I wish I could find an unbiased opinion on "XL2 vs. DVX100B"

H

HelloEvo

Member
It seems like everywhere I turn, someone is trying to sway me a particular way. DVX owners say the DVX can't be touched, and XL2 owners say the same thing. I understand that this is a DVX forum but I don't know of anywhere else to post about this kinda stuff. Basically, I already ordered the XL2 from buydig.com, and it should be here within the next couple of days, but I have 30 days to return it, so that's not a problem. If anyone here can offer an UNBIASED opinion (IE you have used both of the cameras but don't own any of them) I would GREATLY appreciate it. I was planning on going with the XH-A1, but I sliced that out of my options.
 
I've never used either but from the footage:

XL2 is higher resolution.

DVX100b has better color and looks more filmic.

This is obviously subjective. The XL2 has the shoulder-mount factor and it looks cooler (also subjective).
 
If I'm correct, the XL2 has no LCD monitor. It's a shoulder cam with a black and white viewfinder. I think.

Either way, anyone serious about their shoot (and not on a run-n-gun documentary or something) would use a nice external monitor anyway.

Really, really, really, it cannot be stressed enough...what do you want to do with it? Internet Short Films? Festival Short Films? Features? 35mm blowups? Documentaries? Sports? News? Weddings?
 
ffaf07 is correct, what exactly are you planning to do with the camera ?

The DVX100 simply just produces a better image when all things are equal; the gamma, the cadence, all of it.

I have taken some flak for that statement, but you show me the best XL2 footy out there and I'll show 5 more produced by the DVX100.
 
J.R. Hudson said:
I have taken some flak for that statement, but you show me the best XL2 footy out there and I'll show 5 more produced by the DVX100.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry John but I just have to jump in here. That proves what, exactly? That more people have the DVX than the XL2? I've seen great stuff on the XL2 and I've seen great stuff on the DVX, but I honestly have not been able to say that one camera is definitively better than the other. The only test that might convince me is if the two cameras are shot side by side under the same lighting conditions for something that's not a test. In other words show me a scene that's shot, lit and cut identically using each camera (and done well) and I might be able to form a personal opinion based on the image alone. But to take sample A from the XL2 and compare it to sample B from the DVX is just apple to oranges.
 
I don't think the following is really hotly debated anymore.:
 - DVX better color and film curve. Native 4:3, not as cool as native 16X9
- XL2 higher resolution and something better with the sound, either inputs or something , I forget which. Native 16X9.

Some people say screw color and film curves I am going with higher resolution and I can get nice colors and enhance the gamma in post. I can't add resolution in post, I can change the S curves. Valid viewpoint.

Some people say the image is more organic and pleasing when captured in camera and resolution is less important. Valid viewpoint.

I don't really think any of that is hotly debated by either side anymore.

...


BUT.

Here are the biggest features you get with a DVX that you don't get to the same degree with an XL2.
- Barry Green's Book and DVD
- Internet Access to Barry Green
- the largest forum with tons of members who own your camera and are willing to help you with it.

I love the color and cine-gama of the DVX and consider that to be very very important, and like John - the defining aspect of the camera ... but even so, the most important / best features of the camera are not made in a Panasonic factory.



-
 
Last edited:
What exactly is an 'unbiased opinion'?
Aren't opinions biased by virtue of the fact that they are... you know, opinions?
:)

I don't think you're going to be able to get away from people's personal biases on these sorts of issues.
 
ffaf07 said:
If I'm correct, the XL2 has no LCD monitor. It's a shoulder cam with a black and white viewfinder. I think.

Either way, anyone serious about their shoot (and not on a run-n-gun documentary or something) would use a nice external monitor anyway.

