dvx100a vs XL2 sound

T

Topper

Active member
I want to get a camcorder to make short films, and maybe full length ones later.

The choice has come down to the XL2 or the dvx100a. They must both have 16:9, so if I got the dvx100a, I'd get the anamorphic adaptor too. This means that they will both cost roughly the same. (I'm english so I'll get the PAL version, and that is roughly £3400 for dvx100 + anamorphic or £3500 for XL2)

So, since price is really the same, the deciding factor is how good their sound is.

On the 2pop forums it was unanimous that the dvx100 had excellent sound, while cameras like sony's pd170 was said to have terrible sound. Since I want to make films, sound is really as important as the picture, so does anyone know how the sound quality of the xl2 compares to the dvx100a? No one on 2pop seemed to know.

Whatever camcorder I get, it will be used with an at4073 mike. I've been told this is a pretty good mike, so will it make any difference in sound quality between the 2 cameras negligible?

* Also, I know you can get good, long lasting dvx100 batteries from this site. Does anyone know how long the xl2's battery lasts, or if you can buy an non-official one that lasts long? Battery life is a bit of a factor too, as I had heard that the xl1's life was pathetically short.

** Does anyone think that the pro version of the hdr fx1 will make both these cameras obsolete, so should I wait for it? Any idea how much it will cost? My worry with this is that Sony will intentionally make it have crap sound like with the pd150 and 170. Also, I really want to start doing some projects now rather than wait 6 months.

If you've reached this point, congratulations for reading this far, and I hope to hear some considered opinons.
 
Re: dvx100a vs XL2 sound

Not knowing any other opinions on the others, let me put it: the DVX is an amazing camcorder ,and is very much capable of shooting quality material that could end up on a feature film. The others you mentioned seem also as good as or even better (there may be divergences, word say the Canon is worse...).

As not helpful as I am being, let me put it this way: if you end up shooting a feature with good sound, you'll have a soundman recording all sound on a dedicated DAT, so it doesn't really matters. But true, the DVX has the best sound I ever heard in a camcorder...
 
Re: dvx100a vs XL2 sound

Does anyone know what the XL2's sound is like though? That was the main question. I know the dvx100 is great; I'm asking how the XL2 compares to it.

I won't be using a DAT recorder, I will definitely be using a at4073 connected straight to the camcorder.
 
Re: dvx100a vs XL2 sound

I have an XL2 and think the sound is "great" with it. From what I've heard, the DVX also has "great" sound. I'm using the quotes because any sound recorded directly to a camcorder is going to be less than that recorded to a better medium. But I'll say this both cameras offer sound recording that is as good as any DAT recorder that you're likely to buy. Off course if you want to spend the big bucks, you can buy a DAT recorder that will handle the sound better, but to be honest your money would probably be better spent on other parts of the audio chain for now. Also "great" sound is often achieved 50% during production and 50% in post - so what you do there will have as much if not more of an impact than which camera you choose. Bottom line, IMHO, is that both cameras will do what you want with sound equally well and that probably shouldn't be the deciding factor for you.

Matt
 
Re: dvx100a vs XL2 sound

I recently played with an XL2, and I liked the headphone monitoring on it better. I haven't cut sound recorded on the XL2 yet, but I have on the DVX100. It sounded pretty good. A little noisy, though, and had to put noise reduction on most of it. This was going through a Sound Devices MixPre.

Does the DVX-100 have a color viewfinder? The XL2 has one. Now, I'm not a camera person, so I don't know if this is desireable or now. I have talked with some of the camera dudes at Panavision, and they specifically did not want to use color viewfinders because they thought then people would be concerned with the color on the viewfinder as it pertains to monitors, and other things, and black and white just made their lives easier. The color viewfinder on the XL2 looked damn good, in my opinion.

-Dave
 
Re: dvx100a vs XL2 sound

yor sound will be good as your soundman , i can bet that even with sony pd 150 ill get quiet good resolts and other hand someone who run straight to the camera boom mike would get exacly what he invest and sines you already heard that the 4071 is agood mike without ectually hear it or try to deal with dialog on locaition , ill wish you well and happy adr after
before you are buing the piano try to learn read notes :-)
 
Re: dvx100a vs XL2 sound

[quote author=Jim Brennan link=board=audio;num=1099177246;start=0#6 date=11/02/04 at 10:56:42]Yep, color on the DVX[/quote]


On the viewfinder, or the screen? I've only ever looked at the little flip out LCD screen, which is color.

-Dave
 
Re: dvx100a vs XL2 sound

You can select if you want your viewfinder color or Black and White, but it's nothing like the high res BW Viewfinder of the pd-150. So going for black and white does not bring any goods in this case...
 
Re: dvx100a vs XL2 sound

Ah, ok. I'm a sound dude, not a camera person, so I gotta plead ignorance on this one.

-Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top