GL3 Speculation?

[Tibby]

Anybody speculating on what features may be on the GL3?

HDV?
24F?

I was thinking that if Canon put out a GL3 with 1440x1080 HDV and the 24f and 30f modes, it would probably do pretty well. Maybe add XLR inputs.

A fixed lens and no HD-SDI output may get the camera below 5k. That would make a truly competitive camera.

Hell I don't even need XLR's I've got a beachtek...would be nice though. Throw a G35 or M2 on the front of it and you've got a decent indy film camera.

Yes I know tape is dead blah, blah, blah... but I predict HDV will be around for quite sometime. I think more low level consumer cameras will start to use the format in the next few years. People are accustomed to video being tape based, most don't know the difference between Mpeg2, DV, or ProHD. The average consumer will like HDV option.

Hey, after all you can still buy Digital8 Camcorders in stores.

Actually...I still own mine... sentimental reasons...kinda like the runt in a litter of kittens. :laugh:

Anyway...just wondering what features people think will be included in this camera.

[mmm]

It would be interesting if the GL-H2/GL3 had all the same internals as the XL-H1, just like the GL1 and XL1. Would need XLR input to be much good for Indies though?

Many people argue the GL1 actually produces a better picture than the XL1 because of the compromises they had to make in order to make the lens removable. Having intercut the two cameras, I would rate them pretty evenly picture wise.

[Tibby]

I work with a GL2 on occasion (haven't used a GL1). The picture is very nice on that camera. Let's hope they do put the basic components/features of the XL-H1 into the GL3.

[kyle_doris]

the GL1 does indeed have better image quality to my eye than the original XL1

[roxics]

It needs XLR jacks and good ones. Especailly if they are going to price it higher like they did the XL-H1. Audio has to stop being a secondary thought on these cameras.

[theHeadlessPuppy]

Don't want to be a party spoiler but with the cost of the new XL H1 I wonder how much a GL HD would cost. $5k? Who's going to go for it if you can have the JVC with removable lens for the same cost?

I dunno, just my opinion, but I don't see a new GL coming out, at least not at the cheap, competitive price we're used to.

I would love a GL at the same cost as the FX1 though... with 24p :)

[glassblowerscat]

Who's going to go for it if you can have the JVC with removable lens for the same cost?

Anyone who doesn't want to pay extra just for glass so that the picture will look good.

[theHeadlessPuppy]

Who says they don't look good?

And who says that the GLH won't have the same problems or different ones?

[glassblowerscat]

Who says they don't look good?

And who says that the GLH won't have the same problems or different ones?


Every report I've heard so far makes it fairly clear that if you really want a nice image you need to replace the Fujinon lens.

And it is unlikely that the "GL3" or any other high-end prosumer camera from Canon will have a bad image. Glass is what they do.

[Tibby]

I was thinking that without XLR's, HD-SDI output, and a detachable lens a GL3 (Errr...GL-H1 maybe) could be around 5k and under.

Why not buy an HD100? If the GL3/H1 it has the same chips as the XL-H1, it will shoot HDV at 1440x1080 in 24f mode, which is a higher resolution than the HD100. I would personally rather have something like that and add a lens adapter package (G35 or M2). Both the GL1 and GL2 had really nice optics.

Or they could possibly use a CMOS chip, which might make it a little cheaper. If they could still achieve 1440x1080 in 24f mode it would still be a pretty nice camera. I doubt that they would use a CMOS chip, but ya never know.

[turk]

One good reason to buy a GLHD with xlr (which is a 10 cent no brainer de riguere addition these days) is that it already has a proven 20x flourite zoom--which oddly enough shows up stock lens on the XLH1(?). That is heckuva lens. The word on the jvc stock fujinon is that it's a veeery average optic. By the way the 3.5 wide angle jvc option is 12.9k...lens alone. Gulp.

So the GLHD in magnesium chassis isn't asking for much at all. 24F with pixel shift seems to be quite an acceptable answer to 24P.

What I'd like to see is the GLHD w xlr and C mount or Canon interchangeable lens system--as an entry high def option to full blown XLH1 production camera. I see no problem with 4-5k. Sony already sells 3 chip hd consumer cam for under 2k. It's time Canon expanded their interchangeable lens option to another body. The GL is perfect fit and the time is right--a camcorder tucked under the panny200, jvc100 and XLH1. Entry indie level...which is where the dvx made its mark. A GLHD--well done with already proven Canon options--could be the new dvx in indie-land.

