Congratulations XL-2 Posters!!!

[Robert J. Wolff]

After dilligently reading througn all of the posts on the XL-2, and reading some fine evaluations, (plus some nitpicking), I have decided that there are too many problems with it.

So, I think I will sit this dance out. And so, tomorrow, I will stick my $5K+, back into my savings account, until the updated version comes out within the next 6 months.

I of course will continue to read the reviews on this cam, from all of the good folks here.

[Dylan Couper]

AN updated XL2 will likely take longer than 6 months. I think the XL1s came out 3 years after the XL1. Or do you mean the next new camera?

I'm having a similar debate, not whether I think the XL2 is worthy of my money (it is) as it is the best out there in this price range, and to me, easily worth the money over a DVX100, but instead is it the camera that is going to last me the next 5 years. I'm still happy with my 7 year old Canon XL1 cameras, so at least I'm not forced into it.

[Paul Pelalas]

For the money, if the XL2 has no switchable line in on the XLR inputs, an iris control thats like shiftin gears in an 18 wheeler, inherent audio noise, and lack of cine gamma punch. If thats the case, then theres no way it's a better value than a DVX100A.
Just the lack good audio and pro audio features makes the camera a bad investment. If according to all the prior posts about how important audio is, then why risk buying something that gets half the job done. Are you going to buy a DAT recorder to get hissless audio? All this makes no sense.
Never buy a first release camera. The DVX 100A came out a year later with all the improvements from the previous version. The DVX's audio is the best audio that you can get from any camera in its price range. Clean, noisless, perfect. comparing the DVX and the XL2 at this point is like comparing a Porsche ( the DVX) and a Ferrari ( the XL2), but the Ferrari has 2 flat tires, and is running on 4 cylinders.
If you want a camera to make it in the pro world, at least try to emulate the features of other pro gear, or in the end you alienate your customers, which I feel Canon has done.

[Barry Goyette]

Paul

I'm perfectly happy if you have no interest in buying an xl2...but let's not be making statements that aren't true

1. the DVX sound circuits are far from perfect, in fact I just put the xl2 and dvx through a series of tests and they produced nearly identical levels of noise in every situation.

2." Xl2 has a lack of cinegamma punch"...I'm not sure what you mean by that. I posted some tests and it seamed to be doing exactly what it should...and in my opinion looked better than similar tests I've seen from the dvx....but maybe you could elaborate.

3. While the lack of an internal line/mic pad may leave us all feeling a little flaccid...I think the points that Laurie made in addition to the wisdom of don palomaki indicate that this really isn't that big of a deal...and in fact may be a better situation....ie if you want a lousy pad in your circuit its a $45 fix....if you want to record it right, then do it right in the first place.

4. "there's no way its a better value than the dvx". Now we're getting personal so I should just stay away...but you're right. The xl2 isn't a better value if you don't want true (beautiful) 16:9, a decent ramping zoom, 3x-20x reach, shoulder mounting, unbelievable OIS.

Yeah, I know, the DVX has the LCD, the cool focus indexing...and damn you gotta love that wide angle lens....but... I'm lucky, I happen to own both cameras. I get the best of both worlds...but just because the XL2 is now my #1...I don't really feel the need to dog the DVX because of it.

Barry

[Dylan Couper]

<<<-- Originally posted by Paul Pelalas : For the money, if the XL2 has no switchable line in on the XLR inputs, an iris control thats like shiftin gears in an 18 wheeler, inherent audio noise, and lack of cine gamma punch. If thats the case, then theres no way it's a better value than a DVX100A. -->>>

You seriously think a DVX100 is better than an XL2? Come on...

XL2
Interchangable lenses
much higher magnification stock lens
better image stabilization
higher resolution/true 16:9, better ergonomics
a nicer looking picture from what I've seen

A DVX100 may be a better choice if you are on a tight budget and all you plan on using it for is indie film making. The weak lens alone excludes it from most event use. I suspect, since this is your first post, that you are a DVX owner that is upset that you no longer have the best camera out there. Sorry, that's progress.

