SonyFX1 X Canon XL2 comparison at DVinfo.net

Ron German · January 7th, 2006, 12:08 PM

Hi Guys
Can anyone compare FX1 and XL2 in 16X9 / SD regarding the main picture quality parameters, like latitude, low light sensitivity, resolution, colour reproduction, etc?
thank you for your attention
Ron

Ron German · January 8th, 2006, 07:06 PM

No answer???? well, very frustrating not have anyone with an opinion.
Ron

Joseph Andolina · January 8th, 2006, 08:51 PM

Interesting that you should ask this question. From a recent shoot, me shooting with my XL2 and someone else shooting with their Sony FX1 (FX1 was being used for coverage) I was very dissapointed to say the least in the quality we got out of the Sony. Even though it was set to Standard Def, I would have thought it would have done better. Both cameras were set to 24p, 16:9.
Viewing the footage, the Sony didn;t seem to handle well under subdued lighting.(the scene took place in a bar). Was lit to create atmosphere, but lit well enough. The Sony footage had a flutter to look to it, and was far less sharp of an image than the XL2 footage. Now i don;t know if the owner of the FX1 just doesn;t clean his heads, or what, but I tell you, we regret using that camera.
The XL2 footage.... excellent. and I'm not trying to be partial just because I own a XL2. It just proves itself more and more.
Curious if anyone else has had a similiar experience with the FX1.

Mark Grant · January 8th, 2006, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Curious if anyone else has had a similiar experience with the FX1.

Nope. I've never shot SD on my Z1, but when HD is downconverted and burnt to a DVD it looks a heck of a lot better than any DV footage I've seen from an XL1 (never used an XL2).

Mark Utley · January 8th, 2006, 09:19 PM

The FX1/Z1 are actually better in low light than the XL2. The FX1 doesn't shoot true 24p which could be why it looked lousy (there's an article about what the FX1 does to simiulate the look of 24p - I'd post the link if I remembered where I saw it).

Mark Grant · January 8th, 2006, 09:22 PM

Ah, I missed the part about shooting '24p' on the FX1. Yeah, that's most likely your problem... I don't think anyone really regards that setting as more than a toy.

Boyd Ostroff · January 9th, 2006, 07:01 AM

This may be the article you had in mind: http://adamwilt.com/HDV/cineframe.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joseph Andolina

Now i don;t know if the owner of the FX1 just doesn;t clean his heads, or what

Dirty heads don't affect the quality of digital video like they would with analog recording. They would create dropouts on the tape in the form of big glitches.

Laurence Kingston · January 9th, 2006, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joseph Andolina

Interesting that you should ask this question. From a recent shoot, me shooting with my XL2 and someone else shooting with their Sony FX1 (FX1 was being used for coverage) I was very dissapointed to say the least in the quality we got out of the Sony. Even though it was set to Standard Def, I would have thought it would have done better. Both cameras were set to 24p, 16:9.
Viewing the footage, the Sony didn;t seem to handle well under subdued lighting.(the scene took place in a bar). Was lit to create atmosphere, but lit well enough. The Sony footage had a flutter to look to it, and was far less sharp of an image than the XL2 footage. Now i don;t know if the owner of the FX1 just doesn;t clean his heads, or what, but I tell you, we regret using that camera.
The XL2 footage.... excellent. and I'm not trying to be partial just because I own a XL2. It just proves itself more and more.
Curious if anyone else has had a similiar experience with the FX1.

In the future, if you want to shoot passable 24p footage with the FX1, shoot Cineframe 24, capture it as 24p HD using the Cineform HDLink softare using the 3:2 pulldown removal setting. If you downconvert this 24p HD footage to SD it will look surprisingly close to a native 24p SD camera. If you're shooting with a Z1, shoot 25P and use the HDLink software to capture as 24P with the 4% slow down with pitch correction setting. That will give you wonderful looking 24P. Another lessor but quicker option would be just to shoot 60i 16:9 SD and batch convert the convert the captured footage to 24p using Vegas or DVFilm. Under no circumstances would I use SD Cineframe 24 footage directly. It just looks too horrible!

