Should I get the XL2 or the XH-A1?

[HelloEvo]

Hi everyone, let me just start out by saying that I will be using the camera for short films and indie type stuff. I'm a beginner but my cousin was one of the brightest prospects at his time at nyfa, so he's going to take me under his wing and teach me everything he knows, and we'll also be shooting together. Now that that's out of the way, I was talking to my cousin about which camera I should buy, and he said it's a really really tough choice.

The thing is I'm not sure if he understands how awesome the XH-A1 because he hasn't looked into camera's since he bought his two years ago. He said that the XL2 is awesome because you can change lenses, which could possibly give you an important shot that you couldn't get with the XH-A1, which brings up this question: Is the lens on the xh-a1 good enough to where we could get a good amount of the shots that we could get with the XL2 (with different lenses of course)? We're more about getting the right shot or right angle over shooting in HD, because we won't be shooting documentaries or shooting nature or anything like that, so HD is not required, however it would be absolutely AWESOME to shoot in HD.

Man on Fire is a good example of the kinda stuff that we want to do, not exactly like that of course (sorry just had to clear that up) but there are some EXCELLENT shots in Man on Fire that I'm talking about. I'm really not sure about exactly how powerful the XH-A1 is, which is mainly the point of this thread. I will be learning on this camera, but I have a great teacher so I'm not worried about that part. I want a camera that I'll be able to learn a lot from, and be able to do a lot with. First my cousin told me to go with the HD, but after thinking about it he was really really digging the interchangeable lenses, and the possibilities of what we could do with them. His final decision though was the XL2, he said "I think I would get the XL2 for the sake of art, because the point is to tell a story the best way you can, and using different lenses can better portray that sometimes." That's just his opinion though. What would you guys do in my situation?

Cliffs: Gonna be making short films along with my cousin, want unique shots, wondering if I should go HD and get the XH-A1 or get the XL2 "for the sake of art" (which allows me to change lenses)?

[Huy Vu]

Can you afford the extra lenses? Most XL2 owners never go beyond the stock lense and each one can cost you at least $1000. Assuming you're getting 2 of the most useful lenses (16x manual and 3x wide) you're spending close to $6k.If you're going to spend that much to own all the lenses then why stick with an SD camera? In fact why not take that money and spend it on audio, tripod, lighting or even another A1 (that's almost how much all of the lenses are going to cost you).

[Jg Marceaux BestBetter]

Is this a serious question? j/k

Get the XH-A1.

[Spartacus]

I loved the XL2.
But since the A1 is out I´d probably go for it instead...
Interchangable lens is nice when using a P+S, this still forms a nice setup BTW.
On the otherhand, we´re not talking Arri primes here, interchangable is limited to the choices jade mentioned (well, there is a simple adapter for canon foto primes...)
But it sounded like your cousin already has a XL2...?
Why not just use his for a start?

[Huy Vu]

The XL adapter for the EOS lenses makes no sense because all of the lense you use will be super telephoto, severely limiting their usefulness. There's a magnification factor of 7.8 applied to each lense, so a 28mm will look like a 218mm. It's $300-400 for the adapter and then thousands more for a decent set of lense.

Canon wasted the potential of the interchangeable lense feature of the XL2 by not pricing it right. It's simply way too expensive to get new lenses and the benefit usually isn't big enough for the indie film crowd.

[HelloEvo]

Wow thanks for all the info, I've had this same thread at another forum for two days and had half the responses! I'll try to get to everyone.


Can you afford the extra lenses? Most XL2 owners never go beyond the stock lense and each one can cost you at least $1000. Assuming you're getting 2 of the most useful lenses (16x manual and 3x wide) you're spending close to $6k.If you're going to spend that much to own all the lenses then why stick with an SD camera? In fact why not take that money and spend it on audio, tripod, lighting or even another A1 (that's almost how much all of the lenses are going to cost you).
I was planning on renting the lenses when I needed them, the only one I would have bought would probably be the Wide angle 3x

Is this a serious question? j/k

Get the XH-A1.
haha, this most certainly is not a joke :-p


I loved the XL2.
But since the A1 is out I´d probably go for it instead...
Interchangable lens is nice when using a P+S, this still forms a nice setup BTW.
On the otherhand, we´re not talking Arri primes here, interchangable is limited to the choices jade mentioned (well, there is a simple adapter for canon foto primes...)
But it sounded like your cousin already has a XL2...?
Why not just use his for a start?
My cousin had/has a AG-DVX 100A. When he shot his film, I think he rented a better camera.

