Stupid comparison but.. XL2 vs DVX100?

Dennis Hingsberg · July 21st, 2004, 06:57 AM

What I really want to know is let's say both cameras were the exact same price - which one would you actually buy?

I think many people here are trying to justify why the difference in price makes it worth it for them to keep the DVX100. If they were the exact same price and you were in the market for a new SD camera obviously you would go for the XL2 because of the higher resolution, new processing effect/filters and lens mount as an option. But because the XL2 is more money, we will all have to justify it to ourselves.

I own a XL1se (pal) with mini35 rig here in Canada and a week ago was extremely close to dumping the XL1 part of it and going to the DVX100 just to save me from creating 24p in post from my PAL footage. When I learned of the XL2 I was happy that I would not have to move to the Panny line and now can do 24p with an improved 16:9 resolution that is DOUBLE. Say what you will but the XL2 is the new king of the castle.

Nick Medrano · July 21st, 2004, 08:02 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Dennis Hingsberg : When I learned of the XL2 I was happy that I would not have to move to the Panny line and now can do 24p with an improved 16:9 resolution that is DOUBLE. Say what you will but the XL2 is the new king of the castle. -->>>

Now that's a little biased, don't ya think? :)

Tommy Haupfear · July 21st, 2004, 08:31 AM

Doesn't the DVX100a offer 360 lines of resolution in its anamoprhic 16:9 mode (for 30p/24p)?

Thats not shabby at all and I believe I read a review that says if you shot 16:9 and progressive on the DVX100A you can forego the purchase of the Panasonic anamorphic adapter.

I will agree with others that price is a big factor in the decision making process.

Dennis Hingsberg · July 21st, 2004, 08:48 AM

I shoot with whatever makes sense for me at the time and will yield the best quality for what I'm doing. I don't care about what the brand is, I actually started off with Sony and cried when I had to part with my PD150 to get money for the mini35 with XL1 setup I was investing into ($13,000 US). Ergonomically though using the XL1 with the mini35 made (and still does) a whole lot of sense. (mainly the EVF positioning and removable lens)

So when I wanted 24p I was happy not to have to move to the Panny because the camera kit for the mini35 adapter would cost me an additional $1530 Euros (approx $1850 USD) and then I would probably have difficulty selling the adapter kit for the Canon on its own. As you can see it was going to be a bit of a hassle for me to go 24p and either way its a lot of money. If I'm going to spend the money I'm going to get the best so I can justify it in my mind ;)

Now that the XL2 is out my problems are solved, I am good to go and will be shooting 24p at 16:9 with 460k pixels instead of 16:9 at 300k with a camera that does not work well ergonomically with the mini35.

I would like to think that this is logical, not biased.

Chris Hurd · July 21st, 2004, 08:51 AM

Tommy is right. It's going to boil down to whether you want an all-in-one piece like the DVX with a shorter, wider lens or a modular system like the XL2. In my opinion they'll each have their place.

Nobody should jump from the DVX to the XL2. However, XL1/XL1S owners would do themselves a favor to upgrade to the XL2. That's just my take on it.

Dennis Hingsberg · July 21st, 2004, 08:56 AM

Yes I agree with Chris and that was exactly my point - I already have other pieces that work with the Canon platform so switching brands now would be a hassle. If you already own a DVX100 you are set... but also don't deny that having a higher pixel count in 16:9 is cool.

You have to understand and try to relate that after wanting 24p for so long it was like winning the lottery for me when I first heard of the XL2 - I even got all giddy like a little girl on her birthday.

Jim Giberti · July 21st, 2004, 10:52 AM

<<You have to understand and try to relate that after wanting 24p for so long it was like winning the lottery for me when I first heard of the XL2 - I even got all giddy like a little girl on her birthday.>>

We're prety niche users Dennis, but I feel the same way (well maybe not the little girl part <g>). When it was confirmed that the XL2 would be compatible with the Mini35 mount I was very pleased. I would never use the faux 16:9 on the XL1s and have been really happy with a good deal of the studio work and location work with the combo in 4:3 (always in frame mode). But let's face it, this now allows for the Mini35 to shoot in wide screen at a higher native resolution at 16:9 rather than a degradation as well as higher res at 24p.

