Photos

[Zoomforce]

Here is the best Photos I have found on the XL2 so far.. over at www.xl-2.com

http://www.xl1s.com/photos.php?PHPSESSID=7f0ae060cc429c654f4606e69f017 ca9

This to me, still is just silly though:

http://www.xl1s.com/xl2pics/IMG_2412.jpg

[SweetRelease]

Here's the canon link from the dead thread.
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=114&mode lid=10350

I saw "Variable frame rates" and thought overcranking! But that's not what they meant. :(

[Zoomforce]

wouldnt that be cool if it had a little hand crank that flipped out lol.

[Zoomforce]

its funny in the add on the Canon web page they have XL2's running around doing commercials, weddings etc. I can' believe they got all those guys to shut up for so long.

[David Jimerson]

Maybe that charcoal gray thing I saw a little while ago WAS an XL2 . . .

[kitsu]

Hey, isn't that a pal XL-2?

Somehow, I like the look of the XL-1 better, and frankly, I dont want something so big that it needs a shoulder support.
I'll keep the DVX, thanks.

~Andrew

[skippyfetus]

That is a hot little weapon of mass production

[smkoch]

That's sweet, I remember just like many stories I come across waiting for nab to come and go before running out for my dvx, checking all the tips and posts, but nothing about a new camera. oh well, the only thing that makes the xl2 a sweeter setup over the dvx is the interchangable lenses which lots of xl1 users will love, and the high resolution it 16/9 there site say's 960/480p where I think the dvx is 720/360 or something, I doubt the average person will notice and I bet it'll be a couple grand more than the dvx which would give you the extra bucks for an anamorphic lens. I' dont think that I'll be rushing out to sell my dvx anytime soon

[Woodson]

Nick Adams is that your real name... or is it from the Hemingway's Nick Adams short stories ::)

[Policar]

The canon is 720X480 scaled down from 960X480. The dvx is 720X480 scaled UP from 720X360. I don't see what good scaling down from 960X480 does, but it's provided a lot of marketing hype already. That said, the xl2 probably does provide a considerably sharper image in widescreen mode.

[Zoomforce]

Id say Heminway.. I have one of his cats lol.

[Phil]

An old 6 toe!

[JeanD]

Doesn't anyone else find it suspicious that there are no "real" photos of the XL2?

[Zoomforce]

what do you mean?>

[Michael_Lieberman]

Call me superficial, but the XL2 is the same hideous camera that the XL1 and XL1s were. It's big and (now some may argue, not) unnecessarily bulky, where I can take the DVX around anywhere and shoot anything and still be slightly hidden.

The interchangable lenses are still hugely overpriced, the features (aside from 16:9 and a handful of image controls) have been revamped twice already for Panasonic.

And like every Canon camera, the CCD chips are not gold (look at those little broken pixels in every damn Canon video camera ever made).

I switched to Panasonic for a reason: a compact and completely manual, 4 pound camera that's a filmmaker's friend. If Canon improves this, fine by me. I'm still hedging my bets for the next Panasonic though.

[skettalee]

I would have said what Micheal_Lieberman said, but well, he said it already. I am gonna just get the DVX100a. I dont like the bulkyness of it! BUT!!! I will keep checking and wont get my DVX for atleast 6 months just incase the option weighing leads toward canon!

[Rich Lee]

doesnt panasonic make the chips that canon uses?

[Michael_Lieberman]

Yes, I believe they are licensed together (for lack of a better term).

I guess the 16:9 mode in the XL2 has a much higher pixel count than the DVX100. Take a guess which feature will be upgraded in the new DVX?

[Chenopup]

I owned one of the first 5 XL1s that came to Salt Lake, back then if you pointed the viewfinder at the sun, even just carrying the damn thing you'd blow out the lcd, that and the back focus was horrible. I've hated the camera ever since and swore not to ever look it's way again.

The XL2 however with it's 24p is worth a look. I still hate the body style and adding the XLR inputs is something they should have done with the "s" upgrade... They've definately got the XL1 users by the balls.. just like mac heads, but I am interested in a shootout when the camera becomes available.

I agree with Jarred, the flip up viewfinder is pretty cheesy... I can't imagine how that will work in bright light.. at least it's bigger than the puny original though. Maybe now you can get good focus without an external monitor.

[JeanD]

RE: Doesn't anyone else find it suspicious that there are no "real" photos of the XL2?

I mean Canon is making a grand announcement of their camera and yet there is only really 1 photo of the thing...usually we get splashed with a plethora of flashy pix of new gadgets when they are announced...

