Cannon Gl2

Brett

Brett

Well-known member
Im looking in investing on a new camera. I have used cheap handheld sony cameras to make small short films. I have been looking at the Cannon GL2.. would this be a good camera to make high quality film looking footage? if not let me know of some other cameras I may need to look at, with a decent budget. thanks
 
Brett said:
well I have posted a new thread. debating on Gl2 or HV20. my budget is 2 grand.
Click to expand...

You can do much better than a GL2 for 2 grand. The question is are you planning to blow the entire thing on the camera or do you want to save some cash for accessories.

2 grand can get you a used DVX100A with some left over cash or a 100B. A HV20 gives good image but poor manual control, but leaves you with over a grand for audio and other stuff.
 
well the maual control with me isnt a BIG issue as long as the image looks great, my big thing is whats the best I can get that I will be happy with, im going to need audio also maybe a shotgun mic. and a tripod.
 
Dont buy a Gl2, buy a DVX. The sole factor that the DVX has the option to shoot 24p makes it better than the Gl2. Unless you are saving a lot of money on the GL2..... They both have comparable image quality.
 
If you plan on using the cam strictly with an adapter then the HV20 is your best bet. Use the rest of the cash to get yourself some accessories. PQ is already there and it's HD (if that means anything to you).
 
The 3-CCD sensor on the GL2 kicks the snot out of the 1-CMOS HV20.

I wouldn't even try for HD under 2grand. The compression is so high you're better off shooting in SD anyway.

If you're looking at possibly doing commercial work, stick with the GL2. If film is your only thrust then go with a 24p cam.
 
ProfessorU said:
The 3-CCD sensor on the GL2 kicks the snot out of the 1-CMOS HV20.

I wouldn't even try for HD under 2grand. The compression is so high you're better off shooting in SD anyway.
Click to expand...

The HV20 uses the same HDV compression as the $3500 XH-A1, the $6000 G1 and the $8000 XL-H1. It works the same way.

And no, 3 chips doesn't necessarily mean better. You'll find numerous reports on here that HV20 footage are comparable to DVX footage in term of color reproduction. Latitude is obviously somewhat less but the GL2 will hardly "kick the snot" out of the HV20.
 
I used a GL2 for years, and it's a great camera, but if you want "high quality film looking footage" then the DVX is what you want. And you can get a used one pretty cheap these days. I paid $1,680 for a used DVX100 (original) last September, and the 100B has gone down in price since, so they're probably worth even less now, though not worthless. Just lurk around the marketplace section on this forum and you'll soon find a great deal.
 
I'm not a fan of any 25Mbps HD, including the Canon and JVC cams that shoot to tape. Doing any real FX or color correction on that footage will make it almost unwatchable.
Far better to go with a DVX and when you make the jump to HVX you've got some cross-compatible accessories.
 
ProfessorU said:
I'm not a fan of any 25Mbps HD, including the Canon and JVC cams that shoot to tape. Doing any real FX or color correction on that footage will make it almost unwatchable.
Far better to go with a DVX and when you make the jump to HVX you've got some cross-compatible accessories.
Click to expand...

That's just theory, and it's a theory that's been long disproven. I've done extensive color correction on HDV footage and it's held up like a champ. The DV codec on the DVX is 4:1:1 in any case which is hardly better than the 4:2:0 of HDV. And as for "real FX" you can check out Marlon Torres' "Celeste" short film which utilizes extensive FX.
 
I had the GL2 for 3 years and was never really happy with it. I then upgraded to a DVX100B and all around it beat the GL2 in everything. I have shot with the GL2, VX2000/2100, DVX100A/B, XL1s/2, XHA1, and the Z1U. The GL2 in my experience produces the least pleasing image out of all of it 3CCD DV/HDV contendors.
 
I'm finding the GL2 to be a great "event" camera (which is good since that's why I went with it :) ), but to me there's something about its look that just screams "video." And admittedly I'm shooting completely auto with it and not trying to tweak any settings, but with the DVX, even shooting auto, there's something film-like about it.
 
Captain Pierce said:
I'm finding the GL2 to be a great "event" camera (which is good since that's why I went with it :) ), but to me there's something about its look that just screams "video." And admittedly I'm shooting completely auto with it and not trying to tweak any settings, but with the DVX, even shooting auto, there's something film-like about it.
Click to expand...

I agree with the above, auto from the DVX looks great compared to the GL2. I am not sure why you would consider the GL2 a great event camera though, because it's 1/4" chips and has a Lux of 6, so it's not as good in low light or indoors as the VX2100.
 
Well, I may be using the term "event" differently than standard--I use these cameras (GL2, DVX, XL1S) typically as part of larger rentals of audio-visual equipment (sound, video projection, etc). So, typically, either the facility the event is at is lighting, or we are; thus, very few low-light situations. The advantage the GL2 has over anything else I've looked at (and admittedly that doesn't include the Sonys) was the 20X zoom. And, as it happens, even that wasn't long enough at the event I just got back from...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top