So I just bought a XL1s....

Rylan Zolinski

Rylan Zolinski

Well-known member
I got it for $2000 with only 20 hours on it and it has not arrived here yet. I thought it was a good deal until I actually started to read more into the XL1s. I read messages saying that it's way too outdated, the performance is crap, performs like a cheap camera, etc. etc.

So here is my question. Did I just waste $2000? Can I actually expect to get some beautiful images and footage or is this camera basically bunk? I feel like I just flushed my money down the toilet after reading some info.
 
I own a XL1s and a manual lens and I'd hate to admit it it but it is a little outdated. Now in saying that... it doesn't mean you can't get great looking images. The XL1s loves day light and over cast light... night footage however is very "noisy" in the black areas. If you want a good example of what a XL1s can do just watch 28 Days Later (I admit they used some expensive lenses and had full on lighting setups). If it's well lit... it will look good.

Don't get discouraged though, people still make movies on worst cameras. If your content is good, your framing, your lighting then lower resolution won't matter so much. I would recommend the manual lens though, it works and looks a lot better then the stock lens. Also be careful of boasting the gain in low light situations it will start to look really grainy. PM me if you have any more questions.
 
Yeah, it's kind of out of date unfortunatly. For shooting standard definition, you really should be going for an DVX100B or an XL2 which is better than the XL1 in just about every way. If you're willing to spend a bit more HD cameras like the Panasonic HVX200, JVCH100, or Canon XLH1 are all much better.

The XL1 isn't a bad camera; it's just not the camera it once was.
 
Luckily the person that I am buying the camera from, actually has an XL2 also for sale. What kind of quality can I expect out of an XL2? People on here (I know it's dvxuser.com) say it's still not up to par with the DVX100B. Is this true? I am actually going to take that XL2 instead of the XL1s.
 
Yes get the XL2 over the XL1s... It's a lot higher resolution. Also you get XLR inputs right off the bat, which is great if use want to you external mics. I have heard the XL2 is a little less "sturdie" and "professional" feeling than the XL-1s.

There are a few threads going on the XL2 versus the DVX that you could check out if you do a search.
 
Hey Morox, I at present use the XL1s.... it does produce fairly nice images... after some post though....(cc). I am not too sure on these specs, you could do a search and find out for sure, but I think the XL1s has like 280K effective pixels per CCD, compared to the XL2's 670K effective per CCD.... so you can pretty much do the math and find out that the XL2 will give about 3X the picture over the XL1s.

I am looking to upgrade my camera within the next couple of months and i've decided that JVC's HD Cams are the right fit for my needs..... I am presently debating whether i should wait for the HD200 or just get an HD110 with some extras for a decent price.

Well...... I think that if you went with the XL2 you wouldn't be disappointed, i think the XL1s has lived its life.....

good luck on your decision !!

Cheers,
 
Good you went for the XL2, it´s the best SD camera you can get for the money (IMHO !!!), if you need 16x9 that is...
Most people on DVXuser will probably disagree, but only few of them have actually used both the Dvx AND the XL2.
I have and the XL2 paid for our two HVXs...
You really need to know what your doing of course, search for Ash G´s post they help you a lot...
 
Morox said:
Luckily the person that I am buying the camera from, actually has an XL2 also for sale. What kind of quality can I expect out of an XL2? People on here (I know it's dvxuser.com) say it's still not up to par with the DVX100B. Is this true? I am actually going to take that XL2 instead of the XL1s.
Click to expand...

It depends who you ask. Both are very popular and considered to be the two best SD cameras in their price range. The XL2 is going to give you a sharper image in 16x9. The DVX100 is going to give you a sharper image in 4:3. The XL2 has the option of removible lenses but many who use it find they can't afford them (often more than the camera costs) and ultimatly it's kind of a moot point. The DVX has higher lattitude (range of lights to darks the camera can record) and is a full stop more sensative (needs less light). The XL2 on the other hand is a bit less noisey when you add gain (electronically brighten the image which I try not to do ever). Finally, there is the "film look." Both cameras have true 24p motion. Many feel (and this is of course subjective), that the DVX does the film look a bit better (part because of higher lattidue and part because of better gamma and colors). Other XL2 users claim then can get the exact same look from their XL2. It just depends who you ask. There's also the form factor to consider. Some like the XL2's weird shape while others, like me, hate it. The bottom line is that both are good options. Look around the boards and find which one produces footage that you think looks nicer.
 
NorthernFilmMaker said:
Hey Morox, I at present use the XL1s.... it does produce fairly nice images... after some post though....(cc). I am not too sure on these specs, you could do a search and find out for sure, but I think the XL1s has like 280K effective pixels per CCD, compared to the XL2's 670K effective per CCD.... so you can pretty much do the math and find out that the XL2 will give about 3X the picture over the XL1s.,
Click to expand...

