What specific features were not integrated in the XL2 creating disapointment?

[Paul Figgiani]

Everyone,

I have a very functional XL1. However, it is pretty obvious that it is, with all due respect. 'outdated', hence my current interest in what my choices are for upgrading.[I need native 16x9]. As mentioned earlier, I am considering the XL2, DVX100a and so on. I would like to hear, from the working pro's out there, who were eagerly anticipating the XL2, what features were ommitted in your opinion, that were essential to this new camera, that would have made you guy's 'happier', if in fact Canon included them from the get go...

thanks.

-paul.

[Marty Hudzik]

I think we all would agree a larger LCD would have been nice.

However here are a few things that I would like to have seen that would have been actually doable at the same price point.

1)Do away with the iris switch and stick to the wheel. It is awkward and makes the stepping of the iris obvious in many shots.

2)Add a peaking/viewfinder detail enhancement to make focusing easier.

3)Some type of focus or zoom numbering scheme similar to the DVX so we have a numerical reference as to what length we are zoomed or focused.

4)IMHO the ring that flips the neutral density on-1/6-1/32 is too flimsy. MUch too easy to go from off to 1/32 and skip right past 1/6. I actually like the old switch or at least the DVX style.

5)they removed the instantaneous auto focus overide button and replaced it with a different set of buttons that have multi functions. You can still pull this off but I think you now have to push in a "lock" trigger on the button and then slide it. Not near as intuitive as just pressing a button.

6)some type of circuit that adds the black bars to the output of the camera for preview of the 16x9 on 4x3 TV's. The camera already does this for the LCD/VF so the circuit already exists. Maybe they could ahve tapped off of that.


Now....here are the unrealistic ideal fixes

1)Have real manual lens with barrel markings and OIS.

2)Lens needs to be wider more than longer IMHO. I could deal with a 16x telephoto in exchange for a few more mm of wide.

I am sure there are more but can;t think of all of them now.

This is still an awesome camera but as with all great things.....it still has its own quirks.

Thanks,
Marty

[Dylan Couper]

When it first came out, HDV was the big one. After they got over that, the next most common complaints are lack of a flip out LCD panel, and no true manual style focus or zoom.

[Rob Lohman]

<<<-- Originally posted by Paul Figgiani : However, it is pretty obvious that it is, with all due respect. 'outdated'

[I need native 16x9].

I am considering the XL2, DVX100a -->>>

I'm not sure how talking about what others would "like" to have
helps you in your decision. What matters is what you need or
want. I have a few questions / remarks:

1. in my opinion the XL1 (even the old model) is far from outdated. If you mainly do 4:3 work or internet movies etc. it is still a killer camera

2. why do you "need" native 16x9?

3. the DVX100a is NOT native 16x9. So you can drop it from your list if you "need" native 16x9 (as you claim)

[Paul Figgiani]

Why would one spend 5K for a new camera without native 16x9? Doesn't make sense. In may situation, I have a Runco DLP projector and an 82" 16x9 Stewart Filmscreen. When you project a 4x3 image on this screen, it is disappointing that the whole screen is not being utilized. As far as your reference to the XL1, it was outdated when the XLls was released, dont you think? As far as my DVX100 consideration, I am aware that it is not native 16x9, however I have the anamorphic adapter option. This would obviously be an improvement compared to the XL1. As far as why I would be interested in what others 'would like to have', to be honest, i really dont care. I am just trying to open up a discussion to get a feel for what others are thinking. Makes sense, don't you think?

-paul.

[Rob Lohman]

Paul: I was basically trying to understand some points you made
that in my mind conflicted a bit. An anamorphic adapter with the
DVX will clearly make it "true" 16:9 (albeit some possible problems
with the adapter like zooming through it etc.). Thank you for
clarifying your point of view.

I agree that if you are going to spend 5K it should come with
16:9. Whether it is something you "need" is something else.
That question was asked out of interest.

No I don't agree the XL1 was outdated as soon as the XL1S came
onto the market. Nor do I think the XL1S (or the XL1) is outdated
now that the XL2 is here.

It all depends on what you are doing with a camera in my opinion.
If you are going to buy a new camera you may want to consider
the XL2 for example. But then again, if you are doing SD TV work
or web delivery I'd much rather go with the XL1S and safe a ton
of money. The same might be said for the XL1.