I said in another post that the next iteration of the dvx100 series--since the form/function is so well thought out--may well be (probably have to be?) dvx100CHD. The C being for C mount lenses or at least the longer 13x Lieca.

jvc has made a statement with the 100 model. It's time to seperate the box from the lens for indie people--who've expressed a definite trend toward going 5-10k for the right setup. (Judging from the current wave of new material being introduced.) On the still image side--can you image spending 5k for a top EOS with a fixed lens?

Canon has lots of options. They probably want to get GLHD right since they're not in the habit up upgrading hardware very often. So maybe get the hardware right, then work on firmware updates to tweak the camera. Like the EOS system.

Just think of it--Canon could open up their entire line of lenses to TWO bodies! Indie virvana!

The only thing I never much cared for with the GL2 was its footprint/form factor and plastic. But that's just me. I really think the dvx is nearly perfect in those respects. 100A/B die cast perfecto! So maybe Canon should copy the dvx box (paint it white like the EOS), put on an interchangeable 20x flourite, xlr, hd chips and viola! Take me to the bank! Show me the money!

That's my take.

[ecking]

If they would make an GL H1 with a GL2 type body 20x flourite zoom lens that captured 24f and 30f to hdv tape like the the XL H1 I'd laugh....a the way to the bank. That would be my dream camera if it existed, I wouldn't even care if it stayed plastic, I take good care of my cameras.

[turk]

I've nothing against hdv tape either. Just add Focus storage option and aaawway we go!

Nice to have a more rugged die cast chassis though. Plastic is...plastic. For that kind of money nothing should be plastic.

[Barry_Green]

That would be my dream camera if it existed, I wouldn't even care if it stayed plastic, I take good care of my cameras.
Well, I can't imagine them *not* producing exactly that camera. The GL2 has had a rebate on it for the last two years... it's long overdue to be replaced... I'd bet that they will produce exactly what you just described.

[myfriendimage]

They wouldnt put 24f or 24 anything in a gl3 they would risk competition with the DVX, that they would most certainly loose, also the camera has always been so consumer friendly that advanced things like 24f would create a strange mix of consumer friendly controls and prosumer variables it would make an odd mix in my opinion, I think the GL series will always have either 60i or 29.97 but nothing else, if it changes to dramatically it wont be the GL.

However I do think a smaller more consumer friendly HD canon is already underway, so mabye it can be the HD-GL3, but in the ways of variable change and prosumer options incorperated, I dont think its gonna happen.

[Nathyn]

They wouldnt put 24f or 24 anything in a gl3 they would risk competition with the DVX, that they would most certainly loose, also the camera has always been so consumer friendly that advanced things like 24f would create a strange mix of consumer friendly controls and prosumer variables it would make an odd mix in my opinion, I think the GL series will always have either 60i or 29.97 but nothing else, if it changes to dramatically it wont be the GL.

Why would you say that? The GLs have always matched the XLs. If nothing else the GL3 would have 24p even if not hdv. But I believe some kind of HDV is in order. I believe you can buy XLR ports. So with that you'd have a pretty nice cam. I'm thinking a CMOS chip is in order. Think a single 16:9 CMOS chip, 720/24f(p) HDV and decent glass will make the indie film crowd loose their mind and I believe may the break DVX's hold on that market.

-Nate

[johnnyspacecommand]

"Little one" needs all the care it can get.

But GL3????? Why? Just why? Get yourself an DVX100B instead....It'll be better.

If you are going for HD, you MUST go HVX100 or XLH1. There just isn't going to be any fight that they blow away anything else. Or just be patient and shoot on Super35 with prime lenses without that grainy ground glass crap that makes you LOSE resolution capacity.

People will be touting 70mm soon, I know it..



Anybody speculating on what features may be on the GL3?

HDV?
24F?

I was thinking that if Canon put out a GL3 with 1440x1080 HDV and the 24f and 30f modes, it would probably do pretty well. Maybe add XLR inputs.

A fixed lens and no HD-SDI output may get the camera below 5k. That would make a truly competitive camera.

Hell I don't even need XLR's I've got a beachtek...would be nice though. Throw a G35 or M2 on the front of it and you've got a decent indy film camera.

