XL2 vs DVX 100a

Bill Pryor · August 8th, 2005, 08:00 PM

Both of these cameras are 1/3" chip cameras, so their image is going to be very close. The main advantage the XL2 has is that it uses 16:9 chips, while the DVX100a does it via electronic stretch. So the XL2 will look better when shooting 16:9. However, because it has 16:9 chips, it will crop in from the sides when shooting 4:3, in effect using smaller than 1/3" chips (just as the DSR570 does). So if you're shooting 4:3, the DVX100a would most likely look better in a side by side comparison, while the XL2 would look better in 16:9.

However, I've seen a lot of documentaries both projected theatrically and on TV shot with PD150s in the electronic 16:9 mode, and the DVX100a looks significantly better in its 16:9 mode, according to most people, and especially when shooting progressive. So, I think the differences, while certainly there, are minimal.

My feeling (ignoring the cost) is that if you're shooting most everything 16:9, the XL2 would be the way I would go. But if you're still in a 4:3 world, I would probably go with the DVX100a.

That's just for the image quality. There are lots of other factors in the purchase of a camera. Weight, balance, the viewfinder, the audio, how wide is the lens when zoomed back all the way, or how long it is at the other end if you do wildlife or sports, where the controls are positioned, etc.

Ash Greyson · August 8th, 2005, 08:19 PM

I have both cameras and use them both quite often. The DVX is much easier to use and master, that is why it is the choice of every wannabe Speilberg fanboy. That being said, it is a great camera that grows with your capabilities.

The XL2 is much harder to use but IMHO produces a noticeably more detailed image, especially in 16:9 mode. Also, the 20X lens not only gives you more reach but it allows you to use that to gain a smaller DOF. The XL2 can be set up to emulate the DVX while the reverse is not true... All THAT being said, the XL2 is for an advanced operator, not the beginner.

ash =o)

Robert Luke · August 9th, 2005, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ash Greyson

I have both cameras and use them both quite often. The DVX is much easier to use and master, that is why it is the choice of every wannabe Speilberg fanboy. That being said, it is a great camera that grows with your capabilities.

The XL2 is much harder to use but IMHO produces a noticeably more detailed image, especially in 16:9 mode. Also, the 20X lens not only gives you more reach but it allows you to use that to gain a smaller DOF. The XL2 can be set up to emulate the DVX while the reverse is not true... All THAT being said, the XL2 is for an advanced operator, not the beginner.

ash =o)

ya know i actually thought the XLs were easier to use than the dvx. i think it's just much more established and popular and considerably cheaper. but IMO you get your money's worth. especially since everything's going the way of 16:9/HD.

Josh Mellicker · August 9th, 2005, 02:06 PM

I just got an interesting info from a fellow at DuArt (they do video-to-film transfers among many other things):

"We recently had three seminars at work discussing the CanonXL2 for use in video to film transfers. We screened five minutes of material then had a director and his DP discuss the camera. A representative from Canon then showed off the features of the camera. The XL2 does an exceptional job of going from tape to film. The audience was impressed by the footage we screened. I would use the XL2 any day over the Panasonic VX100 or the Sony HDV Z1."

Just to be clear: This is just the opinion of someone who works at a place who has done a XL2 video-to-film transfer and liked the results. The opinions he expresses are not mine, or DVinfo.net's. As with everything you read on the net, a grain of salt is recommended!

However, since he is a well-known expert at one of the top film houses in the world, I posted his comment here for your perusal.

Ash Greyson · August 9th, 2005, 09:11 PM

IMHO the XL2 is much better for film bump, mainly due to the 16:9 CCDs. DVX stuff can look very good as well but even with an anamorphic adapter, not as good as the XL2. I saw some Z1 footage bumped to film and it looked really good but it was nature stuff. In my experience, the Z1 struggles with fast motion and light changes...

ash =o)

Bill Porter · August 9th, 2005, 09:27 PM

I didn't see the replies to this thread or I'd have replied sooner.

Michael Maier feels that the DVX review I linked was biased. I was not referencing the words in the article. I was referring to the hard data- the screencaps. Or do you think those were doctored up, or perhaps Adam Wilt's were, or both. :roll eyes:

Ash Greyson · August 9th, 2005, 10:24 PM

Those caps are meaningless, I could post some caps that make a 1CCD camera look better than a DVX or XL2. Just look at the very bottom pics, the XL2 footage is overexposed. Also, nobody will argue that the DVX, like the XL1s, has super poppy colors... the downside is that those colors are not broadcast legal and have to be toned down in post, especially the reds.

