Music Videos: Canon XM2 or Sony VX2100E? at DVinfo.net

Aram Rian · October 19th, 2006, 11:13 AM

hello, fellow forumers. a newbie here.
here is my dilemma. am in the middle of deciding whether i should go for Canon XM2 or Sony VX2100E. now, i've read all the relevant threads on this message board regarding the pros and cons (which i'm really thankful for), but could you please answer this one short question. which of the two camcorders would be the best for creating cinematic-looking music videos? (or would either of them be fine if i added certain film effects later, during editing the footage?) thanks in advance.

Michael Gilbert · October 21st, 2006, 10:57 PM

i know the 2100 cannot do 24p. It does have progressive scan but its mainly to get high quality stills. The closest ive been able to come to 24 fps is use the digital effect flash and you can get a 24 fps but its not progressive. Also one thing i do not like about the 2100 is the zoom and focus controls. They are connected to servos that operate the motors. Makes it really really hard to do controlled focus pulls in my opinion because there is no set focal distances on the camera.

im not familiar with the other camera so i cannot tell you. I know I own a vx2100 and I do music videos and alot of live music videography. But I do not try to give it the cinematic 24p effect, I have the option to shoot with a dvx100 or xl2s if I really want controlled cinematic looks.

hopefully this helps.

Tom Hardwick · October 22nd, 2006, 12:18 AM

I agree with Michael - the DVX100 (A or B) is probably the best camera to head for if you seriously want to shoot native progressive.

The Canon XM2 (GL2) lowers the resolution and the VX2100 reduces the frame rate to 12,5 fps, so their progressive modes are not what you want at all.

Of the two cameras I'd always pick the Sony. The PD170's success was built on it's astoundingly good capabilities, and of course the VX picks up on that success.

The 1"/3 chips, zoom ring, info-lithiums and faster lens put it ahead of the Canon, but in either case I'd probably recommend you shoot 50i and then muck about in post. That way you can always back-track.

tom.

Aram Rian · October 22nd, 2006, 04:51 AM

thanks for the replies, guys.
i'll look for some information re: the dvx100 on the web...
but in case of vx2100, could i not add the cinematic effect later on the computer? bearing in mind that, apparently, vx2100's picture quality has been highly spoken of - which basically means i'll be able to keep the original quality and resolution of the footage and to add some software film-look effects on top of that. am i right in thinking so?

Tom Hardwick · October 22nd, 2006, 07:38 AM

Yes, you're right in thinking so.

Aram Rian · October 22nd, 2006, 10:33 AM

oh, superb then.
also, i've found info about panasonic dvx100, and it seems quite affordable (in the same price range as vx2100, around $2200 USD). however, has it got a PAL sister model?

Tom Hardwick · October 22nd, 2006, 10:49 AM

PAL model is also the DVX100 (A or B). Not as good in low light as the VX and only has a 10x zoom, but what a lens!

Aram Rian · October 23rd, 2006, 10:21 AM

hmm... i thought dvx100 was supposed to be "perfect" in all aspects - that is, for the purpose mentioned in the original post, as a film-making camcorder for shooting music videos (with its cine-like gamma settings, etc). naturally, my newly posed question would be whether i should go for dvx100 or i could achieve the same or nearly the same results with vx2100.

Tom Hardwick · October 23rd, 2006, 11:35 AM

The VX2100 has no XLR in, a tiny side-screen and no (useful) progressive scan, so in those respects it's 'not as good' as the DVX. But it has more zoom, a faster lens and sees in the dark better - all for a lot less money.

I imagine you will be syncing audio in post and you'll probably want to deinterlace in post as well. If you shoot in the DVX's various cine and 25p modes there are restrictions imposed as well as options exposed; gamma, knee, matrix, coring, chroma, frequency and so on. The camera takes a lot of getting used to, but if your bands are happy for you to be endlessly experimenting then yes, it's the camera to go for because of its huge versatility and adaptability. The VX2100 looks stripped to the bone in comparison. Even the PD170 does.

Both will need a wide-angle converter to get you some wild perspective, and 58 mm versions are a lot cheaper and more plentiful than 72 mm ones. Same goes for anamorphics, because the first port of call of 'ciné-like mode' is the 16:9 aspect ratio.

