My DVX vs. XL2 issue

K

kanoab

Member
I need a camera to go with my GL2, which I've had for a couple years. I'm looking at, of course, the DVX and the XL2. The back and forth nature of the debate has made me sick. I'd like native 16:9 and would prefer a 20x zoom (I do mostly weddings and sports), however I think the picture quality is comparable between the two. I could use the $1000 I'll save buying the DVX. Can anyone help make the decision easier for me?
 
I think you summed it up really yourself. The choice is between $1000 and suitability. If you do weddings and sports I'd say the Xl2 would be the way to go for you for a few reasons.

1) It looks sexier, so you look more "pro" at a wedding
2) Longer zoom for getting in close
3) Very clean in low light, which can be good for a church

If you were making narrative films I'd say the DVX just cause the built in lens allows you to pull focus etc easier and it's a wider lens for inside work. Of course it also has the Mojo.

Of course, don't forget to factor in whether you're doing 4:3 shooting. If so, the Xl2 is basically a 1/4" chip size camera.
 
Totally agree with Aza.
As i do wedding in Singapore as well.
i realised that show man ship is sometimes very important.
but honestly do deliver good product or good quality video is also very important.
as a user, ask yourself which is easier to use?

From church, i am used to using betacam, pd 150 and z1
i realised that weight is an issue.
Shooting wedding require you to move around and fast reaction speed.
The dvx is well balance compare to the rest of the camera that i tried.

viewfinder, xl2 only got eye hook viewfinder but so far none have such
a beautiful and clear LCD viewfinder like dvx.tempted to get the 200 series.
but just that its not so pratical for now. Maybe in months to come, i will do a
switch to its new generation. P2 CARD or the firewire storage. DVCpro HD is the way to go.

I see myself not just an wedding videographer, but the ultimate vocation and purpose is to go into short film, hence i want to see more details and better qualtiy color in my production.Hence i prefer dvx. In short, my work through my camera will speak for themselves.
 
Aza said:
I think you summed it up really yourself. The choice is between $1000 and suitability. If you do weddings and sports I'd say the Xl2 would be the way to go for you for a few reasons.

1) It looks sexier, so you look more "pro" at a wedding
2) Longer zoom for getting in close
3) Very clean in low light, which can be good for a church

If you were making narrative films I'd say the DVX just cause the built in lens allows you to pull focus etc easier and it's a wider lens for inside work. Of course it also has the Mojo.

Of course, don't forget to factor in whether you're doing 4:3 shooting. If so, the Xl2 is basically a 1/4" chip size camera.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your perspective. I was basically looking for every reason to save $1000 and go with the DVX, but you've succeeded in prolonging my grueling struggle. I do appreciate your response
 
I imagine I will be doing mostly 4:3 perspective work until flat screens make their way into more homes. Is it common knowledge, then, that the DVX beats the XL2 in 4:3 shooting? I'm beggin' for a reason to get the DVX, here...as if the $$, performance, reputation weren't enough.
 
briceman, thanks for the footage. I realised it look it just like film effect. cant tell that its done digitally.
well done
 
briceman said:
Did you see the footage I posted? I'd say it's pretty nice... there's reason enough :)
Click to expand...
I hear you, man. It looked great--shallow depth of field, good color. Did you just use the squeeze mode, or whatever its called?
 
kanoab said:
I hear you, man. It looked great--shallow depth of field, good color. Did you just use the squeeze mode, or whatever its called?
Click to expand...

It was shot on my stock DVX-100 4:3. I cropped it 16:9 in post. Turned out looking really clean.
 
From what I red on the 3 way shoot out by jarred. The dvx is better in low light. I helped video a concert on saturday night, with a fellow dvxuser. Very low light there. But boy that DVX stood up to the evil shadows of darkness.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In short, no. The Sony, with the smallest pixels, offers the lowest latitude of all the cameras, approximately five and a half stops. The XL2 fares a little better, picking up perhaps another half-stop of latitude. The Panasonic is much more sensitive than both of them,with even wider latitude; in our testing the Panasonic was capable of resolving approximately seven stops of latitude, which puts it a stop wider than the XL2 and 1.5 stops wider than the FX1.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]As for sensitivity, it was no contest. The Panasonic is about one stop faster than the XL2 and usually two full stops faster than the FX1, sometimes more. That means that to get equivalent brightness to the Panasonic, you’d need twice as much light for the XL2, and four times as much for the FX1![/FONT]
Click to expand...

I film high school football, would have loved to get the xl2 for the lense length, but I find it best to get on the field and get in the action. Much better highlights. So for lack of being a clumsy oaf, I went dvx. Believe me I wanted xl2 so bad I could taste it. ( I actually had one on order, then cancelled it ) After the camera is bought, That extra grand $$ comes in handy for add-ons.

Maybe coffee's film "Torn" should be based on the decision between the xl2 and dvx. [/FONT]​
 
All glory to new dvx . thats true.
As i tried sony z1 that prove to be disappointing as well,
it just cant perform in the dark, not even matching to pd 170.
 
Kdawg said:
From what I red on the 3 way shoot out by jarred. The dvx is better in low light. I helped video a concert on saturday night, with a fellow dvxuser. Very low light there. But boy that DVX stood up to the evil shadows of darkness.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

I film high school football, would have loved to get the xl2 for the lense length, but I find it best to get on the field and get in the action. Much better highlights. So for lack of being a clumsy oaf, I went dvx. Believe me I wanted xl2 so bad I could taste it. ( I actually had one on order, then cancelled it ) After the camera is bought, That extra grand $$ comes in handy for add-ons.