Like I said, I use both cameras, almost daily, both have their good points and bad points but I am sick of DVX fanboys who have no idea how to use an XL2 comparing the 2 as if it means anything. The DVX is easier to use and easier to get a flattering image out of. Just because someone cant operate an XL2 doesnt mean they should dismiss it.

ash =o)

Bill Porter · August 9th, 2005, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ash Greyson

Just because someone cant operate an XL2 doesnt mean they should dismiss it.

I agree. I also agree with you that both can produce great images; I've seen plenty of good stuff from both.

It's funny, people who own just a DVX tend to love their cameras, whereas people who own just an XL2 tend to have a big chip on their shoulder toward DVX's.

It would be interesting if there were another test wherein the XL2 were set up differently and showed a superior image to the DVX. Had I posted a link to it on a site called XL2user.com, would Mike have posted the exact same rant about how the site was biased? We already know the answer ;-)

Chris Hurd · August 9th, 2005, 10:57 PM

Fellows, I think Greg Boston put it best earlier in this thread when he said this horse has been flogged to death. I sincerely appreciate the feedback that's been given from those who have actually used both -- many thanks. Ultimately it all comes down to the musician, not the guitar, don't you think? Let's put this poor tired puppy to bed.

Ash Greyson · August 10th, 2005, 02:10 AM

I dont think XL2 guys have a chip on their shoulder at all. Read around some more. The DVX has more hardcore fanboys than any camera on the planet. They love their DVX's and slam pretty much anything else. Not really fair to generalize like that but I find it to be true...

Chris, that is what I always say... a camera is an instrument, the operator is a musician. Ultimately the skill and creativity of the operator will shine thru the technology...

ash =o)

Marty Hudzik · August 10th, 2005, 07:54 AM

http://www.iciclestudios.com/images/xl2/switch_back.htm

This is the XL2 and DVX intercut. I shot the XL2 and my buddy shot the DVX stuff and edited it. It is a concept piece where a graphic artist airbrushes a mural, but does it in a theatrical entertaining way set to music.

I have used both and in short, agree 100% with Ash. The XL2 is harder to use/learn but gives great results. If you want that punchy color look of the DVX you may have to tweak in post.

Brandon Tubek · August 10th, 2005, 07:58 AM

I must say as a DVX owner myself, i have found many faults with it when comparing it to the XL2 and PD-170. However i got what i paid for and am happy with the 24p for local commerical spots that i produce, otherwise it looks like a normle everyday 3-CCD chip camera.

Kevin Kocak · August 10th, 2005, 08:57 AM

Ford vs Chevy
Lamborgini vs Ferrari
Mercedes vs BMW
Mac vs PC

The horse is dead as stated numerous times

Greg Boston · August 10th, 2005, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

Fellows, I think Greg Boston put it best earlier in this thread when he said this horse has been flogged to death. I sincerely appreciate the feedback that's been given from those who have actually used both -- many thanks. Ultimately it all comes down to the musician, not the guitar, don't you think?

Really Chris? And all this time I had been blaming my guitar. Darn, now I'll probably have to start taking my guitar to therapy for all the verbal abuse it has sustained over the years. :-)

-gb-

Bill Porter · August 10th, 2005, 12:41 PM

Which part of Chris Hurd's "stop beating a dead horse" did you guys not understand?

August 9th, 2005, 02:06 PM	#19
Josh Mellicker DV Creators Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hollywood Posts: 91	I just got an interesting info from a fellow at DuArt (they do video-to-film transfers among many other things): "We recently had three seminars at work discussing the CanonXL2 for use in video to film transfers. We screened five minutes of material then had a director and his DP discuss the camera. A representative from Canon then showed off the features of the camera. The XL2 does an exceptional job of going from tape to film. The audience was impressed by the footage we screened. I would use the XL2 any day over the Panasonic VX100 or the Sony HDV Z1." Just to be clear: This is just the opinion of someone who works at a place who has done a XL2 video-to-film transfer and liked the results. The opinions he expresses are not mine, or DVinfo.net's. As with everything you read on the net, a grain of salt is recommended! However, since he is a well-known expert at one of the top film houses in the world, I posted his comment here for your perusal. Last edited by Josh Mellicker; August 9th, 2005 at 06:41 PM.

