Xl2 Or Dvx100a at DVinfo.net

Mike Krum · November 25th, 2004, 09:58 AM

I don't know witch one to get. HELP ME!!!

Robin Davies-Rollinson · November 25th, 2004, 05:23 PM

Forget either of them - the Sony HDR-FX1 is blowing them all away.
If you can afford the XL2, then you should wait for the Pro version (HVR-Z1 ) next year.
This camera is seriously giving SD cameras - even the DSR570 - a run for their money.
It's even knocking on Digibetas' doors.

Robin

Aaron Shaw · November 25th, 2004, 06:31 PM

screw HDV - go for a homemade uncompressed HD camera :D

Keith Loh · November 25th, 2004, 06:51 PM

Screw digital. Go film.

Ricky Irwin · November 25th, 2004, 08:12 PM

"Forget either of them - the Sony HDR-FX1 is blowing them all away.
If you can afford the XL2, then you should wait for the Pro version (HVR-Z1 ) next year.
This camera is seriously giving SD cameras - even the DSR570 - a run for their money.
It's even knocking on Digibetas' doors."

The FX1 is far from blowing either of them away, and even the Z1 is not enough to forget about SD and the XL2 and DVX. It just appeals to a different audience. For those indie filmmakers who make shorts and even documentaries, the DVX and XL2 are appealing because of their 24p and progressive scan. The FX1 is more for sports shooters, because of the high res and zoom.

As for the question, it depends on what kind of budget you have and what is important to you. If you like the XL2's design, value true 16x9, and will spend the extra $1000, than the XL2 is for you. If you like the DVX's mobile size, incredible filmic quality, and the low $3300 price, then the DVX is for you.

Aaron Shaw · November 25th, 2004, 09:45 PM

Couldn't agree more Ricky.

Quote:

Screw digital. Go film.

:D You make a very good point! I wish I had the money to do so!

Honestly though, about the FX1...

I would NEVER go back to interlaced footage - ever. Not even for HDV (which honestly isn't that great...). There is much more to quality than resolution. While the FX1 has more resolution than either the DVX or XL2 both the standard def cameras produce superior pictures IMO. Of course, this is entirely subjective.

Peter Jefferson · November 26th, 2004, 05:09 AM

"Forget either of them - the Sony HDR-FX1 is blowing them all away."

err... i dont think so tim...

there are alot of issues with HDV right now.. and more importantly there is no actual delivery option. Put it this way, you may shoot an event in HD, do a nice edit and output a HD MPG2.. or even a WMV9 file.. but how many people do you know that have a HD capable mpg2 player... or even a WMV9 playback device?? Bravo are bringing out their Dddd3 unit which will offer WMV9 playback in 5.1, so that will be a delivery option there, but then again, ur clients will have to fork out more moola for it.

dont get me wrong, HDV seems to be the new upcoming format for the next decade or so, however there are still many niggling issues. one of the main ones being encoder freeze, or static. As far as im concerned, this is not good enough. when i shoot, i expect to shoot at full frame rate with no lockups or any glitches. If im in the middle of shooting a scene or stunt which was very expensive to set up, i expect my cameras to perform without question and with no lockups. I cant afford to risk shooting on a format which may freeze up during the shot. Id rather film it SD then upsample in post.

Scott Ellifritt · November 26th, 2004, 03:36 PM

Until the Sony introduces 24p into the FX1, I wouldn't bother. I've seen comparisons between it and the 100/100A and the Panny comes out far ahead in terms of film look. The FX1 image is sharper than standard 60i and thus doesn't give a film look. Hey Sony...24P?

