Seems like interest in the XL2 is fading fast. This is the first time that I've ever noticed a full day's gap in postings here. The last new topic posting was 6/16. In addition, B & H has lowered their price to cost with free freight, and Canon has a $500.00 mail in rebate in effect obviously to stir up sales. Not much activity on Creative Cow either in the Canon section. I'm not trying to stir up a huge debate. I am not partial to either the XL2 or the DVX100A as both have their ups and downs. I'm just making an observation.
Could the XL2's days be numbered?
- Thread starter Videoguy1
- Start date
You're right about the HVX200. I have no doubt that it and all of the other HDV cams spilling onto the market have really taken the wind out of the XL2 and most other SD camcorders. The only exception I see is the DVX100A but even that seems to be slowing a bit in new sales.
Barry_Green
Moderator
The HVX has some to do with it, but I think the JVC HD100 also has a lot to do with it. The JVC appears to give you basically all the functionality, and all the advantages, of the Canon (less autofocus and OIS) but also gives you HD...
Too bad, really, as I think the XL2 is a quite good camera, only real gripes I had about it were the consumer-ish menu system and the inability to get "one lens that does it all"...
Too bad, really, as I think the XL2 is a quite good camera, only real gripes I had about it were the consumer-ish menu system and the inability to get "one lens that does it all"...
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
I have said from Day 1 that it has an inherent pastiness in-camera. I have seen some footage that was super nice however; but still; something has always been missing for me; I guess the DVX kind of set the benchmark and the XL2 just failed to meet that. Whether it's the 24p or the gamma or the lens I do not know; but something isn't jiving
IMHO
IMHO
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Zim said:
I know; :lipsrseal :undecided
Really though; it's all content.
Every camera's days are numbered, and there's always something better in the pipeline. I've been pretty amazed at what's come out of the dvx, but more and more I'm beginning to see some pretty good XL2 material.
Talent and content rule the day.
Talent and content rule the day.
Zack Birlew
Veteran
Yeah, the XL2 is a great camera, but darn those JVCviens! (That's plural for JVC people, kids:laugh
The JVC HD-100 is taking the XL2 spot and the HVX is taking everything else.
I don't know what Canon is going to do other than:
a) Make their own form of HD/HD media.
b) Copy JVC basically.
c) Copy JVC but use P2 and DVCPROHD.
d) Kill themselves in the prosumer video market.
Just another wait and see I guess.
The JVC HD-100 is taking the XL2 spot and the HVX is taking everything else.
I don't know what Canon is going to do other than:
a) Make their own form of HD/HD media.
b) Copy JVC basically.
c) Copy JVC but use P2 and DVCPROHD.
d) Kill themselves in the prosumer video market.
Just another wait and see I guess.
Zim
Veteran
Right,,Canon could so something. A GL3 HDV/HD. I think even a GL2 with real 16:9 would sell. But they might want the XL2 to have HD not HDV if they can do that. If I was the CEO of Canon I would try and put out a new camera about the middle of July.
Or if they really want to keep selling the XL2 for awhile dropping the price to around $3500 would kep it going
Or if they really want to keep selling the XL2 for awhile dropping the price to around $3500 would kep it going
MattC
Veteran
mmm,
The XL2 does certain things superbly. It really does, but indie film, at least as most here (myself included) see it, probably isn't one of those things. As an XL2 owner I have repeatedly recommended the DVX and will probably recommend the HVX (heck if I could justify the expense, I'd buy one myself). I love the image that the DVX is capable of producing. I also love the image that the XL2 is capable of producing - but they are two different images. But occasionally I see some really stupid posts regarding the XL2 (like the guy who didn't believe the poster who said he shot his video with it) and it's aggravating.
