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

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

I would get neither camera these days.

I would get the A1. $3500. HDV. 24p.

(actually $3500 with a $250 mail in rebate right now at B&H)

Below the HVX in that price range their really isn't much of a battle compared to that between an DVX and an XL2.

Now there's enough resolution difference to make an argument about, with 24p, and the form factor of a DVX.

Yeah it's HDV, not HD, but you are not comparing it to an HVX you are comparing it to DVX and XL2 and if you are like me, then you are wondering why we are even having this conversation anymore.

Again its HDV not HD, but I'd still take that over miniDV any day. And just look at this A1 (mostly) footy.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=115057

 

[Huy Vu]

Again its HDV not HD, but I'd still take that over miniDV any day. And just look at this A1 (mostly) footy.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=115057

HDV is HD, just look at the resolution. You might not like the codec but HDV is not "fake" HD in any sense of the word; there's been a little too much of this "it's not HD unless it's DVCPROHD" going around. And I believe numerous tests have confirmed that the A1 delivers comparable resolution to the HVX in 1080 24F mode, and higher res in 60i mode.

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

If anyone is arguing that HDV is not the same resoultion as HD I'd like to see that post because that's retarded.

You quoted me but you did not take my meaning. If you buy a XLH1 or a HVX its called an HD camera in the catalogue. If you buy an A1 it's called an HDV camera.

It would therefore be accurate to say it's HDV not HD.

It would not be accurate to claim that one is 1080 lines and the other is something else.

Does anyone really make that argument or claim. What I've seen is that they argue that you get undesirable artifacting because of the more intense compression. So that's that debate. And that's the distinction I was making - that it's not the same and some people say its not as good as HD (meaning that which camera companies have called HD for short hand though they are both 1080).

I was trying to avoid that debate, which I care nothing about and have no experience or data on, by saying lets not even compare "HD" and HDV (the terms the market place uses), and trying to avoid someone coming in and saying yeah but HDV sucks ....

I was saying, lets compare HDV at 24p to DV 24p at about the same price. that was my meaning. Not HDV is not the same resolution as HD or good or better or worse, just that its not in the category of cameras that have "HD" after their names in catalogues.

HDV cameras cost less than HD cameras. Why? Not resolution but codec and amount of compression. Which does make a difference. Which is why people pay $ and void their warranties to have uncompressed HD come out of their HVXes.

- Does MiniDV suck? No.
- Is HDV better than MiniDV? For me, I would say yes. A few compression purists might say no because they believe you get more artifacting. But if this exists i think no one will probably ever notice and that would be a small trade off for the resolution and how much more you can push even HDV footage in post vs MiniDV
- Is HDV more compressed than HD? Yes.
- Is it lower resolution? No.

So back to my point ... unless you are crazy in love with DVX gamma. Why would you but 24p SD camera for about what you could get a 24pHDV camera for? The only reason(s) I'd by a DVX over an A1 would be the support material.

 

[Huy Vu]

You quoted me but you did not take my meaning. If you buy a XLH1 or a HVX its called an HD camera in the catalogue. If you buy an A1 it's called an HDV camera.

It would therefore be accurate to say it's HDV not HD.

Jack, here is a quote directly from the Canon website regarding the XH-A1

"Your Vision...in High Definition

For the professional and serious non-professional alike, the XH A1 combines a wealth of features with the outstanding performance of a 3 CCD, High Definition camcorder."

Canon calls it a High-definition, or HD camcorder. This is the description that I've read in all the dealer site and the B&H catalog. And yes, I'm aware that if you do a search on the B&H site the A1 shows up as an HDV camcorder and the XLH1 doesn't. Still, you have to read the description because that bit of summary is completely arbitrary.

We have to define the correct term here. I'm sure you already know this but HD is a standard of resolution, not a codec. HDV at 1440 x 1080 delivers that resolution and so it is by definition an HD codec. There's no distinction to be made here.

I was saying, lets compare HDV at 24p to DV 24p at about the same price. that was my meaning. Not HDV is not the same resolution as HD or good or better or worse, just that its not in the category of cameras that have "HD" after their names in catalogues.