Robin Davies-Rollinson · November 26th, 2004, 05:39 PM

<<<--
The FX1 is more for sports shooters, because of the high res and zoom. -->>>

I'd say that the FX1 - or at least, the pro model when it comes out - is more for broadcasters. Here in the UK, 16:9 is the norm for picture acquisition. Any camera that will give good resolution in that format is going to be the flavour of the month.
I'd use it for transmission and I know that the BBC is taking the model very seriously indeed. Even by shooting in HDV and downconverting to DV gives remarkable results.
Don't forget that whether one camera is more "filmic" than another doesn't cut any ice with many of us. We don't expect to be blowing up a programme to film.
Just give us good sharp, highly-detailed images - if we need to play around later in Post, then so be it ;-)

Robin

Grinner Hester · November 26th, 2004, 06:46 PM

I love the XL2 for one main reason...
it keeps lowering the price of the DVX100.
2 grand versus 5 grand is no decision for me.
I don't need channels 3n 4 of audio in the field, don't need interchangable lenses and have other things I can spend the 3 grand I'd save by going with the DVX on.

Scott Ellifritt · November 27th, 2004, 12:09 AM

If I were in broadcasting, ie news, sports etc. I would stay with 60i until HDV was more the norm here in the US. Some folks insist, but to me, what's the point if you have to down rez to DV just to be broadcast??

Hayden Rivers · November 27th, 2004, 02:41 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Grinner Hester :
2 grand versus 5 grand is no decision for me.... [I] have other things I can spend the 3 grand I'd save by going with the DVX on. -->>>

Where can you get a DVX for $2000? Maybe you mean the DVX100, but the lowest I've found the DVX100a for sale used was $2650.

Scott Ellifritt · November 27th, 2004, 05:15 AM

DVX100A used, "Buyer Beware" (as in any other used item) DVX100A new $3400 and up plus make sure it comes with a USA Panasonic warranty.

Robin Davies-Rollinson · November 27th, 2004, 05:40 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Scott Ellifritt : what's the point if you have to down rez to DV just to be broadcast?? -->>>

Scott,
Tests indicate that even down -rezzing will give better pictures than shooting DV straight...

Robin

Aaron Shaw · November 27th, 2004, 09:29 AM

Better in which way though?

Certainly not compression....

Sharper due to the downres, yes but that hardly makes up for the other elements that go into creating a quality image.

November 25th, 2004, 09:58 AM	#1
Mike Krum account suspended -- contact admin. Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: USA Posts: 17	Xl2 Or Dvx100a I don't know witch one to get. HELP ME!!!

November 25th, 2004, 06:51 PM	#4
Keith Loh Air China Pilot Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Posts: 2,389	Screw digital. Go film. __________________ -- Visit http://www.KeithLoh.com \| stuff about living in Vancouver \| My Flickr photo gallery

November 25th, 2004, 05:23 PM	#2
Robin Davies-Rollinson Trustee Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Gwaelod-y-garth, Cardiff, CYMRU/WALES Posts: 1,215	Forget either of them - the Sony HDR-FX1 is blowing them all away. If you can afford the XL2, then you should wait for the Pro version (HVR-Z1 ) next year. This camera is seriously giving SD cameras - even the DSR570 - a run for their money. It's even knocking on Digibetas' doors. Robin

November 25th, 2004, 06:31 PM	#3
Aaron Shaw Major Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 587	screw HDV - go for a homemade uncompressed HD camera :D

November 25th, 2004, 08:12 PM	#5
Ricky Irwin Tourist Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 4	"Forget either of them - the Sony HDR-FX1 is blowing them all away. If you can afford the XL2, then you should wait for the Pro version (HVR-Z1 ) next year. This camera is seriously giving SD cameras - even the DSR570 - a run for their money. It's even knocking on Digibetas' doors." The FX1 is far from blowing either of them away, and even the Z1 is not enough to forget about SD and the XL2 and DVX. It just appeals to a different audience. For those indie filmmakers who make shorts and even documentaries, the DVX and XL2 are appealing because of their 24p and progressive scan. The FX1 is more for sports shooters, because of the high res and zoom. As for the question, it depends on what kind of budget you have and what is important to you. If you like the XL2's design, value true 16x9, and will spend the extra $1000, than the XL2 is for you. If you like the DVX's mobile size, incredible filmic quality, and the low $3300 price, then the DVX is for you.