Yes I know tape is dead blah, blah, blah... but I predict HDV will be around for quite sometime. I think more low level consumer cameras will start to use the format in the next few years. People are accustomed to video being tape based, most don't know the difference between Mpeg2, DV, or ProHD. The average consumer will like HDV option.

Hey, after all you can still buy Digital8 Camcorders in stores.

Actually...I still own mine... sentimental reasons...kinda like the runt in a litter of kittens. :laugh:

Anyway...just wondering what features people think will be included in this camera.

[Tibby]

If you are going for HD, you MUST go HVX100 or XLH1.

As I stated in my previous post all the add ons included (XL-H1: Lens, XLR, HD-SDI) and not included (HVX200: P2 cards, Firestore, inumerable hard drives) would break the bank so to speak.

On the other hand a 5k HDV GL3 type camera with a resolution of 1440x1080 and 24f mode would not put me out that much.

I've already purchased a lens adapter. I own quite a few Nikon SLR lenses. And I also have a beachtek audio adapter.

As an independent (i.e. poor) filmmaker this kind of camera would be very appealing. So the word "MUST" is relative.

[Barry_Green]

I would be very, very, very surprised if Canon produced a GL3 successor that *wasn't* HDV.

But then again, I remember being famously wrong when I said the same thing about the XL2 (I said they'd never produce a standard-def XL2, it'd be HDV all the way... and I was dead wrong about that). But I can't see being wrong about this. I'm certain that if they introduce a GL2 follow-up (perhaps named GL H1) it would be HDV, and it will unquestionably be 1080-based. Canon's already thrown their hat into the 1080i ring, and they've made a camera that is completely incompatible with 720p HDV, so they can't go making more camcorders in their HDV lineup that are fundamentally incompatible with each other... so that leads me to predict that there will be an HDV-based 1080i GL H1, which will have least frame-mode or XL H1-style 1080/30F, introduced later next year. Maybe around July. And it'll be way, way, way below $5,000 -- I'm thinking it'll be priced around $3300, competitive with the FX1.

(this is all rampant, wild speculation of course!)

[glassblowerscat]

Ah, rampant, wild speculation . . .

I don't think anyone is going to be committing much more development to DV25. A new GL camera is going to be HDV; they'll do that before they'll do 24F.

[Tibby]

If 24f is included with the next GL camera, at the price Barry predicted it will more than likely give the competition (FX1 and DVX100B) a run for the money. Here's hoping they do.

So basically, who do we write/call/e-mail/pester at Canon to include these features?

[turk]

I can't imagine them NOT doing 24f (why make a product limp?) because I think it's more a firmware than hardware issue. So why not just do it, get it over with. The dvx would then be limping because of what it is not...widescreen or hd self contained in a box.

What makes the GLHD so easy a concept for Canon is that all they need do is add xlr/hd chips, redesign a die cast (dvx) chassis and away they go. The beauty of the marketing logic is that it is not a full blown production camera like the XLH1 yet is above prosumer and into entry indie HD. In that sense it leaves the dvx in its present state behind--because at that point the dvx is the camera with the limitations--no 16:9 worth having, lower sd resolution, no HD, no interchangeable lenses...last year's idea...

I can't believe people are still commenting on xlr option!! That was a prosumer to indie/low end broadcast option via Sony consumer and PD series! Forget it. The original arguments were around costs and such. Cost is no longer a consideration. Neither is competition with broadcast line. Like I said it's a 10 cent addition these days. A GLHD without xlr is a prosumer camera. I don't think that's what Canon has in mind for its lens line--where it makes big bucks with options from still thru video thru film.

That's always been the beauty of C mount (even a dedicated Canon mount)--virtually any lens in any format is usable, a cinematographer's dream--de rigueur option for virtually any 8, 16, 35mm film camera. Canon already has a superior lens line that is adapted to 35mm film and other such media lenses.

Why--at this stage of competition where the market has split into prosumer/entry indie vs established indie/broadcast--limit it to one XLH1 camera body? It's the dvx and Panasonic that needs to rethink it strategy! They don't have a mount on the dvx/200 line. The dvx is sd. I see that as a major hole to drive a Canon K-wacker thru. That's why I proposed the next iteration of the dvx into 16:9/HD with the 13x Lieca. They can't just sit there with all the marbles in the 200--and why reinvent the chassis wheel when the dvx is a proven wheel. There are virtually no redevelopment costs to tweaking the dvx. (A mount; it already has three chips...) No brainer from industrial design viewpoint.