So. If you want to create cinematic-looking music videos in camera, the DVX it is. If you want a camera that's easier to use right out of the box, the VX2100 wins.

tom.

Aram Rian · October 26th, 2006, 02:39 PM

thanks, Tom.
and what about Canon XL2? i'm cherishing a hope i may be able to afford even that one in the very near future. but i've checked a few websites about it and it looks like it hasn't got a side-screen. is that so? and apart from that, is it any better than DVX100?

p.s. funny, the xm2-vx2100 dilemma have gradually grown into the xl2-dvx100 one :-)

Tom Hardwick · October 27th, 2006, 01:41 AM

What about the XL2? Well, few cameras have raised more love-hate email, and I must admit it's a camera that doesn't appeal to all. Of course its USP is the interchangeable lens, but there again I find this better on the spec sheet than in practice as there's very few extra lenses designed to fit it. If you buy the 3X wide-angle you pay a lot of money, lose the OIS and don't go very wide to boot.

But for me the biggest downer is the lack of a sidescreen. As an events photographer I simply cannot approach strangers and guests and kids with 3kg of brass and glass sticking out of my forehead. The side-screen approach is far more user friendly and less intimidating. But that's just me.

Lots of folk like the look of the Canon footage. It's not as detailed as Sony's but is far more 'film like'. Me? I'd still have the DVX in a shoot out.

tom.

Aram Rian · October 27th, 2006, 11:44 AM

very helpful, thanks, Tom.
is DVX102 BE (http://www.expandore.com/e_shop/Panasonic/DVX_sale.htm) the upgraded version of DVX100 A/B?

Tom Hardwick · October 28th, 2006, 05:36 AM

That could well be Pasasonic's designation for their NTSC product.

Aram Rian · November 3rd, 2006, 02:01 PM

just to bring this thread to its full completion, i wish to say that i've now become a vx2100e user. thanks again for all the expressed opinions and advice. much appreciated!

October 19th, 2006, 11:13 AM	#1
Aram Rian Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Birmingham, UK / Yerevan, Armenia Posts: 93	Music Videos: Canon XM2 or Sony VX2100E? hello, fellow forumers. a newbie here. here is my dilemma. am in the middle of deciding whether i should go for Canon XM2 or Sony VX2100E. now, i've read all the relevant threads on this message board regarding the pros and cons (which i'm really thankful for), but could you please answer this one short question. which of the two camcorders would be the best for creating cinematic-looking music videos? (or would either of them be fine if i added certain film effects later, during editing the footage?) thanks in advance.

November 3rd, 2006, 02:01 PM	#14
Aram Rian Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Birmingham, UK / Yerevan, Armenia Posts: 93	just to bring this thread to its full completion, i wish to say that i've now become a vx2100e user. thanks again for all the expressed opinions and advice. much appreciated! __________________ "I do detest everything which is not perfectly mutual." Lord Byron

October 21st, 2006, 10:57 PM	#2
Michael Gilbert Regular Crew Join Date: May 2006 Location: New Orleans, La Posts: 47	i know the 2100 cannot do 24p. It does have progressive scan but its mainly to get high quality stills. The closest ive been able to come to 24 fps is use the digital effect flash and you can get a 24 fps but its not progressive. Also one thing i do not like about the 2100 is the zoom and focus controls. They are connected to servos that operate the motors. Makes it really really hard to do controlled focus pulls in my opinion because there is no set focal distances on the camera. im not familiar with the other camera so i cannot tell you. I know I own a vx2100 and I do music videos and alot of live music videography. But I do not try to give it the cinematic 24p effect, I have the option to shoot with a dvx100 or xl2s if I really want controlled cinematic looks. hopefully this helps.

October 22nd, 2006, 12:18 AM	#3
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	I agree with Michael - the DVX100 (A or B) is probably the best camera to head for if you seriously want to shoot native progressive. The Canon XM2 (GL2) lowers the resolution and the VX2100 reduces the frame rate to 12,5 fps, so their progressive modes are not what you want at all. Of the two cameras I'd always pick the Sony. The PD170's success was built on it's astoundingly good capabilities, and of course the VX picks up on that success. The 1"/3 chips, zoom ring, info-lithiums and faster lens put it ahead of the Canon, but in either case I'd probably recommend you shoot 50i and then muck about in post. That way you can always back-track. tom.