There's the misunderstanding, but your statement is ripe for misinterpretation. The term "HD" is misleading to begin with. The XL-H1 is an HDV camera that delivers the same resolution as the A1 (think of the A1 as the H1-lite) but it's billed as HD while the A1 is not. The HVX technically does not qualify as a "Full HD" camera (1920 x1080) either because it uses pixel shift, but it's billed as an HD camera anyway. That's advertising at work. And who knows, maybe somebody at the Canon marketing department got lazy and forget to put High Definition in the A1's description. You're banking on that to say that the A1's HDV isn't "HD". That's what I was responding to because it's easy for people to take that as HDV being "fake" HD.

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

you do get that I'm saying the A1 is a good buy right?:grin:

 

[Kevin Lee]

you do get that I'm saying the A1 is a good buy right?:grin:

I never thought you were saying any different. MacGregor used this for your latest short didnt he?

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

Nossir.

Similo was DVX And the stuff I have done with Mac is as follows:

18 Seconds - HVX 200
Engagement - RED1
A Little Mouth to Feed - HVX 200
Unawakening - HPX 500

EDIT: Maybe you are thinking of his Sony? When we did 18 Seconds on my HVX we shot 2 music videos and some spec commercials on his Sony.

 

[Kevin Lee]

I was thinking that MacGregor did his kinetica commercial on the A1, so since he was your DP... "but I could be wrong, its been known to happen.... from time to time." (If you can tell me what movie that is from you get an A+)

 

[HelloEvo]

My first choice was the XH-A1, but the problem is I won't be shooting any documentaries, or weddings, or anything of that sort. I'll only be working on films (shorts for now) so I don't really need HD, and plus not a lot of people I know can watch HD stuff anyways. The XH-A1 is definitely still an option though, I just don't know if it's what I'm looking for though.

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

I was thinking that MacGregor did his kinetica commercial on the A1, so since he was your DP... "but I could be wrong, its been known to happen.... from time to time." (If you can tell me what movie that is from you get an A+)

Hey I think you may be right. But we have never used one on a project together.

My first choice was the XH-A1, but the problem is I won't be shooting any documentaries, or weddings, or anything of that sort. I'll only be working on films (shorts for now) so I don't really need HD, and plus not a lot of people I know can watch HD stuff anyways. The XH-A1 is definitely still an option though, I just don't know if it's what I'm looking for though.

It makes a difference even on the internet. And it makes a difference for color correction.

Look at my first three shorts on DVX on my website
Shed - Anamorphic Adaptor / DVX
ODD SQUAD - 35mm Adaptor DVX
Bonehand - 35mm Adaptor DVX

then see my HVX shorts:
Rekindled and Schittekatter, HVX + 35mm adaptor, and there is definitly a difference

18 Seconds - don't count that one for comparison, Mac shot it so and he could shoot on a Pixelvision and look better than when I shoot.

You can push the footage more in post for one thing before it starts to fall apart.

Also ... I hear you on the "need" HD for weddings or what not, I am assuming you mean for marketability, but you are forgetting that your films ideally will not always be shown on the internet.

HD footage looks much better projected even from an SD source.

For me as a filmmaker, who will never touch a wedding if I can help it, the resolution is a key factor. I've had SD shorts and HD shorts of mine projected in screenings and it makes a big difference even though both were projected off of miniDV tape.

So maybe you say you don't "need" HD, but again its a big advantage it looks better on SD DVD's, better projected, and its better to do post with.

So why not get it if the price is comparable? It's not like it will cost another $3500 all in like an HVX would with cards etc. And you will have it.

If I hadn't won my HVX I could never afford one. So if I was buying a first camera again like I did in July of 2005, I would walk straight for the A1. And that would be solely to make movies for the internet and standard def DVD with a very small chance that I might need to blow something up one day ... and I wouldn't be pining for an HVX or for an upgrade, I would be happy with the A1 for my current stage and be set for the next stage when I might have to worry about a film transfer or blow up.


My 2¢.

 

[HelloEvo]

Hey I think you may be right. But we have never used one on a project together.




It makes a difference even on the internet. And it makes a difference for color correction.