[Paul Pelalas]

Actually im a former xl1s owner and current owner of a Sony DSR 500wsl who upgraded to a dvx100a. Just because it has native 16x9 capabilitys and a fatter lens does not make it a better camera. What the xl2 has and what it lacks are pluses and minuses and the minuses add up more to me . I need line level inputs via xlr, its standard on all pro cams, why not the xl2? When I stacked the cameras against each other in terms of pro features, and had to make the purchase decision, I had to go with the DVX. I was in no way constricted by budget, I decided based on features. Progress is when Panasonic released the 100a one year after the 100. Though I'm not a Panasonic camera fan at all, they showed me they we're serious about pleasing there customer base. If Canon would step up and take there video division as serious as there lens division, maybe ill get an xl2. But for now as long as my clients drool over there final product, and the DVX is making me money, I can't se the economic or artistic value in spending more money on a camera thats in the prosumer category, but lacks in a few industry standard features. Canon burned me before, I refuse to be burned again. Ill elaborate more if needed , but im currently on a shoot in California and Im using a borrowed laptop.

[Dylan Couper]

<<<-- Originally posted by Paul Pelalas : Actually im a former xl1s owner and current owner of a Sony DSR 500wsl who upgraded to a dvx100a. Just because it has native 16x9 capabilitys and a fatter lens does not make it a better camera. What the xl2 has and what it lacks are pluses and minuses and the minuses add up more to me . I need line level inputs via xlr, its standard on all pro cams, why not the xl2? When I stacked the cameras against each other in terms of pro features, and had to make the purchase decision, I had to go with the DVX. -->>>

You can never argue against "the right tool for the job". However, just because it is the right camera for you, doesn't actually make it superior, regardless of the price.

In my case, my 7 year old XL1 is a better camera to me than a DVX100, due to the lens configuration, ergonomics, OIS, versitility of the shutter control, and I could go on. However, I would never make the statement that it is a better camera than a DVX100, just better for me right now.


Plus you say never buy a first release camera... Most of the guys buying XL2's right now will make up the price of the camera in two or three jobs (or less). The time to buy a camera is when you need it. If you need an XL2 now, buy it now. Plus, I'd rather have the first generation of new technology than the last generation of old technology.

[Barry Goyette]

Paul

Again..I was only questioning statements you made that were not based in fact: and the need of a few people to knock a camera (that most have never even seen in person, yet alone used) just because they happen to own another one. I've owned a lot of cameras myself..and the only one that didn't stand up was the xl1s...so we agree on that...but the xl2 is a whole different deal (in my typically humble opinion).

Barry
------------------------------

Let the truth be told...

[Tre Stylez]

I guess you can't expect to put negative comments in a XL2 forum and not have people bite back :)

I currently don't have a camera at all and was orginally going to buy the DVX100a but have held out for the XL2. However i don't think the XL2 has meet my expectations, i was hoping for a more polished camera and was expecting it to be easly better then dvx100a.

"Xl2 has a lack of cinegamma punch" - Barry, the colours seem very dull to me when compared to shots i've seen with the dvx100a? Maybe there is a way to overcome this but i have yet to see it. I am also still waiting to see some 24p cinegamma footage online from someone.

At this stage i don't think anyone can say that either is better then one another unless you refer to your personal circumstances of use. I know personally i'm still on the fence.

[Chris Hurd]

These are all just tools of choice. I tend to become mighty leery of superlatives... "best" this and "better" that... what it comes down to is, the right one for you is the one which feels best in your hands, which produces the images you like. They all have their own little peculiar shortcomings. You just weigh the factors and use the one you're most comfortable with.

[Barry Goyette]

Tre

I'm curious about the statement that the colors seem dull to you compared to what you've seen from the dvx100a...And I'm only questioning because I've heard it several times from others...and I don't really know where it is coming from.

Up till now I've only seen 3 direct comparisons of the two cameras posted on the web. the first was posted by Johnnie over at DVX user, unfortunately he was comparing apples to oranges as he had a scene file applied to the DVX image which pretty much negates any analysis of the comparison. (despite the fact that many of us thought the color on the XL2 looked much more accurate.)

The second was Marty's footage...which did seem to reflect some colors that were duller on the xl2...however... marty was shooting in poor light, and the xl2 image didn't appear white balanced, and was 1/3 stop dark. (on top of this, marty feels his camera is defective). I encouraged marty to make his test more definitive...but he declined.

The last was my own comparison...I don't know how two cameras (even two of the same model) could be closer than in these tests, which were performed in decent light, both cameras were white balanced according to the same procedure. ( I ran through this test several times, with the same results each time)

All I can say is that the footage I have viewed on my set at home, and on several other sets has been anything but lacking in color.....