Meryem Ersoz · January 9th, 2006, 11:08 AM

i own both of these cameras, and i would still say that the XL2 does nicer SD than the FX-1. the FX-1 still does nice SD, but i would recommend shooting in SD then downconverting out of the camera.

both are great cameras and both have their advantages. if i could only own one, i would be hard pressed to choose between them.

the FX-1 does the most beautiful macro work and can take achromats that the XL2 lens cannot resolve. the 1080i, if you are shooting for beauty and resolution, can't be matched by the XL2. i also find the form factor preferable. it is more portable, less unwieldy.

the XL2 looks more film-like. interchangeable lenses are something i absolutely require. and its longer reach, the 20x zoom v. 12x on the FX-1, is important in my work as well.

the guy shooting using cineframe24 should have known better. had he ever even used this camera before? cineframe24 has its uses, but it's not even a fair comparison of what these cameras do, to match the XL2's 24p against something which is essentially useful only as a special effect.

these two cameras are really different animals, in my opinion. the H1 probably serves up the best of both worlds, but i bought both of these for under $7k. it's still considerably cheaper to own two of these than one of those. hmm.

January 7th, 2006, 12:08 PM	#1
Ron German Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Rio de Janeiro - Brasil Posts: 304	SonyFX1 X Canon XL2 comparison Hi Guys Can anyone compare FX1 and XL2 in 16X9 / SD regarding the main picture quality parameters, like latitude, low light sensitivity, resolution, colour reproduction, etc? thank you for your attention Ron

January 8th, 2006, 09:19 PM	#5
Mark Utley Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Toronto, ON, Canada Posts: 479	The FX1/Z1 are actually better in low light than the XL2. The FX1 doesn't shoot true 24p which could be why it looked lousy (there's an article about what the FX1 does to simiulate the look of 24p - I'd post the link if I remembered where I saw it). __________________ Mark Utley

January 8th, 2006, 07:06 PM	#2
Ron German Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Rio de Janeiro - Brasil Posts: 304	No answer???? well, very frustrating not have anyone with an opinion. Ron

January 8th, 2006, 08:51 PM	#3
Joseph Andolina Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Everett, WA Posts: 178	Interesting that you should ask this question. From a recent shoot, me shooting with my XL2 and someone else shooting with their Sony FX1 (FX1 was being used for coverage) I was very dissapointed to say the least in the quality we got out of the Sony. Even though it was set to Standard Def, I would have thought it would have done better. Both cameras were set to 24p, 16:9. Viewing the footage, the Sony didn;t seem to handle well under subdued lighting.(the scene took place in a bar). Was lit to create atmosphere, but lit well enough. The Sony footage had a flutter to look to it, and was far less sharp of an image than the XL2 footage. Now i don;t know if the owner of the FX1 just doesn;t clean his heads, or what, but I tell you, we regret using that camera. The XL2 footage.... excellent. and I'm not trying to be partial just because I own a XL2. It just proves itself more and more. Curious if anyone else has had a similiar experience with the FX1.

January 8th, 2006, 09:22 PM	#6
Mark Grant Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Saskatoon, Canada (was London, UK) Posts: 138	Ah, I missed the part about shooting '24p' on the FX1. Yeah, that's most likely your problem... I don't think anyone really regards that setting as more than a toy.

January 9th, 2006, 11:08 AM	#9
Meryem Ersoz Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 3,015	i own both of these cameras, and i would still say that the XL2 does nicer SD than the FX-1. the FX-1 still does nice SD, but i would recommend shooting in SD then downconverting out of the camera. both are great cameras and both have their advantages. if i could only own one, i would be hard pressed to choose between them. the FX-1 does the most beautiful macro work and can take achromats that the XL2 lens cannot resolve. the 1080i, if you are shooting for beauty and resolution, can't be matched by the XL2. i also find the form factor preferable. it is more portable, less unwieldy. the XL2 looks more film-like. interchangeable lenses are something i absolutely require. and its longer reach, the 20x zoom v. 12x on the FX-1, is important in my work as well. the guy shooting using cineframe24 should have known better. had he ever even used this camera before? cineframe24 has its uses, but it's not even a fair comparison of what these cameras do, to match the XL2's 24p against something which is essentially useful only as a special effect. these two cameras are really different animals, in my opinion. the H1 probably serves up the best of both worlds, but i bought both of these for under $7k. it's still considerably cheaper to own two of these than one of those. hmm.