The guy on this site whose making travelogue films in Hawaii, is using the XL2, which I think is the perfect camera for that application, and his stuff is gorgeous. But, if he were to make a pulp indie, he would probably use the DVX, which would be a better choice for that. See what I mean? Can the DVX do the Travelogue? Sure. And the XL2 can do the pulp indie, but they will do "their own thing" a little better. Hudson often talks about the DVX's mojo, and he's right. The camera has it's own look, and it's a cool look. But that look is not ALWAYS the look you might want. That's my only point.
Also, if you're doing a film out, you might be better off with an XL2 due to resolution, but now the the HVX coming out, that point is moot. The HVX is THE indie cam. (I know I ride Panasonic a bit over build quality, but that doesn't mean I don't like the cam, I would just like it to feel a little different, but that's just my taste.)
Most higher end adult content (not the highest, it's shot on film or Digibeta) is shot using XL cameras, that should give you an indication as to skin tones. ;-) Check out anything by Director Michael Ninn.
The biggest reason to use the XL2, and it is a reason that will stay, HD future or not, is reach. If you need to take video of something way the F out there, it is the only prosumer camera that can do it. Most folks never have that need, I happen to.
Matt
The XL2 does certain things superbly. It really does, but indie film, at least as most here (myself included) see it, probably isn't one of those things. As an XL2 owner I have repeatedly recommended the DVX and will probably recommend the HVX (heck if I could justify the expense, I'd buy one myself). I love the image that the DVX is capable of producing. I also love the image that the XL2 is capable of producing - but they are two different images. But occasionally I see some really stupid posts regarding the XL2 (like the guy who didn't believe the poster who said he shot his video with it) and it's aggravating.
The guy on this site whose making travelogue films in Hawaii, is using the XL2, which I think is the perfect camera for that application, and his stuff is gorgeous. But, if he were to make a pulp indie, he would probably use the DVX, which would be a better choice for that. See what I mean? Can the DVX do the Travelogue? Sure. And the XL2 can do the pulp indie, but they will do "their own thing" a little better. Hudson often talks about the DVX's mojo, and he's right. The camera has it's own look, and it's a cool look. But that look is not ALWAYS the look you might want. That's my only point.
Also, if you're doing a film out, you might be better off with an XL2 due to resolution, but now the the HVX coming out, that point is moot. The HVX is THE indie cam. (I know I ride Panasonic a bit over build quality, but that doesn't mean I don't like the cam, I would just like it to feel a little different, but that's just my taste.)
Most higher end adult content (not the highest, it's shot on film or Digibeta) is shot using XL cameras, that should give you an indication as to skin tones. ;-) Check out anything by Director Michael Ninn.
The biggest reason to use the XL2, and it is a reason that will stay, HD future or not, is reach. If you need to take video of something way the F out there, it is the only prosumer camera that can do it. Most folks never have that need, I happen to.
Matt
abeljerrod
Active member
Truly the XL2 did not live up to the high expectations that were surrounding it pre-release. Honestly, I think some of that does have to do with price. The camera being priced $1500-$2000 above the DVX without that much perceived additional value didn't help matters.
..you'd think Canon, who (from my understanding) was one of the original backers of the HDV format would have jumped in the HDV game long before now. But look at how long the XL2 had been rumored.
..you'd think Canon, who (from my understanding) was one of the original backers of the HDV format would have jumped in the HDV game long before now. But look at how long the XL2 had been rumored.
MattC
Veteran
Canon doesn't jump into anything quickly.... :-(
And Jerrod, you know very well that the XL2, just like the Xl1(s) was never intended for the "cutting edge indie film guys". It's not who Canon goes after and it's not who was using the XL1. And I'm sorry, but if your an event videographer there is a tremendous amount of value in the XL2. A razor sharp, crystal clear image, great lenses that let you actually get in on what your filming, true 16:9, incredible amount of in-camera controls, real progressive, a real manual lens. Look at what American Cinematographer had to say about the camera. More people shoot "video" than make films, and it is those folks that the XL2 was aimed at. Part of the problem is, with that crowd, many did not feel a need to switch from their XL1.