August 9th, 2005, 10:57 PM	#24
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Fellows, I think Greg Boston put it best earlier in this thread when he said this horse has been flogged to death. I sincerely appreciate the feedback that's been given from those who have actually used both -- many thanks. Ultimately it all comes down to the musician, not the guitar, don't you think? Let's put this poor tired puppy to bed. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

August 10th, 2005, 07:58 AM	#27
Brandon Tubek New Boot Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA Posts: 10	I must say as a DVX owner myself, i have found many faults with it when comparing it to the XL2 and PD-170. However i got what i paid for and am happy with the 24p for local commerical spots that i produce, otherwise it looks like a normle everyday 3-CCD chip camera. __________________ Brandon Tubek Vice President of Production www.timberridgeproductions.com

August 8th, 2005, 08:00 PM	#16
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	Both of these cameras are 1/3" chip cameras, so their image is going to be very close. The main advantage the XL2 has is that it uses 16:9 chips, while the DVX100a does it via electronic stretch. So the XL2 will look better when shooting 16:9. However, because it has 16:9 chips, it will crop in from the sides when shooting 4:3, in effect using smaller than 1/3" chips (just as the DSR570 does). So if you're shooting 4:3, the DVX100a would most likely look better in a side by side comparison, while the XL2 would look better in 16:9. However, I've seen a lot of documentaries both projected theatrically and on TV shot with PD150s in the electronic 16:9 mode, and the DVX100a looks significantly better in its 16:9 mode, according to most people, and especially when shooting progressive. So, I think the differences, while certainly there, are minimal. My feeling (ignoring the cost) is that if you're shooting most everything 16:9, the XL2 would be the way I would go. But if you're still in a 4:3 world, I would probably go with the DVX100a. That's just for the image quality. There are lots of other factors in the purchase of a camera. Weight, balance, the viewfinder, the audio, how wide is the lens when zoomed back all the way, or how long it is at the other end if you do wildlife or sports, where the controls are positioned, etc.

August 8th, 2005, 08:19 PM	#17
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	I have both cameras and use them both quite often. The DVX is much easier to use and master, that is why it is the choice of every wannabe Speilberg fanboy. That being said, it is a great camera that grows with your capabilities. The XL2 is much harder to use but IMHO produces a noticeably more detailed image, especially in 16:9 mode. Also, the 20X lens not only gives you more reach but it allows you to use that to gain a smaller DOF. The XL2 can be set up to emulate the DVX while the reverse is not true... All THAT being said, the XL2 is for an advanced operator, not the beginner. ash =o)

August 9th, 2005, 09:11 PM	#20
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	IMHO the XL2 is much better for film bump, mainly due to the 16:9 CCDs. DVX stuff can look very good as well but even with an anamorphic adapter, not as good as the XL2. I saw some Z1 footage bumped to film and it looked really good but it was nature stuff. In my experience, the Z1 struggles with fast motion and light changes... ash =o)

August 9th, 2005, 09:27 PM	#21
Bill Porter Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ventura, California, USA Posts: 751	I didn't see the replies to this thread or I'd have replied sooner. Michael Maier feels that the DVX review I linked was biased. I was not referencing the words in the article. I was referring to the hard data- the screencaps. Or do you think those were doctored up, or perhaps Adam Wilt's were, or both. :roll eyes:

August 9th, 2005, 10:24 PM	#22
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	Those caps are meaningless, I could post some caps that make a 1CCD camera look better than a DVX or XL2. Just look at the very bottom pics, the XL2 footage is overexposed. Also, nobody will argue that the DVX, like the XL1s, has super poppy colors... the downside is that those colors are not broadcast legal and have to be toned down in post, especially the reds. Like I said, I use both cameras, almost daily, both have their good points and bad points but I am sick of DVX fanboys who have no idea how to use an XL2 comparing the 2 as if it means anything. The DVX is easier to use and easier to get a flattering image out of. Just because someone cant operate an XL2 doesnt mean they should dismiss it. ash =o)

August 10th, 2005, 02:10 AM	#25
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	I dont think XL2 guys have a chip on their shoulder at all. Read around some more. The DVX has more hardcore fanboys than any camera on the planet. They love their DVX's and slam pretty much anything else. Not really fair to generalize like that but I find it to be true... Chris, that is what I always say... a camera is an instrument, the operator is a musician. Ultimately the skill and creativity of the operator will shine thru the technology... ash =o)

August 10th, 2005, 07:54 AM	#26
Marty Hudzik Trustee Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 1,771	http://www.iciclestudios.com/images/xl2/switch_back.htm This is the XL2 and DVX intercut. I shot the XL2 and my buddy shot the DVX stuff and edited it. It is a concept piece where a graphic artist airbrushes a mural, but does it in a theatrical entertaining way set to music. I have used both and in short, agree 100% with Ash. The XL2 is harder to use/learn but gives great results. If you want that punchy color look of the DVX you may have to tweak in post.

August 10th, 2005, 08:57 AM	#28
Kevin Kocak Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Tampa, Fl Posts: 149	Ford vs Chevy Lamborgini vs Ferrari Mercedes vs BMW Mac vs PC The horse is dead as stated numerous times

August 10th, 2005, 12:41 PM	#30
Bill Porter Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ventura, California, USA Posts: 751	Which part of Chris Hurd's "stop beating a dead horse" did you guys not understand?