Thinking about buying... at DVinfo.net

Johan Manders · February 13th, 2005, 04:36 AM

I'm really thinking about buying the XL2, but not sure yet.
The Z1 looks like a great camera too, but will I use the 'good' features of it? I think not.
From what read about the two camera's is that the only advantage of the Z1 is HDV and the nice TFT on top.
Looks like the audio/lenses/16:9 SD of the XL2 is better.
I think I will be using the xlr for external mics.

I wont be able to use the 24p option, cause I have to buy the Pal version.

I want to use the camera for wildlife/music video/'film'.
I don't own a plasma screen for HDV.

I know it's hard to give advice, but maybe something you say will push me into the right direction.

Thanks!

Mathieu Ghekiere · February 13th, 2005, 07:28 AM

My opinion is you should go with the XL2.
1. you already state you think it's better, so you obviously like the cam.
2. For wildlife: the XL2 has a 20x zoom! and you could put EF lenses on it, with an adapter.
3. For films: the 25p option from the XL2 might (might!) be a little bit smoother. I haven't worked with one of the cams, but from what I hear, the 25p options from the Z1 is good, but not al that great. (They do say it's better dan the C24 option)

And why pay for HDV if you won't need it offcourse?

Pete Bauer · February 13th, 2005, 09:46 AM

Hi Johan,

It is a tough decision. Here is a link to one of several threads here in which others have struggled with the same question:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...5&pagenumber=1

If you don't mind interlaced, but want the highest resolution for longterm archiving, I get the impression from those who have used the Z1 that it is the winner at present. On the other hand, if your wildlife work requires a really long reach, the interchangeable lens architecture of the XL2 (especially with EF lenses rather than XL lenses!) will allow you to get the shot when the Z1 couldn't have reached out far enough. The XL2 is going to give you about the best standard definition picture that miniDV can give, and in my opinion, progressive-scan clips up-rez quite nicely to 720p; they're a little softer than what I see on Disovery HD Theater channel, for sure, but still look quite nice on-screen. I think they'd still be useable in the future when everything will be displayed in some form of HiDef.

This is speculation mixed with personal opinion:
One other aspect of this is that now and then I've read hints that some of the manufactureres may put out their own version of HDV...presumably with a higher data rate, 24p included in the spec (although you won't need to worry about 24p), or both. I was eager for HDV myself and basically got my XL2 out of impatience...but now I'm happy to have such a great progressive scan, widescreen, "pro-feel" camera while I sit on the HD sidelines to see if HDV really takes off, or if the current version turns out to be the "Digital8" of HiDef. I'm still impatient, but with a camera in-hand that I am satisfied will up-rez acceptably, I can bear to wait a little while longer!

Everyone's priorities and needs are different, but I hope this helps at least a little.

Johan Manders · February 13th, 2005, 09:58 AM

Thanks Both.

Mathieu:
I think I will buy th EF Adapter if I'm going for the canon.
I allready have a sigma 70-300 lens for my digital rebel, wich I can use with the XL2 (will give me about 2000mm, great for wildlife! :D ).

Pete:
I'm not really sure what to use 25p or 50i.
I think 25p is better....dunno why, but somtimes when I see a frame capture from 50i/60i you can see those little 'stripes' I dont like.
The EF lens options....great!
HDV....wont be using in a wile I think.

Pete Bauer · February 13th, 2005, 10:04 AM

Yeah, I just personally don't like dealing with interlaced footage, so I almost always shoot progessive -- and for most purposes I prefer the more "film look." But if you're shooting for television, then interlace "combing" won't be an issue (even if it shows on your computer monitor, which is progressive scan), and then it is just a matter of "the look" you want to achieve.

Johan Manders · March 2nd, 2005, 08:30 AM

Just wanted to say I just bought the hdr-z1e.
Somehow te saleman just pushed me over the line.
Thanks for the replies!

Ed Bicker · March 2nd, 2005, 10:53 AM

This question is for Pete...When you say that you do not like dealing with Interlaced, what exactly do you mean. I am really trying to get an understanding of what progressive is as opposed to Interlaced... I shoot with 24p and it looks "low res" on the view finder. When I shoot in 60i, it looks more High res or clearer on the view finder. What does progreesive give me that interlaced does not?

Also, he should have purchased the XL2. Who makes this zl1 he talks about?