And I don't think this is what paul was referring to regarding cinegamma punch (actually cinegamma does the opposite of punch...but thats another story)

One last thing...I know I'm coming off as a defender of the great white camera...but you should know that I bought the xl1s right after it debuted, and spent the next two years using my Gl2 and DVX100.( the xl1s relegated to the closet). If I didn't feel that this was the best DV camera I've ever used...I'd just shut my mouth and go back to the gl2 forum.

Go try one down at your neighborhood store...stop listening to what everyone says...don't believe any pictures anyone posts...try it yourself....then make your decision. The DVX100A is an excellent camera...so is the XL2...either one would be a good choice in my book.


Barry

[Chris Hurd]

<< you can't expect to put negative comments in a XL2 forum and not have people bite back >>

I'm about to rant here, but *none of it* applies to Paul Pelalas or Tre Stylez. Instead there are other specific people I have in mind who shall remain nameless, heh.

Negative comments in any of our camera forums are fine but I'd prefer for them to come from people who are actually using that camera. I would not want steadfast loyal fans to "Brand X" coming into the forum for "Brand Y" and telling those folks their camera is better. I mean, that's why we separate the boards into different categories... so the brand-loyal fanatics can pretend the other guys don't exist. ;-)

Then there's the type of person who comes in and says, "I would never buy this camera because..." and rattle off what he's heard or what he's read about it that he doesn't like. Well, if you're no longer interested in it, then what are you still doing in its forum. I can forgive such an act by such a guy maybe once. The issue is when somebody camps out in the "Brand Y" board continually pontificating about what's wrong with it... as if it's his mission to convince everybody that because he thinks it's bad, they should too. I have a problem with this guy. If he doesn't like it, that's his business. But he needs to pack up and move on to another one of our camera boards. It's not his responsibility to talk other people out of the camera. Let the actual owners, the people who are really using it, report about it themselves. They'll discuss the good with the bad, and from actual experience, too. Interested parties will then make an informed decision one way or the other based on that direct feedback, be it positive or negative.

We cover a broad variety of camcorders here and the market is diverse enough so that there's something for everybody. If you don't like Brand X, then get out of the Brand X forum. The other people that are looking at Brand X are intelligent enough (the ones we get at DV Info Net anyway) that they'll draw their own conclusions about Brand X one way or the other, and they'll do so based on actual owner's feedback and not some non-buyer's rationalizing of specs, numbers, rumors or whatnot.

There, I've said it. Rant off. Continue with the usual.

[Dylan Couper]

<<<-- Originally posted by Tre Stylez : I guess you can't expect to put negative comments in a XL2 forum and not have people bite back :)
-->>>


There is a difference between negative comments that are factual, and negative comments that are pure opinion. Make sure you know which are which before making a choice. The only true opinion that matters is your own, and you can never formulate that properly by listening to other people. Beleive it or not, not everyone on the internet is right.

As Barry says, the only way to decide which camera is for you, is to go down to a camera store, and actually try one. Shoot some test footage then decide. You wouldn't let some guys on the internet decide who you should marry, or where you should buy a house, why let them (us) tell you which camera to buy?

As far as the XL2 not meeting your expectations, I understand. I've been constantly let down by Ferrari for not producing an F360 convertible for under $30,000.

[Aaron Koolen]

Chris, you're right. All the gripes (Mine included) boil down to the fact that, for what I wanted, Canon didn't deliver. Or to be more precise, they did deliver in some aspects but not in others which makes the decision very painful now.

I wanted the Canon body style, that's pretty important to me, but I also wanted good all round lens with manual/servo lens control like the DVX, and a decent iris control, OIS and a nice wide. I expected as standard, Line level in on the XLR, and I was *hoping* for underscan on the EVF and to actually get a good sized LCD. I didn't get any of these.

So there is no "best" or "better" as you say, it's stupid to talk like that.

Aaron

[Tre Stylez]

Barry,

I think it safe to say that the examples i have seen with the dvx100a have had certain tweaks to get the nice vibrant colour i have seen. So yes it is like comparing apples to oranges if we are talking about standard footage but lets say i want the orange(XL2) to look like a apple(DVX) can the XL2 look like the apple is what I’m interested in because it would look damn nice as a apple ;) . Is there anyway you can get the colours to look more vibrant? Especially in 24p mode for people like myself who wish to get the cine type look.

I wish i could go down to my local store to check, however in Australia the DVX-100a is available on "order" and the XL2 is not even out here yet as far as I’m aware. Getting a test model would be very unlikely so i really have to rely on people’s opinions and order from overseas.