It makes the Mini35 a better investment than when I got one of the first models a couple of years ago...the camera will actually be better able to create "cinematic" images from aspect ratio, res and gamma. Pretty freakin cool I think.

And I've decided to get the whole kit simply because the 20x lens sounds too nice for run and gun work. For that matter there are times when the new color vf and new lens setup could be a plus rather than the big B&W VF and P&S setup. I'm thinking some quick over night trips to L.A. and D.C next month where it could actually be carried on flight. For an extra 1k, I think it's a good deal.

Dennis Hingsberg · July 21st, 2004, 11:14 AM

We'll just forget that little girl part then.. . ;)

Yeah I mean it's all really where you are with your productions or what you're using your equipment for. When I'm not working on my own films I'm being paid by others to shoot theirs and the XL2 will definitely be a selling feature for my mini35 camera services. If people are going to pay $850 a day they are going to want the best looking product and won't want to settle for less... it doesn't even matter 'how much' less. Less is just less period!

Anyway it all just worked out for me in the end I guess you could say and I'm really happy about it. I just attended a 4 day film festival here in Toronto and you could imagine after seeing so many great films on the big screen wanting the ability to produce a product that has a better chance to look alike with the real thing (real thing being 16 or 35mm film)

The SD by Canon gets us just a wee bit closer and that's amazing! I just wonder why Sony hasn't jumped on the 24p bandwagon with their PDX10 which offered true 16:9? Sony's HD cam will be interesting to see later this year but I'm willing to bet it will be way over $6999 (US) ?!

July 21st, 2004, 06:57 AM	#31
Dennis Hingsberg Trustee Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,055	What I really want to know is let's say both cameras were the exact same price - which one would you actually buy? I think many people here are trying to justify why the difference in price makes it worth it for them to keep the DVX100. If they were the exact same price and you were in the market for a new SD camera obviously you would go for the XL2 because of the higher resolution, new processing effect/filters and lens mount as an option. But because the XL2 is more money, we will all have to justify it to ourselves. I own a XL1se (pal) with mini35 rig here in Canada and a week ago was extremely close to dumping the XL1 part of it and going to the DVX100 just to save me from creating 24p in post from my PAL footage. When I learned of the XL2 I was happy that I would not have to move to the Panny line and now can do 24p with an improved 16:9 resolution that is DOUBLE. Say what you will but the XL2 is the new king of the castle. __________________ Blog: www.hingsberg.com Ultimate Exposure Guides for FS5/F7S/F5/F55

July 21st, 2004, 08:48 AM	#34
Dennis Hingsberg Trustee Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,055	I shoot with whatever makes sense for me at the time and will yield the best quality for what I'm doing. I don't care about what the brand is, I actually started off with Sony and cried when I had to part with my PD150 to get money for the mini35 with XL1 setup I was investing into ($13,000 US). Ergonomically though using the XL1 with the mini35 made (and still does) a whole lot of sense. (mainly the EVF positioning and removable lens) So when I wanted 24p I was happy not to have to move to the Panny because the camera kit for the mini35 adapter would cost me an additional $1530 Euros (approx $1850 USD) and then I would probably have difficulty selling the adapter kit for the Canon on its own. As you can see it was going to be a bit of a hassle for me to go 24p and either way its a lot of money. If I'm going to spend the money I'm going to get the best so I can justify it in my mind ;) Now that the XL2 is out my problems are solved, I am good to go and will be shooting 24p at 16:9 with 460k pixels instead of 16:9 at 300k with a camera that does not work well ergonomically with the mini35. I would like to think that this is logical, not biased. __________________ Blog: www.hingsberg.com Ultimate Exposure Guides for FS5/F7S/F5/F55