Matt
And Jerrod, you know very well that the XL2, just like the Xl1(s) was never intended for the "cutting edge indie film guys". It's not who Canon goes after and it's not who was using the XL1. And I'm sorry, but if your an event videographer there is a tremendous amount of value in the XL2. A razor sharp, crystal clear image, great lenses that let you actually get in on what your filming, true 16:9, incredible amount of in-camera controls, real progressive, a real manual lens. Look at what American Cinematographer had to say about the camera. More people shoot "video" than make films, and it is those folks that the XL2 was aimed at. Part of the problem is, with that crowd, many did not feel a need to switch from their XL1.
Matt
I am going to have to disagree a little with you Matt. Your statement regarding that the XL2 does many things superbly but indie film isn't one of them.......that is a little generic. I think the truth is that the DVX has better built in color/gamma curves and is a better lowlight camera than the XL2. That much is certain. It also has a wider lens than the default XL2 lens. I have been involved in 3-4 small DVX indie films and at least a dozen DVX music videos and commercials. The only advantage the DVX had in those was that it was smaller and easier to get around quickly with. We always trun off every gamma function in camera to get a flat even image and apply all film like curves and tweaks in post.
I recently co shot a music video using my XL2 and a DVX100 and when we intercut the footage there was very little difference. I should add that we treat out music videos like small indie films....we are not going for a video look at all. When I asked the guy editing what he thought of the XL2 footage he said it looked good. He wasn't blown away by it but he said it looked like the DVX only slighltly more res. He couldn't figure out why I paid more for it than the DVX when they looked about the same. But he did not think it looked worse. He did have to color correct the footage slightly different than the DVX to get the same look.
This person is completely unbiased regarding cameras.
The 2 issues that plague the XL2 are that it can get heavy on a long shoot and the extra cost doesn;t necessarily add up to a better image at the shoot. In 16x9 it is sharper and higher res for sure. But overall the DVX and XL2 are similar and most of the good DVX indie films out there could have been shot just as easily with an XL2. In the hands of a gifted director/cinematographer either camera will get the job done well.
The DVX is overall simpler and easier to use and although it is by no means a point and shoot camera, it is far more forgiving if you aren't focused perfectly or the light is a little low. So from that point of view it is good for a low budget, no time flick over the XL2.
I recently co shot a music video using my XL2 and a DVX100 and when we intercut the footage there was very little difference. I should add that we treat out music videos like small indie films....we are not going for a video look at all. When I asked the guy editing what he thought of the XL2 footage he said it looked good. He wasn't blown away by it but he said it looked like the DVX only slighltly more res. He couldn't figure out why I paid more for it than the DVX when they looked about the same. But he did not think it looked worse. He did have to color correct the footage slightly different than the DVX to get the same look.
This person is completely unbiased regarding cameras.
The 2 issues that plague the XL2 are that it can get heavy on a long shoot and the extra cost doesn;t necessarily add up to a better image at the shoot. In 16x9 it is sharper and higher res for sure. But overall the DVX and XL2 are similar and most of the good DVX indie films out there could have been shot just as easily with an XL2. In the hands of a gifted director/cinematographer either camera will get the job done well.
The DVX is overall simpler and easier to use and although it is by no means a point and shoot camera, it is far more forgiving if you aren't focused perfectly or the light is a little low. So from that point of view it is good for a low budget, no time flick over the XL2.
Zim
Veteran
The more I think about this thread I don't really see the XL2 days being numbered. Why would the JVC HDV camera hurt the XL2 sales? Isn't HDV crap? That is what alot of you say.
How many camera's do real 16:9 and real 24p? Interchangable lens? The XL2 looks really good too. The XL2 will be around for a while and if the price dropped to under $4,000 sales would take off.
How many camera's do real 16:9 and real 24p? Interchangable lens? The XL2 looks really good too. The XL2 will be around for a while and if the price dropped to under $4,000 sales would take off.