I think the Panny 200 will sell well--but it ain't no camera that will sell in dvx numbers. No way. Too many virtues? Too many HOLES! That's the problem with a dedicated P2 architecture, non interchangeable lenses. You don't have the cinematographer's options--which is what makes a still or cinematographer/dp--light&resolution/focus/contrast ratios. Sharpness isn't it. That's a poor mans substitute for all the aforementioned called craft. DOF. Gimme some selective dof, light, noir, good optic and let's have some fun!

That's what a GLHD with interchangeable lenses may give us. 24f, 24p--I don't care how they do it. Think about it--the only thing 24 that made any sense is that it's the speed of the film going thru the gate with any particular design shutter that provided an exposure which provided the options needed to produce an image a cinematorgrapher could craft "a look"--any particular look via light.

The dvx does it thru 24P BUT MORE THRU FIRMWARE than we care to admit. 24P is no answer to anything. It's just a door. Video is digital. CD-DVD; there are a gazillion lines of resolution in a single 35mm frame that daunts the storage capacity of any known electronic media. It isn't just lenses and chips.

So we shift the pea under the shell. That's cool. Give me the 4-5k shell in a Canon GLHD with Canon's line of lenses and you just watch indie's jump thru the hoop, backwards and forwards. It'll look like a kinetescope of Chaplins in a Keystone Copper caper.

turk, aka nostratomas, has spoken...

And Canon is the only one who would dare to do it!

Muuuuuhahahahha...let the next generation of games begin

...and as far as suggesting these options to Canon...they're already reading this...

[theHeadlessPuppy]

If Canon puts out a GLHD for $5,000 with almost all the features of the XLH1, it will simply kill the more expensive camera. Why would people spend almost the double for a removable lens and a few extra features?

24F on the new GL? I don't think so... call me pessimistic, and I wish I'm wrong but Canon would be shooting themselves in the foot.

It's like the HC1... I'm positive that Sony could have add a gain control option and shutter/aperture control. why didn't they? Cos it would kill FX1 sales, that's why.

Besides I just don't see how much stuff they could remove from the XLH1 to get it down to $5,000...

[turk]

It's not so much what they would take off the XLH1, it's more a question of what little they'd have to add to a smaller form camera. Remember, they're in the lens business. The object--at this point for Canon--is to sell more lenses. They only have two cameras at this level. Why not just add a lens mount to both? Both cameras would need strong features to convince prosumer/indie people to opt for one or the other. In that sense it's about offering options that others can only offer via thrid party adapters--hardly desirable.

The XLH1 series is a different animal. There's just so much more surrounding this system than lenses in terms of high end 35mm-like adapters and support equipment via rental houses. It's as close to a production camera as one can get. A GLHD wouldn't have that full blown form but enough beef as a hand held to be versatile to entry field broadcast/indie market. I mean, a 20x flourite is nothing to laugh about--especially with a 35mm slr wide angle one could throw on, or an extender. They could even put a 16x flourite on, expand its wa capability. Be useful for cine/sports/doc with less in-the-bag add ons.

I don't see how a $4-5k camera can kill a 9k system camera. I understand the reasoning how it could happen but if that were the case then it is US shooting ourselves in the foot by limiting our own choices and options to what manufacturers care to offer up at any given time. One HD camera from each manufacturer? Fixed lenses?

These battles are internal--strictly between intracorporate divisions protecting their respective market shares and interests. Canon doesn't have to worry so much about that. What difference would it make if one body--at a range of 5-9k--or the other were more successful if Canon is in the lens business? They have to believe that both cameras--hand held or production--will find their respective niches to compete across the board with entry to advanced hd. They only way I see them doing it is two distinctly different bodies that share a common ground.

It's either that or just have one body at that level to compete. That's not a good option--especially for an optic company when increasingly shooters are looking for optical solutions. The first thing users noted about the jvc setup was the inferior fuginon that's marketed with the camera. The one argument that sticks out in comparing most cameras/images is the quality of the optic on the body. With a one body/lens option--that image will be very constrained, very limited, even though we might think its great. In comparison to what?

Raise the bar with more optic solutions--force the firmware to measure up, let the hardware follow. Let Canon shoot themselves in the foot? Why not if it means more market share via bodies AND optics. Neither panasonic nor sony or jvc have optic markets worth selling independently of camera bodies. Canon does.