Look at my first three shorts on DVX on my website
Shed - Anamorphic Adaptor / DVX
ODD SQUAD - 35mm Adaptor DVX
Bonehand - 35mm Adaptor DVX

then see my HVX shorts:
Rekindled and Schittekatter, HVX + 35mm adaptor, and there is definitly a difference

18 Seconds - don't count that one for comparison, Mac shot it so and he could shoot on a Pixelvision and look better than when I shoot.

You can push the footage more in post for one thing before it starts to fall apart.

Also ... I hear you on the "need" HD for weddings or what not, I am assuming you mean for marketability, but you are forgetting that your films ideally will not always be shown on the internet.

HD footage looks much better projected even from an SD source.

For me as a filmmaker, who will never touch a wedding if I can help it, the resolution is a key factor. I've had SD shorts and HD shorts of mine projected in screenings and it makes a big difference even though both were projected off of miniDV tape.

So maybe you say you don't "need" HD, but again its a big advantage it looks better on SD DVD's, better projected, and its better to do post with.

So why not get it if the price is comparable? It's not like it will cost another $3500 all in like an HVX would with cards etc. And you will have it.

If I hadn't won my HVX I could never afford one. So if I was buying a first camera again like I did in July of 2005, I would walk straight for the A1. And that would be solely to make movies for the internet and standard def DVD with a very small chance that I might need to blow something up one day ... and I wouldn't be pining for an HVX or for an upgrade, I would be happy with the A1 for my current stage and be set for the next stage when I might have to worry about a film transfer or blow up.


My 2¢.

Thanks for all the help man. Actually, I don't think we plan on putting any of the films on the internet, maybe I'll throw them on here for you guys, but the internet is definitely not our ideal place to share our films. My XL2 just came today, but I'm SERIOUSLY contemplating sending it back for the XH-A1.

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

Do it. Do it.

miniDV color space 4:0:0
HDV color space 4:2:0
(DvcPro HD 4:2:2)

Better colorspace. More resolution. Comparible price. Easier form factor.

And you will never use the interchangeable lenses of the XL2 unless you want to spend enough to buy whole 'nother camera.

Esp if you think you will ever use 35mm adaptors. Easier on DVX, HVX, A1.

 

[HelloEvo]

Do it. Do it.

miniDV color space 4:0:0
HDV color space 4:2:0
(DvcPro HD 4:2:2)

Better colorspace. More resolution. Comparible price. Easier form factor.

And you will never use the interchangeable lenses of the XL2 unless you want to spend enough to buy whole 'nother camera.

Esp if you think you will ever use 35mm adaptors. Easier on DVX, HVX, A1.

Alright well as you probably already know, my cousin has a pretty big influence on my decision, and what he told me when I brought up the A1 was "To me, it doesn't matter about the quality of the picture, it's about telling the story the right way" and I think he really believes it's easier to do that with the XL2 for some reason. He also said "If I want to buy something, I'd want to get the best of whatever it is, and the A1 is like the baby of HD cameras, and the XL2 is a top class minidv camera". Now, because of my inexperience (I am as new as they come right now), I really don't know what to say to something like that. He also said since I'm so new to this, I can learn more from the XL2 than I can with the XH-A1.

 

[Spartacus]

HelloEvo,
the XL2 is great.
All of the cams mentioned in this thread are great.
Just shoot and practise, this will make your images better - not the 10th thread on "which camera is better"...
No offence, but judging from your threads and posts, you wouldn´t even benefit much from a RED...
Take your XL - light, expose, focus, frame and shoot!
And maybe you should take some time off from your cousin...

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

Your cousin is right that its should be about telling the story.

But why not have the best most versatile tool you can afford?

It's just better than DV.

It's not a baby HD camera. Its an intermediate class. But I think obsoletes the XL2 and DVX (as potential purchases, but not as legitimate tools in and of themselves).

You can tell a story on 16mm film or 35mm film. I don't know that any of these cameras have cache on better story telling. And i would say for me, it would be harder to do with the XL2, harder to hold, more demanding of a tripod, etc. You get less of the advantages of DV.

I've seen Mac do amazing stuff hand holding an HVX at his waist and using a 35mm adaptor with no rails. Lots of 18 Seconds was shot like that. Including sneaking it into an airport bathroom.