The XL adapter for the EOS lenses makes no sense because all of the lense you use will be super telephoto, severely limiting their usefulness. There's a magnification factor of 7.8 applied to each lense, so a 28mm will look like a 218mm. It's $300-400 for the adapter and then thousands more for a decent set of lense.

Canon wasted the potential of the interchangeable lense feature of the XL2 by not pricing it right. It's simply way too expensive to get new lenses and the benefit usually isn't big enough for the indie film crowd.
This I did not know. So the XH-A1 seems to be the easy choice here right? I thought the XL2 would put up a good fight :laugh:

[Huy Vu]

The XL2 is a great camera and I'm actually considering buying one to complement my A1. You can get one for around $2000-2200 now which is a great price. My plan if I get one is to sell the stock 20x lense and buy the 16x manual instead. If anything that should raises resale value because the stock lense has very poor zoom and focus control. There's nothing quite like the fluid response of a true manual lense.

But overall I think interchangeable lens is a wrong priority with camera in this price range because Canon has to price the lense outside the reach of most prosumers. It's more like something you brag about than actually using.

[HelloEvo]

So would you say that the XH-A1 with a wide angle adapter would be almost, if not, equal to the XL2 with the 3x wide angle lens?

[Huy Vu]

I don't know what the focal length of the 3x and A1 with adapter is. It's easy enough to look those up and compare the FOV. The 3x lense is too limiting in my opinion. Not enough reach.

[Dan Vance]

I just bought an XL2. I don't know all the specs on the XLH1, but I do know the XL2 has an amazing degree of controlability by the user. Pretty much everything is adjustable. I think that's a great plus for an aspiring filmmaker, though some might see that as a detriment.
As far as the lenses go, in 16:9 mode the stock XL2 lens is pretty wide, equivalent to 43mm SLR.
I've heard all the arguments about 24F and seen the results and at the end of the day 24F is not 24P, so personally that makes the XLH1 not an option--for me. (My opinion, my choice, and I'm sticking with it, so no flames please.)

[Huy Vu]

I
As far as the lenses go, in 16:9 mode the stock XL2 lens is pretty wide, equivalent to 43mm SLR.


Actually 43mm isn't wide at all. The XH-A1, DVX, HVX, FX1/Z1U all have a 35mm focal length equivalent of 33mm.

[Dan Vance]

Ha ha, that's funny. You're right, 43mm is isn't wide compared to a lens that is wider!
43mm is wide compared to what is considered "normal" for an SLR, which is 50mm.

[Huy Vu]

Ha ha, that's funny. You're right, 43mm is isn't wide compared to a lens that is wider!
43mm is wide compared to what is considered "normal" for an SLR, which is 50mm.

Right, 50mm is considered "normal," but a "wide" lense is usually 28mm or lower. 43mm is actually quite limiting. So there you go. My point was that the XL2 shortest focal length isn't as wide as most other 1/3'' camera out there.

[marlontorres]

XH-A1 all the way!

[Dan Vance]

Right, 50mm is considered "normal," but a "wide" lense is usually 28mm or lower. 43mm is actually quite limiting. So there you go. My point was that the XL2 shortest focal length isn't as wide as most other 1/3'' camera out there.
Don't want to get too sidetracked here. The XL2 with it's 43mm equivalent is hardly "limiting." It's only limiting if/when you *specifically* need a 35 or a 28 field of view. If you can only go to 43, you'll make that work for you. So I don't think it's much of a factor in this decision.
43mm is "wider than normal"
28mm is "much wider than normal"
And as some pointed out, if you must go wider, then you can always spring for the 3X wide angle.

[Spartacus]

Hm, you´d call 43mm wide?
Most DPs probably would agree on 35mm and smaler to be wide angle...
Anyways, the XL2s stock lens is very limiting for wide shots, that´s probably why there is the 3x at all, the 20x gets you a nice DoF though when zoomed in...