The difference between 4-5k and 9k MSRP may very well be in who can afford to go hand held as opposed to fully blown production. Either way we get a versatile unit.

Encourage them to find a solution! It can only benefit us, raise the bar, keep everyone on their quality toes and tuned into entry to advanced indie demands for products that meet a cinematographer's needs. Soon enough all the manufacturers will need to cross this bridge...

[Tibby]

24F on the new GL? I don't think so... call me pessimistic, and I wish I'm wrong but Canon would be shooting themselves in the foot

Yes pessimistic indeed, but only time will tell. They would be shooting themselves in the foot if it had all of the same features (which it wont). But 24f won't be the foot shooting culprit. The XL-H1 isn't postioning itself as the 24p indie camera.

[mmm]

If Canon puts out a GLHD for $5,000 with almost all the features of the XLH1, it will simply kill the more expensive camera. Why would people spend almost the double for a removable lens and a few extra features?


The XM1/GL1 produced a better picture than the XL1 (with standard lens), but loads of people still bought the more expensive camera.

[myfriendimage]

I think canon like the consumer feel of the gl1/gl2 and wont make it up to par with the DVX with 24f, it apeals to more audiences.

[Tibby]

Huh? So if it has a 24f feature it will some how appeal to less people?

[Debo]

I believe the gl3 will sell for 3,000, none street.

[Spiff_2]

I suspect a GLHD series will share many of the features of the XL-H1 - just as the GL2 and the XL1s, and the GL1 and the XL1 shared many features. Certainly I think 24F and 30F will be included, if not full 24P. I also highly doubt any GLHD would have interchangeable lenses - that is an XL feature, and will likely remain so.

If Canon made the GLHD with XLR inputs and 24F, I suspect it would crush FX1 and DVX sales... and maybe even take a few HVX200's with it.

-Spiff

[myfriendimage]

I think canon will keep the GL series simple, if it does enter into the HD realm it wont have a 24f feature, because this a consumer cam, Gl2 apealed to alot of people I think because of its simplicity, i think if they made this camera more apealing to the proffensional series less consumers would find it apealing, most Gl's I have seen arent used for movies, they are used for sports or personal videos.

[Tibby]

XLR on the camera would be nice but it's doubtful. I'm betting it will have the selectable frame rates though. If it comes in under 5K with the frame rate features I'm sold.

myfriendimage,

24f is a feature that is easily added, especially If they are using the same chips as the XL-H1. Why not add it? Somehow a switch that says 24f is going to make people not buy the camera? It's not gonna cost more, and it sure isn't gonna scare away consumer level customers, in fact it will only attract more customers. Your reasoning doesn't make any sense.

[Zim]

"Little one" needs all the care it can get.

But GL3????? Why? Just why? Get yourself an DVX100B instead....It'll be better.

If you are going for HD, you MUST go HVX100 or XLH1. There just isn't going to be any fight that they blow away anything else. Or just be patient and shoot on Super35 with prime lenses without that grainy ground glass crap that makes you LOSE resolution capacity.

People will be touting 70mm soon, I know it..

I really like the DVX100B, but it still bugs me they didn't go 16:9. Just go into Best Buy and see all the 16:9 TVs. Everyone talks about HD future proofing, why not 16:9 future proofing.

I saw a quote the other day, "it's better to be in front of the curve than behind it"

[Zim]

and if a GL3 comes out it will be HDV and SD. Why not have both for probably under $5,000? For people who don't need to change lens it would be the way to go.

[vaderdust]

Hey, after all you can still buy Digital8 Camcorders in stores.

Actually...I still own mine... sentimental reasons...kinda like the runt in a litter of kittens. :laugh:



I still see VHS-C video cameras for sale and less than 200 bucks!(US) And thats one of the easiest non computer ways to edit. just camera and a VCR!

[Jarred Land]

dont think the GL3 is gonna be DV.. canon made it clear last year that the XL2 was the last DV camera they would ever make in the prosumer class.

[Nathyn]

Keep in mind the GL lines normally had everything the XLs had. Why? People would buy XLs to shoot and GLs as second cameras. They had to match up. This was a thing to do. I believe we'll be looking at a GL3 HD with smaller chips, no interchangeable lens nor pro-audio features (but with a decent enough mic). They'd be foolish to do anything less. This seems to have always been their strategy and it seems to work. If I were to invest in HDV and had the cash this would be the route I would go. Buy the H1 and then GL3 HD.