Really, really, really, it cannot be stressed enough...what do you want to do with it? Internet Short Films? Festival Short Films? Features? 35mm blowups? Documentaries? Sports? News? Weddings?
Click to expand...
We'll be making festival shorts. I'll be doing it with a partner (for now) who has a DVX100A. I am trying to get a nice 35mm look. The mini35 is what I want but it's way too expensive. I was thinking Brevis or redrock, but that mini35 is just so nice. I haven't looked into any homemade adapters so i don't know how those work.
 
Luis Caffesse said:
What exactly is an 'unbiased opinion'?
Aren't opinions biased by virtue of the fact that they are... you know, opinions?
:)

I don't think you're going to be able to get away from people's personal biases on these sorts of issues.
Click to expand...

haha good ole' catch 22...What I mean by unbiased is an opinion that's not swayed by ignorance.
 
Having used both the DVX and XL2 extensively, I personally think that the DVX is more versatile. It's cheaper, and it's a smaller camera, meaning it's easier to get into tight spaces. The XL2 of course is a nice camera, but i find it's color saturation to be a bit unnatural out of the box, although it can be tweaked with your own adjustments. However, as many have said here, the DVX image just has a certain appeal to it. There's a reason why people have bothered to create a 'Panalook' setting for use with the XH-A1
 
I say we look deep into Jack's question. If we answer that one, we will change the world!

Slippy.jpg
 
Well, I'm someone who's used both the DVX100A and the XL1S (which I know is not the same as the XL2, but it's as close as I've gotten), but my opinion is swayed somewhat by the fact that I primarily use them in event situations rather than for filmmaking. :) In that respect, I choose the XL1S when I need a shoulder-mounted camera (we have the big shoulderpad/mic input adapter for it), and the DVX when I need to be on a tripod (because of the flip-out LCD). This is going to be fundamentally the same with the XL2, I believe (I know Canon now bills the viewfinder as being "EVF/LCD convertible," but it's only 2", for cryin' out loud. That's worse than the 2.5" on the GL2, which is already too small after you get used to the 3.5" on the DVX). The other big advantage that I see in the XL2 for events, the 20X zoom, is probably a lot less important in filmmaking.

(And not to argue with the esteemed JDS :), but actually I'd give the advantage in the audio department to the DVX. Mic/line switchable XLR's with phantom power... gotta love it. The XL2 does give you the option of going 4-channel with four mics if you use the MA300 mic adapter, but every time I tried to use 4-channel audio on the XL1S I goofed it up. :D )

What I'd suggest to you, HelloEvo (and this is hardly sage-like wisdom :) ), is shoot something with that XL2 the minute you get it, preferably shooting the same thing with your friend's DVX side-by-side, and then sit down and compare the footage. As someone once said, "it's the only way to be sure." :)
 
J.R. Hudson said:
I wonder why that is ? Why would more people own a DVX than an XL2 ? Hmmmm . :undecided :lipsrseal
Click to expand...

Personally, I think it's brand loyalty, it's got little to do with which camera is better. The DVX dominates the 24p scene long before the XL2 come out, and the XL2 simply fails to incorporate significant improvements at a competitive price. I believe street price for an XL2 was $4-5k when it came out, while the DVX is around $3500. People simply consider the upgrades (native 16:9, longer zoom, interchangeable lenses etc.) to not be worth the extra costs, and so they prefer to stick with their trusty DVX. If the XL2 had came out at a $3500 price point, then maybe the situation would have been much different.
 
jade8472 said:
Personally, I think it's brand loyalty, it's got little to do with which camera is better. The DVX dominates the 24p scene long before the XL2 come out, and the XL2 simply fails to incorporate significant improvements at a competitive price. I believe street price for an XL2 was $4-5k when it came out, while the DVX is around $3500. People simply consider the upgrades (native 16:9, longer zoom, interchangeable lenses etc.) to not be worth the extra costs, and so they prefer to stick with their trusty DVX. If the XL2 had came out at a $3500 price point, then maybe the situation would have been much different.
Click to expand...

Since the XL2 is $3500 with a $300 rebate, I figure I may use the rebate money to buy "Hollywood Camera Works"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top