Its funny, in the latest issue of Camcorder & Computer video magazine, boldly on the cover was "XL2 vs DVX100a face off : No holds barred fight till the death winner take all!" or something dramatic like that.
I had to look.....
Either they had an extreme canon bias, or canon may have sent the editing staff of the magazine on a nice trip to some carribean island for a few weeks, to "test" their new camera.
The reason i say this is that they basically refuted every claim our guys came up with in the side by side tests. They claimed the XL2 had greater Dynamic range, better audio processing, better controls, and was more light sensitive. I thought the DVX won all of thoes in the side by side comparison? I dunno maybe canon came out with a souped up version, to kill off the DVX????
also they seemed more interested in things like being able to change 24P -> 30P -> 60i without having to move your eye from the eye cup. They said the XL2 "won" in this case. but i mean, isnt that what the scene files are for? or can you change on the fly while recording on an Xl2?
i dunno, they seemed almost misinformed, or they didint understand how teh DVX or the Xl2 settings work. For example, the dynamic range claim. I wonder if they had Cinegamma turned on or were running standard gamma Vs the Xl2 ? and the audio claim, Althoug hthe XL2 has 4 audio channels, i thought the proccesing chip on the DVX was the best around... its almost like they were impressed by quantity over quality. Deeper zoom = better lense kind of mentality.
I dunno. I actually kinda wonder if our Side by side was heavily biased. or was it theirs?????
I had to look.....
Either they had an extreme canon bias, or canon may have sent the editing staff of the magazine on a nice trip to some carribean island for a few weeks, to "test" their new camera.
The reason i say this is that they basically refuted every claim our guys came up with in the side by side tests. They claimed the XL2 had greater Dynamic range, better audio processing, better controls, and was more light sensitive. I thought the DVX won all of thoes in the side by side comparison? I dunno maybe canon came out with a souped up version, to kill off the DVX????
also they seemed more interested in things like being able to change 24P -> 30P -> 60i without having to move your eye from the eye cup. They said the XL2 "won" in this case. but i mean, isnt that what the scene files are for? or can you change on the fly while recording on an Xl2?
i dunno, they seemed almost misinformed, or they didint understand how teh DVX or the Xl2 settings work. For example, the dynamic range claim. I wonder if they had Cinegamma turned on or were running standard gamma Vs the Xl2 ? and the audio claim, Althoug hthe XL2 has 4 audio channels, i thought the proccesing chip on the DVX was the best around... its almost like they were impressed by quantity over quality. Deeper zoom = better lense kind of mentality.
I dunno. I actually kinda wonder if our Side by side was heavily biased. or was it theirs?????