November 26th, 2004, 05:09 AM	#7
Peter Jefferson Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Aus Posts: 3,884	"Forget either of them - the Sony HDR-FX1 is blowing them all away." err... i dont think so tim... there are alot of issues with HDV right now.. and more importantly there is no actual delivery option. Put it this way, you may shoot an event in HD, do a nice edit and output a HD MPG2.. or even a WMV9 file.. but how many people do you know that have a HD capable mpg2 player... or even a WMV9 playback device?? Bravo are bringing out their Dddd3 unit which will offer WMV9 playback in 5.1, so that will be a delivery option there, but then again, ur clients will have to fork out more moola for it. dont get me wrong, HDV seems to be the new upcoming format for the next decade or so, however there are still many niggling issues. one of the main ones being encoder freeze, or static. As far as im concerned, this is not good enough. when i shoot, i expect to shoot at full frame rate with no lockups or any glitches. If im in the middle of shooting a scene or stunt which was very expensive to set up, i expect my cameras to perform without question and with no lockups. I cant afford to risk shooting on a format which may freeze up during the shot. Id rather film it SD then upsample in post.

November 26th, 2004, 03:36 PM	#8
Scott Ellifritt Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: MS Gulf Coast Posts: 146	Until the Sony introduces 24p into the FX1, I wouldn't bother. I've seen comparisons between it and the 100/100A and the Panny comes out far ahead in terms of film look. The FX1 image is sharper than standard 60i and thus doesn't give a film look. Hey Sony...24P?

November 26th, 2004, 05:39 PM	#9
Robin Davies-Rollinson Trustee Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Gwaelod-y-garth, Cardiff, CYMRU/WALES Posts: 1,215	<<<-- The FX1 is more for sports shooters, because of the high res and zoom. -->>> I'd say that the FX1 - or at least, the pro model when it comes out - is more for broadcasters. Here in the UK, 16:9 is the norm for picture acquisition. Any camera that will give good resolution in that format is going to be the flavour of the month. I'd use it for transmission and I know that the BBC is taking the model very seriously indeed. Even by shooting in HDV and downconverting to DV gives remarkable results. Don't forget that whether one camera is more "filmic" than another doesn't cut any ice with many of us. We don't expect to be blowing up a programme to film. Just give us good sharp, highly-detailed images - if we need to play around later in Post, then so be it ;-) Robin

November 26th, 2004, 06:46 PM	#10
Grinner Hester Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: services world-wide Posts: 118	I love the XL2 for one main reason... it keeps lowering the price of the DVX100. 2 grand versus 5 grand is no decision for me. I don't need channels 3n 4 of audio in the field, don't need interchangable lenses and have other things I can spend the 3 grand I'd save by going with the DVX on.

November 27th, 2004, 12:09 AM	#11
Scott Ellifritt Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: MS Gulf Coast Posts: 146	If I were in broadcasting, ie news, sports etc. I would stay with 60i until HDV was more the norm here in the US. Some folks insist, but to me, what's the point if you have to down rez to DV just to be broadcast??

November 27th, 2004, 02:41 AM	#12
Hayden Rivers Regular Crew Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 53	<<<-- Originally posted by Grinner Hester : 2 grand versus 5 grand is no decision for me.... [I] have other things I can spend the 3 grand I'd save by going with the DVX on. -->>> Where can you get a DVX for $2000? Maybe you mean the DVX100, but the lowest I've found the DVX100a for sale used was $2650.

November 27th, 2004, 05:15 AM	#13
Scott Ellifritt Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: MS Gulf Coast Posts: 146	DVX100A used, "Buyer Beware" (as in any other used item) DVX100A new $3400 and up plus make sure it comes with a USA Panasonic warranty.

November 27th, 2004, 05:40 AM	#14
Robin Davies-Rollinson Trustee Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Gwaelod-y-garth, Cardiff, CYMRU/WALES Posts: 1,215	<<<-- Originally posted by Scott Ellifritt : what's the point if you have to down rez to DV just to be broadcast?? -->>> Scott, Tests indicate that even down -rezzing will give better pictures than shooting DV straight... Robin

November 27th, 2004, 09:29 AM	#15
Aaron Shaw Major Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 587	Better in which way though? Certainly not compression.... Sharper due to the downres, yes but that hardly makes up for the other elements that go into creating a quality image.