Pete Bauer · March 2nd, 2005, 07:32 PM

Hi Ed,

The only significant difference between progressive and interlaced is timing. In 60i (50i for PAL), the two fields that comprise a frame are actually recorded at 1/60th (or 1/50th) of a second intervals. Assuming that there is motion going on in the field of view, they are not snapshots of the same exact view, but rather "half pictures" taken 1/60th of a second apart. With progressive video, the two fields are recorded off the CCD block at the same instant. One field is the upper field, the other becomes the lower field. So the signal recorded on tape is still actually a 60i signal, but the two fields of each frame are two parts of the same image and can be reconstructed from tape within the NLE as a single 30p frame.

Although the viewer software is getting better all the time, interlaced video doesn't look as good on a computer monitor, which is a progressive scan device because most software/hardware combinations end up displaying the video as progressive even if it isn't...so you get a bad case of the "jaggies" from interlaced video wherever motion occurs onscreen. So, aside from just preferring the look of progressive scan (24p or 30p) for most purposes, I like to use progressive. If I was shooting fast-moving sports that I'd be showing on a TV or for a slow motion shot, I'd still shoot interlaced despite my generic preference for progressive.

I can't explain the higher rez look in the viewfinder; no reason that I can think of why that should happen.

The Z1 is a new Sony Camera that gets discussed a LOT in the HDV Acquisition Equipment message board here on DVinfo.

Johan, although I haven't gotten to see one of those hot new cameras yet, I have no doubt you'll be very happy with it. Congratulations on your new "baby!"

Johan Manders · March 3rd, 2005, 03:29 AM

Thanks Pete!
It was a hard decision.
I really wanted the 24P option of the xl2 but the euro version doesn't have that, only 25p.
As far as I know in dv mode the z1 should be able to do 576/50p.
Maybe this will deliver descent progressive images.

Andy Davies · March 4th, 2005, 04:34 PM

Won't the relatively short focal length of the Z1's lens be a problem for wildlife filming? I think its about the equivalent of 320mm lens on a 35mm still camera.

February 13th, 2005, 04:36 AM	#1
Johan Manders Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 50	Thinking about buying... I'm really thinking about buying the XL2, but not sure yet. The Z1 looks like a great camera too, but will I use the 'good' features of it? I think not. From what read about the two camera's is that the only advantage of the Z1 is HDV and the nice TFT on top. Looks like the audio/lenses/16:9 SD of the XL2 is better. I think I will be using the xlr for external mics. I wont be able to use the 24p option, cause I have to buy the Pal version. I want to use the camera for wildlife/music video/'film'. I don't own a plasma screen for HDV. I know it's hard to give advice, but maybe something you say will push me into the right direction. Thanks!

February 13th, 2005, 09:46 AM	#3
Pete Bauer Wrangler Join Date: May 2003 Location: Eagle River, AK Posts: 4,100	Hi Johan, It is a tough decision. Here is a link to one of several threads here in which others have struggled with the same question: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...5&pagenumber=1 If you don't mind interlaced, but want the highest resolution for longterm archiving, I get the impression from those who have used the Z1 that it is the winner at present. On the other hand, if your wildlife work requires a really long reach, the interchangeable lens architecture of the XL2 (especially with EF lenses rather than XL lenses!) will allow you to get the shot when the Z1 couldn't have reached out far enough. The XL2 is going to give you about the best standard definition picture that miniDV can give, and in my opinion, progressive-scan clips up-rez quite nicely to 720p; they're a little softer than what I see on Disovery HD Theater channel, for sure, but still look quite nice on-screen. I think they'd still be useable in the future when everything will be displayed in some form of HiDef. This is speculation mixed with personal opinion: One other aspect of this is that now and then I've read hints that some of the manufactureres may put out their own version of HDV...presumably with a higher data rate, 24p included in the spec (although you won't need to worry about 24p), or both. I was eager for HDV myself and basically got my XL2 out of impatience...but now I'm happy to have such a great progressive scan, widescreen, "pro-feel" camera while I sit on the HD sidelines to see if HDV really takes off, or if the current version turns out to be the "Digital8" of HiDef. I'm still impatient, but with a camera in-hand that I am satisfied will up-rez acceptably, I can bear to wait a little while longer! Everyone's priorities and needs are different, but I hope this helps at least a little. __________________ Pete Bauer The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. Albert Einstein Trying to solve a DV mystery? You may find the answer behind the SEARCH function ... or be able to join a discussion already in progress!

