afford it, why not keep them both? cameras in that price range don't hold their value all that well, and if something goes wrong or if you have to send your main camera in for cleaning, you have a back-up. if you could use the cash, i would say, sell the GL2. it doesn't sound like, for your needs, that it is quite as portable or durable as the optura. the GL2 has more flexible customizing options, but if you are not planning to use them, who cares?