Jean

[Rich Lee]

no, there are a bunch of photos over at dvinfo. go check them out.

[dvpixl]

it's just not what i expected. it could have been better.
the dvx looks so much better, sexier and less bulky.
and for those loyal xl-1 fans, it's a treat. but i don't think it's a treat like the dvx, plus, they won't be in a rush to replace their old ones.

[Zoomforce]

Yes, I believe they are licensed together (for lack of a better term).

I guess the 16:9 mode in the XL2 has a much higher pixel count than the DVX100. Take a guess which feature will be upgraded in the new DVX?



actually this time around Canon isn't using Panasonic's chips. They are using the patented Panasonic 24P(A) pulldown method, but not because they gave it to Canon, but in Japan Patents only last 18 months and then its fair game.

[dvpixl]

at least they keep it simple. having a switch between modes.
frame mode no more i guess. is that true 30p though? i was hoping the dvx had it like that too but since scene files are customizable, no complaints. maybe dvx's next one should move all the buttons dealing with exposure stuff onto the lens instead as rings and do away with the hassle. i know... it's asking alot... but at least im asking for physical upgrade for the sake of filmmaking tool-ability and not silly ones like true 16:9, HD, bla bla, and still want it under 3000.

[dvpixl]

ok. i keep coming back on this but is it too much for dv-builders to integrate a refined method that us dvx users can use in the long run instead of just relying on expensive lens interchangeability? and will that cost more than getting image upgrade? or does the chip have to be developed in order to be intergrated with seamless lens performance?

for example.. the zoom and focus on the DVX is already great. better than XL-1 where, the manual zoom doesn't respond as fast as you do...

and how does that change or doesn't change for the xl-1 or 2 when using more expensive lens?

[Jan_Crittenden]

doesnt panasonic make the chips that canon uses?

We made the Chips that Canon used in the XL1 and the 8 bit DSP that they used in the XL1 and are using in the XL2. The manufacturer of the new chip is unkown still, but it will eventually surface.

FWIW,

Jan

[Jan_Crittenden]

Yes, I believe they are licensed together (for lack of a better term).

I guess the 16:9 mode in the XL2 has a much higher pixel count than the DVX100. Take a guess which feature will be upgraded in the new DVX?



This is not a Panasonic Chip and frankly I would not encourage the factory to adopt it. It takes the size of the 4:3 ratio to less than a 1/4" and the 16:9 isn't a full 1/3" either. Check Chris Hurd's XL2 watchdog site for more particulars. There are only two things on this camera that are Panasonic technology, the 24PA and the 1996 8 bit DSP that came out of our AG-EZ1.

FWIW,

Jan

[Michael_Lieberman]

My mistake re: Canon and Panasonic using same CCD elements.

My friends and I have been burned so many times by Canon (from the ZR30 to the GL2 to the XL1 and XL1s) that I have decided to take my business elsewhere. Not only were the images a tad ugly and saturated in the most controlled situations, but the broken pixel situation happened to all 4 cameras. One would think that a 1-chip camera and three separate 3-chip cameras wouldn't yield the same results!

Most people I knew who were making films used the PD-150, even with its non-interchangable lens, due to the softer color pallate and more delicate images. That is until the DVX100 and the DVX100a.

Not to say that Panasonic is perfect, but for the handful of problems I've had, they are a walk in the park compared to the Canon catastrophies. That I can pick up my camera and shoot a quick shot in 24p or do an elaborate lighting set-up and still get lovely images, worthy of a major production, and for it weighing under 5 pounds is wonderful. Taking it into Manhattan and shooting a scene, appearing to look like daddy's home video camera, is another plus.

Once you get burned, psychologically, you never go back. Fine by me.

[Kidster]

Hey, did anyone see where the 1394 - firewire port is located? In the photos I saw everything but that..am I blind?

[ktdmoviemaker]

The XL series just looks so.... video.. It looks like a video camera, plain and simple. The DVX provides some push with the imagination that it is a film camera. ::) The look is waaay better on the DVX. And also way more compact.

[Mike_Donis]

The question will come down to what the *image quality* looks like though :P

[dvpixl]

agreed.

[Cuppajoe_Films]

From what I've heard... the cost is going to be in the $5K range....

I have to say I love the DVX but more importantly, I love filmmaking. If this is going to facilitate that until the DVX2 comes along... well...decisions will have to be made... It will really depend on the image quality.