The XL2's CCD is actually 518,400 picels, not 670,000. Also, all that is going to be sampled to a 345,600 pixel image on the tape. They are still much better CCDs (1/3 over 1/4) but I'm not sure if 3x is quite accurate.
 
Actually, to be precise, XL2 scans about 460,000 pixels per sensor in widescreen mode (960x480) which is then downsampled to standard 720x480 DV resolution. The result is not only sharper, more detailed image, but also better resistance to aliasing and moire artifacts and all that matters more than numbers. Each sensor has total of 680,000 pixels, but areas beyond 16:9 frame are not active, so who cares about that. What matters is the best in class image quality in widescreen. In 4:3 it goes hand to hand with DVX.

20x zoom is very powerful and comes with the best image stabilizer in the class which will expand your possibilities.

Bottom line: XL2 is as good as it gets in widescreen MiniDV. If you are not jumping HD wagon yet, XL2 will give you the max you can get in SD in this price range.
 
Just for confirmation, I just bought the XL2. I don't know if I got a decent deal on it or not... I got it for $3000 with under 8 hours on it and a brand new Sony tripod that came with it. What do you think?

Anyways, the XL2 isn't classified as "outdated" yet, is it?
 
XL2 is definitely not outdated cam. It will serve you well. SD will stay with us for a while, and widescreen DVDs made with XL2's footage look beautiful.

$3k is not a bad deal. I'd probably try to bring it down by two or three hundred, but $3k is OK. Brand new would cost you a grand more (including tax).
 
The XL2 is not outdated. It and the DVX100B are THE SD cameras to use in their price range. You should be very happy with it for your purposes. There is the danger it will be out of date if everyone goes HD but I don't think that will be for a while.

Bogdan said:
Actually, to be precise, XL2 scans about 460,000 pixels per sensor in widescreen mode (960x480) which is then downsampled to standard 720x480 DV resolution. The result is not only sharper, more detailed image, but also better resistance to aliasing and moire artifacts and all that matters more than numbers. Each sensor has total of 680,000 pixels, but areas beyond 16:9 frame are not active, so who cares about that. What matters is the best in class image quality in widescreen. In 4:3 it goes hand to hand with DVX.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that the CCDs were 960x540 which doesn't add up to 680,000 unless I'm worse at math than I think I am (very possible).
 
The chips in XL2 are seriously oversized with 680k pixels on each sensor. Active (scanned) area in widescreen includes 960x480 (460,800) pixels and in fullscreen 720x480 (345,600 pixels).
Actually the whole sensor is about 1/2" size, but what matters to us is what we get out of that in 16:9 and 4:3.
 
The whole sensor is 1/3" sized. It uses a smaller subset for 16:9, and then a smaller subset of that for 4:3.

You get the equivalent of a 1/3.3" size for 16:9, and a 1/4" size for 4:3.
 
Like I said, sensor's total size does not matter as much as size of active area. Good thing is in widescreen XL2 offers a little bit wider horizontal angle of view when compared against XL1 or XL1s with the same lens attached.
 
Last edited:
jeremytuttle said:
I have heard the XL2 is a little less "sturdie" and "professional" feeling than the XL-1s.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... I'm going to have to disagree to this. I picked up an XL2 about two weeks ago, and for work I usually shoot on an XL1s. The XL2 is a monster. It's very big, heavy, and has that "pro" look to it that my clients love to see. It goes perfectly with my dvx100a, because now I have the best of both worlds (of SD, of course). It has MANY features which I was not aware of when buying it, and the true 16:9 along with a 20x ZOOM LENS makes it a wonderful camera. I'll still shoot music vids and shorts with the DVX (probably), but I'll definitely have the xl2 set up with full matte box and rails just to impress the client. Yeah, it sucks that that's what it take's to impress a client, but it's true. People like to see bigass heavy equipment because that automatically means the best quality... in their eye's, of course.

Actaully, today will be my first experience using it on a paying gig, so we'll see how it goes.

-brown
 
Yeah, I own an XL2 now, whereas previously, I owned a DVX100A. I must say, I really enjoy the native 16:9 functions as well as simple and effective CC presets available by the push of a button...The XL2 is significantly bigger and "bulkier" than the DVX series, but once you get used to it, it actually becomes quite natural, much like shooting handheld with Beta or DV Cam. With the 20x lens also, its great for nature videography, or a heightened DOF effect, either way I just love this cam.
 
Have to agree with Mr Brown on camera size matters... sad but true. What I do is make sure whenever anyone sees my cam its fully loaded ... rails/mattebox etc etc and then they couldnt tell a DVX from a erm something bigger. In SD the DVX just had better colors IMO (I watched a lot of footage and shot a friends short with a XL2).

As your already buying an XL1 or 2 listen to the users.

Not important here but the cam people loves to see fully decked out is the JVC HD100... people are always trying to get a look at it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top