So as for "somehow easier to tell the story" with an XL2, I would say its probably easier to tell the story with an easier form factor that will let you shoot geurilla more often (looking prosumer is a good thing for guerilla filmaking), easier to hold and shoot with (you can fake big and bulky for cinema style camera movement, but you can't fake light and easy to handle), better color space which will let you push it a tad further in post (DV really starts to break down fast), and more resolution (again more possibilities in post, your SD DVD's will look better, and you will be ready to digitally project or for film blow up). So I would say those factors would make it easier to tell the story.

You're hearing this from a guy for whom the DVX changed his life. People are paying me to work on my own films now, I've won and HVX etc. So I am pretty Panny brand loyal. Getting an XL2 for me would be likiing selling my grandmother for a buck. BUT ... If I hadn't lucked into an HVX, I would have sold my DVX and used the money towards purchase of an A1 and I would not feel like i was missing anything from, or couldn't compete with an HVX or XLH1, or HVX500 or Varicam. If you have $7k get an HVX. If you have $3.5K get an A1 and feel good about it.

If the A1 was just marketed as SUPER DV then it would clearly be seen as the best DV camera rather than a baby HD camera.

But compare it to to the HVX ... same resolution, slightly inferior colorspace, 24p, then a bunch of presets and manual controls. You cannot do vairable frame rates, and you have a codec with slightly inferior color space (but still better color space than DV) so ... I don't think of it as Baby HD, just a 3rd option from SD, and HD, and a beter one than SD, IMHO.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

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.

I disagree. But debating further would be moot.

 

[penst]

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.

Back to the original questions...
I still wish I had my XL2 for many reasons, some subjective to personal preferences and bias as others have expressed. I've used both but never owned a DVX but compared the DVX and XL2 quite a bit and went with the XL2 at the time for SD.

Once I got through all the pros and cons of each I went with the XL2 because of form factor alone. I have an HVX now and though a little beefier than the DVX I still absolutly hate the form factor and design of their small cams. To me, they're more like a toy cam in how you shoot with them. Though they work great they kind of slap stuff on the main body as an afterthought as well. As an aside sort of related to this...I've yet to have anyone at an event think I was with a news crew while using a Panny. I think as a newbie the XL2 might possible force you to learn to shoot/frame better initially rather than pick up all the bad habits you can with the Panny or even the Canon GL/G1/A1 form factor?
Steve

 

[Huy Vu]

I've yet to have anyone at an event think I was with a news crew while using a Panny. I think as a newbie the XL2 might possible force you to learn to shoot/frame better initially rather than pick up all the bad habits you can with the Panny or even the Canon GL/G1/A1 form factor?
Steve

It's funny because I've had plenty of people asking me if I was with the local news station when I was using the FX1, which has a similar form factor to the A1/DVX.

I don't really see what "bad habits" you're talking about. I've had opportunities to handle an XL2 and I think it's still too small to be used as a shoulder-mounted cam. I actually just saw one today next to the A1 at my local Fry's and I was surprised that it didn't look that much bigger. If you're planning on doing film then you probably want the camera on a tripod a lot of times anyway. None of these cameras, including the XL2 are balanced well for hand-held work in my experience. They're too light and the center of gravity is too skewed.

 

[Elton]

So much debatable minutiae in this thread, but I think Jack is dead on about the A1. It's easily the most bang-for-the-buck when you consider it can be had for around $3K.

HDV 24F is a valuable feature for any filmmaker who might someday distribute their film or program in HD. (HD-DVD or Blu Ray)

Wal Mart and some other big box stores recently sold HD-DVD players for $99. Mainstream demand for HD content is going to explode now.

I've transferred a great deal of H1 and A1 24F material to HD-DVD and played them on 1080p sets and I can tell you that it delivers the goods. If you downconvert to DV and play the same footage on a 1080p set the difference is plainly obvious. And btw, the HDTV industry is moving quickly to 1080p at almost every pricepoint. Just go to Costco and see what I mean.

HDV 24F has 720x540 chroma information. DV by comparison has 180 x 480. Beyond spatial resolution arguments, the fact that there is so much more color acquired in 24F HDV makes it practically a no-brainer. It's an HDV format that's quite artifact resistant and it's just more information to work with.

Look at the HD results Disjecta gets with his A1 and a Letus adapter.