Ofcourse starting a discussion on what others like to have is very
relevant. My fear (see below) with this is that it is almost always
coupled to upgrading or what to buy.

My fear is that people will only start to see what others perceive
as issues or problems instead of what you yourself would need or
care about.

It is very important to talk about the camera's and what might be
wrong or missing with them. But too often I think improper (buying)
decisions are being made or too much energy is put into all of this
that might be put better in something like a good story / script.

I'm not trying to offend anyone, just hoping no-one bases their
own conclusions too much on what others thing and therefore
perhaps buy the wrong equipment.

This is just my personal "fear", that's all. Trying to make sure
everybody understands the quality and price of such equipment
they might or might not buy.

Discuss away!

[Paul Figgiani]

Rob,

I didn't mean to come accross that way...sorry about that. I totally understand what you are saying. I have always been the one that friends and family come to and ask 'what should i buy', and it drives me crazy also. Again, I am just trying to broaden the scope of discussion. I am ready to buy a new camera, however it is not a necessity. I think by hearing others complain and at the same time rave, it gives you a fairly good feel as far as what is good, what is bad, and what we might see in the future.

I agree with your assesment in reference to the canons...however 4x3 looks horrible on an 82 inch screen with the lights dimmed. I am trying to build a business, and presentation is important right now.

So, here I stand...listening to what others have to say. I have an XL1, and will continue to use it until i decide what to do,

-paul.

[Dylan Couper]

<<<-- Originally posted by Paul Figgiani : sorry about that. I totally understand what you are saying. I have always been the one that friends and family come to and ask 'what should i buy', and it drives me crazy also. -->>>

Tell them the same thing I tell people. Make a list of your top 3 choices, go to a store, test them out in person, and buy whichever feels best in your hands.

[Dan Barnhill]

Hey Paul,

I see you are in NYC - did you see the post about the demo presentation of the XL2 on 33rd St tonight?

Just a side note on 16x9 that doesn't really address your question directly (sorry for the departure from thread):

One thing to keep in mind choosing between the XL2 and the DVX in respects to 16x9 - with the dvx if you go with the anamorphic adaptor, it appears that the choice of matte boxes are pretty slim and some are quite expensive. In the case of the Chrosziel - the anamorphic adaptor needs to be modified so the box will fit. And then you will need a monitor to correct the image. So when you add in all the extras you need for 16x9 with the DVX - the prices are pretty close (not that you mentioned anything about price). That said - DVX users seem pretty happy with that setup… They do have that wide angle after all.

Of course you have an XL1 – you could keep your lens, buy the body kit and the 3x wide and you’d be all set…

Dan
nyc
(first post to this group - please don't hurt me...)

[Dylan Couper]

Hey Dan
Good first post, welcome to the forum!

[Paul Figgiani]

Dan,

Yes, thank you for the info. I did read about the demo this eve. hear in NYC. With Bush at the UN, traffic will be unbearable. I am not up for the aggravation. Thanks for the heads up. Good point about keping my XL1 lens. That is what I will do if i opt for the XL2. The problem with this is that it deminishes the sale value of the XL1. Not many buyers out there for just an XL1 body I would think. Flipping a switch to change the aspect ratio is a great feature to have built in to the camera[XL2]. The DVX100a involves alot more to shoot 16x9.

As mentioned, I am just starting to get a feel for what my options are. I heard that Panasonic is a least a year away from releasing a DVX revision, possibly native 16x9. As far as the Sony, who knows until it becomes available. I have the funds now and could by the XL2 tomorrow, and the XL1 is selling quite reguarly on ebay for around 2k with the lens. In the past, I've always jumped the gun and dipped in as soon as a new product was released. This time I am trying to be a bit more patient.

-paul.

[Aaron Koolen]

For me one feature that I was bummed out they didn't include was a proper sized flip out LCD. I do seminars and things like that from time to time and with my XM2, it's great having the LCD flip out even though it's a bit small ( 2.5"). With a 2" EVF I think life would be even harder.

No Line level in on the XLR's sort of has be a little put off. Wouldn't stop me purchasing one, but I'm the sort of guy who want's to use the least accessories as possible, and if I had a line level feed, I'd have to plug in a pad to get it into the XL2's XLR's. Annoying.