February 13th, 2005, 10:04 AM	#5
Pete Bauer Wrangler Join Date: May 2003 Location: Eagle River, AK Posts: 4,100	Yeah, I just personally don't like dealing with interlaced footage, so I almost always shoot progessive -- and for most purposes I prefer the more "film look." But if you're shooting for television, then interlace "combing" won't be an issue (even if it shows on your computer monitor, which is progressive scan), and then it is just a matter of "the look" you want to achieve. __________________ Pete Bauer The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. Albert Einstein Trying to solve a DV mystery? You may find the answer behind the SEARCH function ... or be able to join a discussion already in progress!

March 2nd, 2005, 07:32 PM	#8
Pete Bauer Wrangler Join Date: May 2003 Location: Eagle River, AK Posts: 4,100	Hi Ed, The only significant difference between progressive and interlaced is timing. In 60i (50i for PAL), the two fields that comprise a frame are actually recorded at 1/60th (or 1/50th) of a second intervals. Assuming that there is motion going on in the field of view, they are not snapshots of the same exact view, but rather "half pictures" taken 1/60th of a second apart. With progressive video, the two fields are recorded off the CCD block at the same instant. One field is the upper field, the other becomes the lower field. So the signal recorded on tape is still actually a 60i signal, but the two fields of each frame are two parts of the same image and can be reconstructed from tape within the NLE as a single 30p frame. Although the viewer software is getting better all the time, interlaced video doesn't look as good on a computer monitor, which is a progressive scan device because most software/hardware combinations end up displaying the video as progressive even if it isn't...so you get a bad case of the "jaggies" from interlaced video wherever motion occurs onscreen. So, aside from just preferring the look of progressive scan (24p or 30p) for most purposes, I like to use progressive. If I was shooting fast-moving sports that I'd be showing on a TV or for a slow motion shot, I'd still shoot interlaced despite my generic preference for progressive. I can't explain the higher rez look in the viewfinder; no reason that I can think of why that should happen. The Z1 is a new Sony Camera that gets discussed a LOT in the HDV Acquisition Equipment message board here on DVinfo. Johan, although I haven't gotten to see one of those hot new cameras yet, I have no doubt you'll be very happy with it. Congratulations on your new "baby!" __________________ Pete Bauer The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. Albert Einstein Trying to solve a DV mystery? You may find the answer behind the SEARCH function ... or be able to join a discussion already in progress!

February 13th, 2005, 07:28 AM	#2
Mathieu Ghekiere Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,195	My opinion is you should go with the XL2. 1. you already state you think it's better, so you obviously like the cam. 2. For wildlife: the XL2 has a 20x zoom! and you could put EF lenses on it, with an adapter. 3. For films: the 25p option from the XL2 might (might!) be a little bit smoother. I haven't worked with one of the cams, but from what I hear, the 25p options from the Z1 is good, but not al that great. (They do say it's better dan the C24 option) And why pay for HDV if you won't need it offcourse?

February 13th, 2005, 09:58 AM	#4
Johan Manders Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 50	Thanks Both. Mathieu: I think I will buy th EF Adapter if I'm going for the canon. I allready have a sigma 70-300 lens for my digital rebel, wich I can use with the XL2 (will give me about 2000mm, great for wildlife! :D ). Pete: I'm not really sure what to use 25p or 50i. I think 25p is better....dunno why, but somtimes when I see a frame capture from 50i/60i you can see those little 'stripes' I dont like. The EF lens options....great! HDV....wont be using in a wile I think.

March 2nd, 2005, 08:30 AM	#6
Johan Manders Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 50	Just wanted to say I just bought the hdr-z1e. Somehow te saleman just pushed me over the line. Thanks for the replies!

March 2nd, 2005, 10:53 AM	#7
Ed Bicker Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Oakdale, Pa Posts: 51	This question is for Pete...When you say that you do not like dealing with Interlaced, what exactly do you mean. I am really trying to get an understanding of what progressive is as opposed to Interlaced... I shoot with 24p and it looks "low res" on the view finder. When I shoot in 60i, it looks more High res or clearer on the view finder. What does progreesive give me that interlaced does not? Also, he should have purchased the XL2. Who makes this zl1 he talks about?

March 3rd, 2005, 03:29 AM	#9
Johan Manders Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 50	Thanks Pete! It was a hard decision. I really wanted the 24P option of the xl2 but the euro version doesn't have that, only 25p. As far as I know in dv mode the z1 should be able to do 576/50p. Maybe this will deliver descent progressive images.

March 4th, 2005, 04:34 PM	#10
Andy Davies New Boot Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Wales Posts: 9	Won't the relatively short focal length of the Z1's lens be a problem for wildlife filming? I think its about the equivalent of 320mm lens on a 35mm still camera.