lowlight performance on XL2 and old XL1: no difference ?!

Jim Giberti · September 5th, 2004, 04:11 PM

<<So Jan, I am not entirely sure just exactly what procedure you are using, but I will confidently and respectfully say that your statement that the XL2 is no better in low light than the XL1 is not entirely true.

I will make it a point to do some more exact and 'scientific' testing in the following weeks, schedule permitting. I invite anyone who has the time to offer their input to please do so.>>

This is really the practical issue with a lot of us who got the XL2 early. Certainly I did so I could use it right off for current projects. It's understandalble, but it is asking a lot of people, (not Jan specifically, but I've already seen a few requests)) to make detailed comparisons under specific conditions.

Here's what I can tell you with no doubt after using the XL2 for 2 days under completely varying conditions.

First the 20x lens is the best piece of glass Canon has made for the XL series. It is fast, sharp and full of functions that are very useful in non "scripted" environments. In other words if I'm on the fly doing location work, or coverage for projects where I can't control the content (like the sports documentary I'm just starting), this would be the one lens I would want.

Second, their is simply no comparison between the low light capabilities of this camera and the previous XL. I don't need to run scientific evaluations to tell you that. I've produced a ton of stuff with the XL1, the XL1s and this camera is a different class of image...period. The images are clean and smooth.

A point regarding Jan's comments about BetaSX and Digibeta being able to shoot by candlelight. I tested the XL2 in a matter of minutes after setting it up with Kristen sitting in her chair beside a 60 watt shaded table lamp. I was able to show the tiniest facial hairs and eyelashes at perfect resolution with a single low watt covered practical. This camera is in that league in low light.

The image quality of this camera certainly rivals digibeta...I mean show me the noise. More importantly, the image quality is unique unto itself, in 24p 16:9 It blows away Digibeta.

I've had two people see the footage I've shot so far. My wife and partner who's been on this biz as long as me and who writes the checks. She thinks it's the best new investment we've made, and we already own 2 Xl1s and a pair of Mini35s (one of which is about to go on sale here). Her sense is that the camera exceeds super 16 (a format we've produced in a lot along with Beta, Digibeta).

The other person is my nephew who crews with us as well as with Porchlight for Disney and others. He looked at the footage out of the camera yesterday on my 8045Q hi res field monitor and thought it looked as good as the HD work they'd recently been shooting for a feature. After looking at it his comment was, "why would you shoot in film except for large budgets, if you can get this kind of image quality before you even turn a light on?"

September 5th, 2004, 04:11 PM	#16
Jim Giberti Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Bethel, VT Posts: 824	<<So Jan, I am not entirely sure just exactly what procedure you are using, but I will confidently and respectfully say that your statement that the XL2 is no better in low light than the XL1 is not entirely true. I will make it a point to do some more exact and 'scientific' testing in the following weeks, schedule permitting. I invite anyone who has the time to offer their input to please do so.>> This is really the practical issue with a lot of us who got the XL2 early. Certainly I did so I could use it right off for current projects. It's understandalble, but it is asking a lot of people, (not Jan specifically, but I've already seen a few requests)) to make detailed comparisons under specific conditions. Here's what I can tell you with no doubt after using the XL2 for 2 days under completely varying conditions. First the 20x lens is the best piece of glass Canon has made for the XL series. It is fast, sharp and full of functions that are very useful in non "scripted" environments. In other words if I'm on the fly doing location work, or coverage for projects where I can't control the content (like the sports documentary I'm just starting), this would be the one lens I would want. Second, their is simply no comparison between the low light capabilities of this camera and the previous XL. I don't need to run scientific evaluations to tell you that. I've produced a ton of stuff with the XL1, the XL1s and this camera is a different class of image...period. The images are clean and smooth. A point regarding Jan's comments about BetaSX and Digibeta being able to shoot by candlelight. I tested the XL2 in a matter of minutes after setting it up with Kristen sitting in her chair beside a 60 watt shaded table lamp. I was able to show the tiniest facial hairs and eyelashes at perfect resolution with a single low watt covered practical. This camera is in that league in low light. The image quality of this camera certainly rivals digibeta...I mean show me the noise. More importantly, the image quality is unique unto itself, in 24p 16:9 It blows away Digibeta. I've had two people see the footage I've shot so far. My wife and partner who's been on this biz as long as me and who writes the checks. She thinks it's the best new investment we've made, and we already own 2 Xl1s and a pair of Mini35s (one of which is about to go on sale here). Her sense is that the camera exceeds super 16 (a format we've produced in a lot along with Beta, Digibeta). The other person is my nephew who crews with us as well as with Porchlight for Disney and others. He looked at the footage out of the camera yesterday on my 8045Q hi res field monitor and thought it looked as good as the HD work they'd recently been shooting for a feature. After looking at it his comment was, "why would you shoot in film except for large budgets, if you can get this kind of image quality before you even turn a light on?"