Maybe coffee's film "Torn" should be based on the decision between the xl2 and dvx. [/FONT]​
Click to expand...
I hadn't checked out page 2 of this thread. You hit on a big dilemma of mine. I'm on the field with my GL2. Highlights can't be beat from any other spot, I feel yuh! I tell myself that I'll use the GL2 up top and utilize its 20x zoom and keep the DVX on the field. Does the DVX have enough reach even from the field, though? I like to get up inside the QB's facemask as he's calling the cadence, you know! I peeped out the XL2 and it felt a bit wierd on my shoulder--wasn't expecting that at all. Love to have that extra $G$ in my pocket, right? I am so perplexed I feel like jumping out my window right now. The cash is burning a hole in my pocket, too!
 
i would have loved an Xl2. I had issues with the Viewfinder, but thats about it. I just happened to buy the DVX before it even came out, so i had no choice at the time.

But if youre doing 4:3 save yourslef a headache and go DVX. Also, the time comes when you need a wide angle lens, and the DVX has a kinda still useable 10X length, but a wider wide angle than most other cameras, with their wideangle adapters put on. ITs just a bit more versatile. If you really need 16:9, theres squeeze mode, and its really not that bad. if you letter box a DVD it is still showing the highest resolution the center ( the part tthe TV scren letterboxes) patch of the screen can show, so on a 4:3 screen youre not "losing" resolution. You may only notice the res drop on 16:9 screens.
 
I hadn't checked out page 2 of this thread. You hit on a big dilemma of mine. I'm on the field with my GL2. Highlights can't be beat from any other spot, I feel yuh! I tell myself that I'll use the GL2 up top and utilize its 20x zoom and keep the DVX on the field. Does the DVX have enough reach even from the field, though? I like to get up inside the QB's facemask as he's calling the cadence, you know! I peeped out the XL2 and it felt a bit wierd on my shoulder--wasn't expecting that at all. Love to have that extra $G$ in my pocket, right? I am so perplexed I feel like jumping out my window right now. The cash is burning a hole in my pocket, too!
Click to expand...

I felt the same way when I was going back and forth with what to buy. Everyday I got on the computer, I would do a search for more information about each camera. Jarred's 3 way shootout article was just fantastic. Was also thinking about High def. In fact I had one of those on order (cancelled it the next day) as well. I was having a hard time sleeping some nights just thinking about it. Its a huge investment.

That XL2 is a bit more professional looking than the DVX IMO. But the more I thought about it the more I enjoyed this website with the vast amount of information here. Lets face it I am not a pro videographer, but If I had a problem or question about settings, there would be a number of people willing to share what they learned. There may be a handfull of people willing to help with the XL2 questions on other websites.

With only a 10x lense for sports. I have learned to get as close to the action I can. Plus zooming any more than that, I just get way too much shake. I have gotten a couple of close calls. ( if I had XL2 I may have gotten hammered being a bit slower) I would still love to have a 20x lense for the crows nest area of each field though. Then I am dependent on the monkey that runs that camera. And a monkey cannot run the xl2.

I just wish I didnt wait to get the DVX till this year. Had a sony TRV70 last year. Even with that running 16:9 everyone was saying "the quality of that camera is incredible" ... umm no actually it sucks :) compared to DVX I now have. So I am hoping to get the best footage this year. (wish I had the HVX) But wish in one hand and sh!t in the other and see which one fills up first.

Anyway I'm sorry to hear of your dilemma, but my last bit of advice is to stay away from windows on tall buildings.
 
I appreciate all the advice from everybody. I think I'm going DVX...Panasonic owes you folks a big pat on the back. You're not all Panasonic employees, are you? lol. I just wanna be part of the family......ahhh shucks, you guys are swell!

p.s. Can someone help a rookie out and tell me what IMHO and IMO are?
 
Kdawg said:
Had a sony TRV70 last year. Even with that running 16:9 everyone was saying "the quality of that camera is incredible" ... umm no actually it sucks :) compared to DVX I now have.
Click to expand...


Haha TRV70!!! THey rule.... i love mine. I use it to do cut away 30P and 60i intended for slomo. ANd yes people do say it looks incradible. then htey see DVX, and they say, Hey somethigns different... that look like a movie.**


*THATS 24P FOOLS!
 
TimurCivan said:
then htey see DVX, and they say, Hey somethigns different... that look like a movie.**
*THATS 24P FOOLS!
Click to expand...

haha that's the only way people can ever describe it "it looks like a movie!"

I'm sure panasonic has put some sort of brainwashing gas into all our dvxs or something...
 
RyanT said:
haha that's the only way people can ever describe it "it looks like a movie!"
Click to expand...
I've gotten that exact reaction also. I love it when that happens. :love4:

The DVX has the mojo. I faced a similar decision over a year ago, went DVX and never looked back. Never regretted it.

The DVX looks like a blunt instrument, but it produces beautiful images. I've grown to appreciate the form factor for my kind of doc-style shooting. I wish it was native 16x9, but 24p and CineGamma rocks.

DVXUser played a role in my decision. This community is a wonderful resource. I feel I've gotten more out of my DVX than I would've an XL2 or Z1 because of this place!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top