-Nate

[Barry_Green]

I would bet that Nathyn's exactly right. The only real question I have, and maybe the reason we haven't seen a GL3 yet is because of this question: what will they do about the chips?

The XL series is 1/3", and the GL series is 1/4". But there are no 1/4" HD chips. Would they redesign the GL to use 1/3" chips? Or are they waiting for someone to produce 1/4" chips (and is that even possible?)

[FiL]

if the GL3 is going to be 1080i with the odd frame mode (24+30 for USA) (25 for PAL) with a fixed lens, 3x1/4" CCD's then essentially it's going against the Sony HC-1 or maybe (by the release date) FX-1 in price & features.

i'd certainly be interested.


Has anyone played with 25f on a 50i XL-H1? what's the res hit like? any res charts available?

because i hear that the 50i FX-1 losses a lot of res on CF25. equally i hear that 25f on the XL-H1 is better, so there's hope for the GL3 :)

but I keep worrying that these frame modes reduce the resolution to near 576p...may as well buy a second hand DVX100AE.

[Barry_Green]

The HC1 has a single 1/3" chip (although CMOS). I don't know that it's even rational to consider making a 1/4" HD camera -- already 1/3" is pushing the limits of what could be accomplished in HD. 1/4" is probably going too far.

The CF25 mode drops the overall resolution to 540 lines. That's not the same as a DVX though, because the DVX has only 720 pixels across, vs. 1440 for the CF25 shot. So even though the vertical res is the same, the HDV cam is still delivering substantially more horizontal res.

[Spiff_2]

Few notes here:

- I think a GL3 would be placed as direct (and welcome) competition for the FX1. The GL series and FX series already have a LOT in common. This is important to me, since the FX1 market is exactly where I expect my reasonable budgeting to stay. I would very much like to see this market grow and improve.

- I doubt they'll bother getting smaller than 1/3". For SD, it probably lowers costs. For HD - it probably won't. They may switch to CMOS though... who knows?

- Barry says: The CF25 mode drops the overall resolution to 540 lines. It's worth noting that these 540 lines have essentially full vertical chroma sampling, and that in the horizontal dimension, rather than having the 180 horizontal chroma rez of the DVX, the FX1 has 720 horizontal chroma samples stored. The result is a 1440x540 4:2:2 worth of infomormation... easily enough to make 720x540 4:4:4, compared to the 720x480 4:1:1 worth the DVX puts out.

-Spiff

[FiL]

thanks for the recap Barry.

it's a shame there isn't a 720p camera with fixed lens (read lower price/smaller body) than the JVC...i'd really like a 720 25p HDV machine, although 1080i + good frame mode will surfice.

HDV is tempting for people like me, $3k-$4k cameras are a big ask for me financially, and are definately as far as i want to go....money wise, for now

[Barry_Green]

Well, there were two 720p cameras with fixed lens, the HD1 and HD10. They're both discontinued now. They were 30p-only though, they never made a 25p version.

[FiL]

yeah i heard those cameras were really disappointing

[Spiff_2]

It looks like JVC is the only company supporting the HDV1 (i.e., 720p) format. I wouldn't be surprised if this remains the case. However, I also expect within a few generations that the HDV2 cameras will feature 1080i60 as well as true 1080p30 and 1080p24... If HDV actually makes it to 3 generations.

-Spiff

[rawfa]

Hum...even though the idea of a HD GL3 is really great and I would love to see it come true, I don't think it'll come out so soon. The Xl2 is doing good and this would be jeopardized by the introduction of a HD with 24p camera.

[Jack_Felis]

Hmmm, since I have a GL1 and judge it EVERY DAY, I have kept my eye on how Canon does things, I would suppose that at least:

- 24f and 30f optional framerates
- No XLR's
- Same features as GL2
- 16:9 LCD a'la FX1/Z1 (?)
- Great fixed lens
- HDV... Canon style!

Things I don't think will happen:

- C-mount, I would suppose you'd face the same problems as a 35mm adapter. Plus, why buy an XLH1 then?
- XLR's, remember, this is a B-camera and XLR's would detract more from XLH1.
- $5,000+ price, the usual price ceiling on GLs is $3,000.
- 720p, though a nice option, Canon would be foolish to not use 1080i since the FX1 uses it. Consumers and prosumer newbies who buy it will be confused and think 1080i is better since, higher number usually = better!
- Cup holders, I know some of you want them! ;)

That's my take. At least. Any more ideas or thoughts on what they could do?

