DVX-100B or XL2... What do you think?

[Sindri Svan]

Wow, you guys have been amazing! There are few thinks I'd like to be clear on the Canon vs. DVX-100b issue. And keep in mind that money is an issue so we'll most likely ending up just buying one of these cameras and a tripod...

Comparison:
DVX-100B has more extreme internal settings then the XL2. Isn't that something that can be changed in post-production when using the XL2?
XL2 provides sharper images and higher resolution then the DVX-100B.
XL2 shoots real letterbox while the DVX-100B doesn't. It really isn't that hard to crop out the black spaces tough...
XL2 looks friggin' awesome ;)
DVX-100B has an LCD viewfinder, which is good for us since we are starting from scratch.
DVX-100B is cheaper then XL2
The Canon XL2 is capable of using Canon EF lenses, such as Canon EF 16-35mm L-series lenses? While the DVX-100B can not use other lenses without the M2 adapter. As of such the DVX-100B has a very deep DOF, right?

BTW, for post-production I intend to use Final Cut. (yes I'm a Mac User ;) )

Thank you guys so much!
Sindri Svan

[Ash Greyson]

Comparison:
"DVX-100B has more extreme internal settings then the XL2. Isn't that
something that can be changed in post-production when using the XL2?"

The XL2 actually has MORE control, the results are not as wide though, the camera will cheat for chroma resolution and broadcast legality. Easy fix in post where the only thing you cannot gain back, is lost resolution.


"XL2 provides sharper images and higher resolution then the DVX-100B."

XL2 is sharper in all modes but only more resolution in 16X9 mode


"XL2 shoots real letterbox while the DVX-100B doesn't. It really isn't that hard to crop out the black spaces tough..."

XL2 shoots true anamorphic 16:9, when you crop on the DVX you LOSE 1/3rd of the resolution.


"XL2 looks friggin' awesome ;)"
Can be argued and a non-issue for me.


"DVX-100B has an LCD viewfinder, which is good for us since we are starting from scratch."

You can get a monitor pretty cheap if you need one and you will need one for many shots no matter what camera you have...


"DVX-100B is cheaper then XL2"

Correct, especially when you consider adding lenses, etc. XL2 also requires better tripods, stabilizers, jibs, etc.


"The Canon XL2 is capable of using Canon EF lenses, such as Canon EF 16-35mm L-series lenses? While the DVX-100B can not use other lenses without the M2 adapter. As of such the DVX-100B has a very deep DOF, right?"

The Canon has five XL lenses, the 20X OIS, the 16X OIS, the 16X manual, the 14X manual and the 3X wide. You would never need more than 3 of those. I use the 20X OIS, the 16X manual and the 3X wide. Expect to pay $750 each for a good clean used version of either. In order to attach EF lenses, you need the XL EF Adapter, it works great but causes a magnification factor that makes it tough to use for anything but nature and sports. The XL2 with the longer lenses can achieve a much shallower DOF without an adapter. EITHER camera will take a mini35 adapter but when you get into that world, to get the best image you are talking about enough money to move to a 2/3" CCD camera or HD camera... IMHO mini35 rarely makes sense and makes NO sense in the 1/3" CCD SD world.




ash =o)

[Jon Fairhurst]

Another consideration is the battery.

At NAB I asked about batteries for the XL-2, and the Anton Bauer rep showed me some $600 batteries and a $1200 charger. I then told him that we might also consider moving straight to HD, and that the HVX200 might be the ticket.

Instead of the price going up, it went down. He walked me over to the Elipz display. $300 for battery and charger. Five hour life. I think it's 8 or 10 hours on the DVX.

I'm sure that there are cheaper batteries for the XL-2 than that, but not from Anton Bauer. It's no deal breaker, but another thing to consider.

BTW, Ash, I think people were recommending the M2 adapter, rather than the mini35. The M2 with rails is somewhere around $1,500. The mini35 is significantly more...

Clearly (pun intended), the main advantage of the Canon is the extra resolution. And, yes, it looks cool. :)

[Bob Zimmerman]

How long do you think Canon and Panasonic will be making either one of these cameras? When will they cut off production of SD and only make HD/HDV? Plus I've seen post on the new AHD that some say will replace HDV.

[Andrew Khalil]

I don't think batteries are really an issue - both cost about the same whether you're buying oem batteries or batteries from Canon/Panasonic. You don't need to get Anton Bauer batteries etc if you don't have a need for them - I can shoot a 3 hour stage production without worry using 2 of the standard XL2 batteries and still have some left over for behind the scenes shots and stuff like that.
I think both cameras will be around for a while longer - not everyone needs HD now and currently, none of the HD cameras available meet the needs of anyone who is using an XL2. The XL-H1 is close, but imo, at 3x the price it's beyond what most people in the market for an XL2 would pay (including myself which is why I love my XL2 so much:))

[Greg Boston]

Originally Posted by Bob Zimmerman

How long do you think Canon and Panasonic will be making either one of these cameras? When will they cut off production of SD and only make HD/HDV? Plus I've seen post on the new AHD that some say will replace HDV.