[sundance44ANCE44]

I was under the impression that the purpose of the 3x was for shooting in confined spaces

[Huy Vu]

I was under the impression that the purpose of the 3x was for shooting in confined spaces

It can be used for that.

[VIDEOMIKE]

Hi Jade I wanted to disagree with you about the the 20x zooming and focusing poorly. The xl2 has 12 zoom speeds each way. The king of power zooms and the manuel zoom can go through the whole zoom range in about 1/2 turn. The focus may not be as precise as the manuel lens but its a very sharp lens and manuely focuses easily.
The 20x is not wide enough indoors. The 3x is excellent at full wide (about 23mm equivalent) and doen't give the barell distortion that you will get from a lens that you screw on the front.
It does lose sharpness as you zoom out and is not as sharp as the 20x. I love the interchangable lenes.
However I haven't experenced the XH-A1 and definate wouldn't decide untill I saw footage from it. HD is the future and I'm sure there are artistic beneifits to that kind of resolution. 33mm equivalent on the standard lens is a better deal then 43mm on the 20x.
Hope I've been of some help.

[Huy Vu]

Hi Jade I wanted to disagree with you about the the 20x zooming and focusing poorly. The xl2 has 12 zoom speeds each way. The king of power zooms and the manuel zoom can go through the whole zoom range in about 1/2 turn. The focus may not be as precise as the manuel lens but its a very sharp lens and manuely focuses easily.


The XL2 have excellent power zoom, so does the A1 (16 speeds). It's the servo zoom that I hate. The zoom ring has this sticky feel on the A1 and it's even worse on the XL2. It lags so far behind the action that it's useless for narrative work. I went from an FX1 to the A1 and even though the FX1 doesn't have manual zoom either its zoom ring feels manual, so I know it's possible to make a decent servo zoom. The XL2 and the A1 just doesn't do it well, and it's irritating. The zoom ring is decent for on the fly adjustment but I use the power zoom most of the time.

[TimurCivan]

well honestly, the interchangeable lenses on the Xlseries is more about operator feelthan about angles and FOV. sure there is the 3x wide, and the 16x manual, but the two different lenses arent going to give you a very different "look", its more about manual control and better cleaner optics. its a tactile thing, not a "this lens will make the shot look cooler thing...."


I would definitly say get and XHA1, you cant lose. it has a nice wideangle, a long 20x reach, decent HDV implimentation, good image control, good dynamic range, and when you need it (should you descide to do interview or wedding work), puts out someof the finest 1080i you can get short of a broadcast camera.

Plus it shoots Great 24p SD. the lens is acceptable, but not as good as teh 16x fro mwhat i hear, but if a little chroma abberation is ruining your movie, youve got bigger problems than a crappy lens....

[Huy Vu]

Plus it shoots Great 24p SD.

That it does. I was just editing some 24p SD stuff the other day and I was like "Whoa, this is sharp!" You can see an amazing amount of details on the field of grass and such. Amazing for a camera that's not natively progressive.

[marketmd]

Every time I want to buy an XH-A1 I see footage on DVXUser that shows pretty bad green/red fringing/aberration, especially in full wide, that makes me delay my purchase. Can't afford an HVX/P2 cards, so I'm stuck.

[marketmd]

the lens is acceptable, but not as good as teh 16x fro mwhat i hear, but if a little chroma abberation is ruining your movie, youve got bigger problems than a crappy lens....

Can the 20x lens on the A1 be replaced?

[Huy Vu]

Can the 20x lens on the A1 be replaced?

No, it can't.

[TimurCivan]

yea all the HD cameras put out STELLAR sd 24p. i love the HVX in DV mode so crisp its amazing.

[marketmd]

yea all the HD cameras put out STELLAR sd 24p. i love the HVX in DV mode so crisp its amazing.

16:9 only or also 4:3 cropped? (A1 and HVX).

[Spartacus]

16:9 only or also 4:3 cropped? (A1 and HVX).

The HVX can do DV in 4:3, letterboxed 4:3 and native 16:9, don´t know about the A1...

[PaPa]

the wide angle chromatic abberation really isnt an issue. It generally happens with blownout areas around fine lines, so learn to control exposure ( asi have been forced to do ) play around with your zoom levels ( i very rarely shoot COMPLETELY wide ) zoom in to like z 10 or so. by then most of the CA is gone.