[mmm]

I think the GL H1 or HM1 will be pretty hot - I love my little XM1 (PAL for GL1).

I am editing a corporate video at the moment shot on a 2/3" Beta SP and IMO the XM1 footage (which I used for soem quick pickups) is better! It's a great camera - lame on audio though! I hope they add XLRs.

[Justyn]

I have a GL1 and XL1 that I use all the time. I would agree that the GL1 image, colors, and exposure are always better than my XL1.. but I hate the audio capabilities.. or lack thereof. If they had an HD version in the 3k range, I think it would make up for the overpriced HD cam. For some reason, Canon seems to take it's sweet time in catching up videowise. Still stuff, they are second to none. I love my 2 year old digital rebel

[ullanta]

You guys who are discussing needed audio upgrades on a GL3 - would you really be happy with HDV's compressed audio?

[Tibby]

Anybody speculating on what features may be on the GL3?

HDV?
24F?

I was thinking that if Canon put out a GL3 with 1440x1080 HDV and the 24f and 30f modes, it would probably do pretty well.

I knew it would eventually happen, and it appears I was pretty on the mark for a lot of specs:

http://cweb.canon.jp/prodv/xhg1/index.html

3 Chip 1/3 CCD

If I'm not mistaken that looks like and HD-SDI output

24f and 30f modes

2 different models no less!!!

These appear to have the same basic specs as the XL-H1

If my currency conversion is correct the XH G1 will retail for around $6800 and the XH A1 will retail for around $4700. I could be mistaken, so let's take this with a grain of salt.

[Heath McKnight]

Saw that, too. interesting.

hwm

[razamalik]

nice one & at a good price too but i think its a bit late on canon's part ... just seems like a copy of fx1 & Z1 on may accounts with a few extra features ! if this was released a year ago that is before Hvx200 & XLH1 it would have created some vibe.. ah but its all a bit too late for HDV now.

nice to see an iris ring on the lens... but hate the free ring designs... why on earth cant canon just put ends on the zoom & focus ring like the HVX200???? if i am right sony fx1 does have zoom & focus ends... so why is this not implemented?

[Heath McKnight]

Yes, the Sony does have markers for zoom. My question to you is, why is this the end for HDV? It's supported by four camera manufacturers and all the major NLEs and Graphic suites pretty much. If anything, HDV will be here for a while.

heath

[razamalik]

isnt AVCHD supposed to be better & much more effective compression scheme & isnt it time camera's record to HDD or some sort of flash media like the P2 (but cheaper) ?

[Heath McKnight]

http://www.avchd-info.org/index.html

I will reserve judgment on the Sony consumer cameras that use AVCHD as a codec until I see the quality and use the camera. Seeing something on paper gives me an idea but until I see it, I wait. But a consumer camera is a consumer camera. The one exception is the FX1 (a consumer camera, but very pro-like) and the JVC HD10 (called a pro camera, more consumer).

heath

[Barry_Green]

isnt AVCHD supposed to be better
Yes, yes, and yes.

& much more effective compression scheme

Definitely yes, usually figured as at least 2x as effective, and more like 2.5x as effective

& isnt it time camera's record to HDD or some sort of flash media like the P2 (but cheaper) ?

Yes, it's absolutely time for that.

But now someone has to develop an AVC-HD camera that's worthy of the format, instead of putting out some bottom-of-the-line spinning-DVD camera like the Sonys that have been announced. This XH A1 would have been perfect for that.

[razamalik]

But now someone has to develop an AVC-HD camera that's worthy of the format, instead of putting out some bottom-of-the-line spinning-DVD camera like the Sonys that have been announced. This XH A1 would have been perfect for that.

Too right... cant panasonic just release an update to the HVX 200 with AVCHD ? that would solve the space issues of current 4GB & 8GB P2s no?
DVCPROHD & AVCHD on one camera !!! now that would be one heck of a cool camera...

I was on the look out for FX2 with AVCHD & hopefully a solid state media or hdd recording & sony came out with that single chip cmos dvd recording consumer camera & now this from canon... well i wasnt expecting it to be AVCHD as its only a panasonic & sony thing.. but there you are.... no camera does it all... we'l have to choose the one that works for us or hell if one can afford he can buy all the cameras like Jim & then go on to develop his own coz nothing worked for him LOL!