July 21st, 2004, 08:51 AM	#35
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Tommy is right. It's going to boil down to whether you want an all-in-one piece like the DVX with a shorter, wider lens or a modular system like the XL2. In my opinion they'll each have their place. Nobody should jump from the DVX to the XL2. However, XL1/XL1S owners would do themselves a favor to upgrade to the XL2. That's just my take on it. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

July 21st, 2004, 08:56 AM	#36
Dennis Hingsberg Trustee Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,055	Yes I agree with Chris and that was exactly my point - I already have other pieces that work with the Canon platform so switching brands now would be a hassle. If you already own a DVX100 you are set... but also don't deny that having a higher pixel count in 16:9 is cool. You have to understand and try to relate that after wanting 24p for so long it was like winning the lottery for me when I first heard of the XL2 - I even got all giddy like a little girl on her birthday. __________________ Blog: www.hingsberg.com Ultimate Exposure Guides for FS5/F7S/F5/F55

July 21st, 2004, 11:14 AM	#38
Dennis Hingsberg Trustee Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,055	We'll just forget that little girl part then.. . ;) Yeah I mean it's all really where you are with your productions or what you're using your equipment for. When I'm not working on my own films I'm being paid by others to shoot theirs and the XL2 will definitely be a selling feature for my mini35 camera services. If people are going to pay $850 a day they are going to want the best looking product and won't want to settle for less... it doesn't even matter 'how much' less. Less is just less period! Anyway it all just worked out for me in the end I guess you could say and I'm really happy about it. I just attended a 4 day film festival here in Toronto and you could imagine after seeing so many great films on the big screen wanting the ability to produce a product that has a better chance to look alike with the real thing (real thing being 16 or 35mm film) The SD by Canon gets us just a wee bit closer and that's amazing! I just wonder why Sony hasn't jumped on the 24p bandwagon with their PDX10 which offered true 16:9? Sony's HD cam will be interesting to see later this year but I'm willing to bet it will be way over $6999 (US) ?! __________________ Blog: www.hingsberg.com Ultimate Exposure Guides for FS5/F7S/F5/F55

July 21st, 2004, 08:02 AM	#32
Nick Medrano Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 331	<<<-- Originally posted by Dennis Hingsberg : When I learned of the XL2 I was happy that I would not have to move to the Panny line and now can do 24p with an improved 16:9 resolution that is DOUBLE. Say what you will but the XL2 is the new king of the castle. -->>> Now that's a little biased, don't ya think? :)

July 21st, 2004, 08:31 AM	#33
Tommy Haupfear Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 1,415	Doesn't the DVX100a offer 360 lines of resolution in its anamoprhic 16:9 mode (for 30p/24p)? Thats not shabby at all and I believe I read a review that says if you shot 16:9 and progressive on the DVX100A you can forego the purchase of the Panasonic anamorphic adapter. I will agree with others that price is a big factor in the decision making process.

July 21st, 2004, 10:52 AM	#37
Jim Giberti Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Bethel, VT Posts: 824	<<You have to understand and try to relate that after wanting 24p for so long it was like winning the lottery for me when I first heard of the XL2 - I even got all giddy like a little girl on her birthday.>> We're prety niche users Dennis, but I feel the same way (well maybe not the little girl part <g>). When it was confirmed that the XL2 would be compatible with the Mini35 mount I was very pleased. I would never use the faux 16:9 on the XL1s and have been really happy with a good deal of the studio work and location work with the combo in 4:3 (always in frame mode). But let's face it, this now allows for the Mini35 to shoot in wide screen at a higher native resolution at 16:9 rather than a degradation as well as higher res at 24p. It makes the Mini35 a better investment than when I got one of the first models a couple of years ago...the camera will actually be better able to create "cinematic" images from aspect ratio, res and gamma. Pretty freakin cool I think. And I've decided to get the whole kit simply because the 20x lens sounds too nice for run and gun work. For that matter there are times when the new color vf and new lens setup could be a plus rather than the big B&W VF and P&S setup. I'm thinking some quick over night trips to L.A. and D.C next month where it could actually be carried on flight. For an extra 1k, I think it's a good deal.