Canon's XLH1 uses the same style battery as its predecessors and in fact has a newer, longer lasting battery that comes with it. You can just as easily buy the new battery and use it on the XL1/XL1s/XL2, GL1/GL2.

That is one of the things Canon has done right for its customers. The battery that came with your XL1 could be used on your XLH1 if need be.

-gb-

[Jon Fairhurst]

Thanks for clearing that up, Andrew and Greg. I got one data point from Anton Bauer, and the difference in support for the products looks like it just comes down to limitations in AB's product line.

The AB rep mentioned that the Elipse would fit the handheld tripod mount, but not the frame mount of the over-the-shoulder cameras. A simple pair of adapters (one mechanical, one electrical) would do the trick.

In any case, battery life, charge times and backup batteries are part of the equation when buying a new camera. Make sure to plan a solution that matches goals and budget.

[Zack Birlew]

Actually, Panasonic just announced a new bundle for the DVX. It now includes Magic Bullet Editors, a slightly reduced rebate, and Red Giant's InstantHD software.

In my opinion, you can't go wrong with either. The XL2's only true advantage is the native 16:9. The interchangeable lense option isn't very useful unless you'd rather have the manual lense instead of the stock 20x. The rest can be emulated on either camera.

If I were in your situation and HD just wasn't an option, I'd go with the DVX100B because it's just easier to use right out of the box and the squeeze 16:9 results are pretty decent. Plus the bundle is just that much better now with InstantHD added in =).

Ideally I would think you'd put the extra money into a plain $6,000 or less HVX deal and shoot in standard definiton on MiniDV. That way, you get the option for HD, LCD viewfinder, and native 16:9 all in the same DVX-ish package. Plus it isn't HDV of course.

[Eric Brown]

I own both camera's as well. They are so darn close on some levels and not so close on others, ultimately they kind of balance out and it's really about what your needs are going to be.
Personally, I like my XL2 better, I always have. I even like it better than the DVX100B I bought a few weeks ago (replacing the "A" model I had).
That's not to say it's a better camera, I just like the crazy reach of the 20x lens, the true 16:9 CCD's, and the higher rez picture (in 16:9) it provides.
The DVX has that little special "something" in it's 24p mode (some call it the "Mojo") that makes its progressive images look very nice. (yes, the XL2 has nice 24p as well...)
Botom line: you will not regret buying either.

[Aaron Koolen]

Slightly OT, but when I see it posted, I need to correct.

The longer lens DOES NOT give you shallower DoF. It gives you a PERCEIVED shallower DoF. It compresses the space more, so the out of focus background becomes closer, your actual area of "acceptable" focus is the same.

The biggest thing that I noticed when Xl2 footage was posted when the cam came out, is that it seems VERY clean in low light.

One disadvantage is that if you use it for 4:3 shooting, it's closer to a 1/4" chip size camera - and DoF etc will be affected by that.

[Sindri Svan]

Thank you guys for all these quick responses! :D
I suppose we'll invest in the DVX-100B, Now we just need to find a retailer in the UK :P One question though, I have a Manfrotto tripod I use with my 20D, could I use that with the DVX or should I get a bigger tripod for it?

[Ash Greyson]

Originally Posted by Aaron Koolen

Slightly OT, but when I see it posted, I need to correct.

The longer lens DOES NOT give you shallower DoF. It gives you a PERCEIVED shallower DoF. It compresses the space more, so the out of focus background becomes closer, your actual area of "acceptable" focus is the same.

The biggest thing that I noticed when Xl2 footage was posted when the cam came out, is that it seems VERY clean in low light.

One disadvantage is that if you use it for 4:3 shooting, it's closer to a 1/4" chip size camera - and DoF etc will be affected by that.

LOL... somebody always has to go there... bottom line, percieved, technical, whatever... because of the longer lens you can get the look of a more shallow DOF. Semantics.... And in 4:3 mode at equal lengths, the DVX and XL2 have an almost indentical DOF...



ash =o)

[Josh Bass]

I'm confused. . .what's wrong wit 4:3 mode?

I played with it when I rented the cam. Looked fine to me.

[Ash Greyson]

4:3 crops the 16:9 image, just like with all the bigger chip camera. The net effect is that a small portion of the chip is being used which in theory means a larger DOF... in practice it makes no real difference though...


ash =o)

[Josh Bass]

So where it counts then, no loss of resolution, still looks great, etc.?