October 22nd, 2006, 04:51 AM	#4
Aram Rian Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Birmingham, UK / Yerevan, Armenia Posts: 93	thanks for the replies, guys. i'll look for some information re: the dvx100 on the web... but in case of vx2100, could i not add the cinematic effect later on the computer? bearing in mind that, apparently, vx2100's picture quality has been highly spoken of - which basically means i'll be able to keep the original quality and resolution of the footage and to add some software film-look effects on top of that. am i right in thinking so?

October 22nd, 2006, 07:38 AM	#5
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Yes, you're right in thinking so.

October 22nd, 2006, 10:33 AM	#6
Aram Rian Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Birmingham, UK / Yerevan, Armenia Posts: 93	oh, superb then. also, i've found info about panasonic dvx100, and it seems quite affordable (in the same price range as vx2100, around $2200 USD). however, has it got a PAL sister model?

October 22nd, 2006, 10:49 AM	#7
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	PAL model is also the DVX100 (A or B). Not as good in low light as the VX and only has a 10x zoom, but what a lens!

October 23rd, 2006, 10:21 AM	#8
Aram Rian Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Birmingham, UK / Yerevan, Armenia Posts: 93	hmm... i thought dvx100 was supposed to be "perfect" in all aspects - that is, for the purpose mentioned in the original post, as a film-making camcorder for shooting music videos (with its cine-like gamma settings, etc). naturally, my newly posed question would be whether i should go for dvx100 or i could achieve the same or nearly the same results with vx2100.

October 23rd, 2006, 11:35 AM	#9
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	The VX2100 has no XLR in, a tiny side-screen and no (useful) progressive scan, so in those respects it's 'not as good' as the DVX. But it has more zoom, a faster lens and sees in the dark better - all for a lot less money. I imagine you will be syncing audio in post and you'll probably want to deinterlace in post as well. If you shoot in the DVX's various cine and 25p modes there are restrictions imposed as well as options exposed; gamma, knee, matrix, coring, chroma, frequency and so on. The camera takes a lot of getting used to, but if your bands are happy for you to be endlessly experimenting then yes, it's the camera to go for because of its huge versatility and adaptability. The VX2100 looks stripped to the bone in comparison. Even the PD170 does. Both will need a wide-angle converter to get you some wild perspective, and 58 mm versions are a lot cheaper and more plentiful than 72 mm ones. Same goes for anamorphics, because the first port of call of 'ciné-like mode' is the 16:9 aspect ratio. So. If you want to create cinematic-looking music videos in camera, the DVX it is. If you want a camera that's easier to use right out of the box, the VX2100 wins. tom.

October 26th, 2006, 02:39 PM	#10
Aram Rian Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Birmingham, UK / Yerevan, Armenia Posts: 93	thanks, Tom. and what about Canon XL2? i'm cherishing a hope i may be able to afford even that one in the very near future. but i've checked a few websites about it and it looks like it hasn't got a side-screen. is that so? and apart from that, is it any better than DVX100? p.s. funny, the xm2-vx2100 dilemma have gradually grown into the xl2-dvx100 one :-)

October 27th, 2006, 01:41 AM	#11
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	What about the XL2? Well, few cameras have raised more love-hate email, and I must admit it's a camera that doesn't appeal to all. Of course its USP is the interchangeable lens, but there again I find this better on the spec sheet than in practice as there's very few extra lenses designed to fit it. If you buy the 3X wide-angle you pay a lot of money, lose the OIS and don't go very wide to boot. But for me the biggest downer is the lack of a sidescreen. As an events photographer I simply cannot approach strangers and guests and kids with 3kg of brass and glass sticking out of my forehead. The side-screen approach is far more user friendly and less intimidating. But that's just me. Lots of folk like the look of the Canon footage. It's not as detailed as Sony's but is far more 'film like'. Me? I'd still have the DVX in a shoot out. tom.

October 27th, 2006, 11:44 AM	#12
Aram Rian Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Birmingham, UK / Yerevan, Armenia Posts: 93	very helpful, thanks, Tom. is DVX102 BE (http://www.expandore.com/e_shop/Panasonic/DVX_sale.htm) the upgraded version of DVX100 A/B?

October 28th, 2006, 05:36 AM	#13
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	That could well be Pasasonic's designation for their NTSC product.