GL3 Speculation?

If 24f is included with the next GL camera, at the price Barry predicted it will more than likely give the competition (FX1 and DVX100B) a run for the money. Here's hoping they do.

So basically, who do we write/call/e-mail/pester at Canon to include these features?
 
I can't imagine them NOT doing 24f (why make a product limp?) because I think it's more a firmware than hardware issue. So why not just do it, get it over with. The dvx would then be limping because of what it is not...widescreen or hd self contained in a box.

What makes the GLHD so easy a concept for Canon is that all they need do is add xlr/hd chips, redesign a die cast (dvx) chassis and away they go. The beauty of the marketing logic is that it is not a full blown production camera like the XLH1 yet is above prosumer and into entry indie HD. In that sense it leaves the dvx in its present state behind--because at that point the dvx is the camera with the limitations--no 16:9 worth having, lower sd resolution, no HD, no interchangeable lenses...last year's idea...

I can't believe people are still commenting on xlr option!! That was a prosumer to indie/low end broadcast option via Sony consumer and PD series! Forget it. The original arguments were around costs and such. Cost is no longer a consideration. Neither is competition with broadcast line. Like I said it's a 10 cent addition these days. A GLHD without xlr is a prosumer camera. I don't think that's what Canon has in mind for its lens line--where it makes big bucks with options from still thru video thru film.

That's always been the beauty of C mount (even a dedicated Canon mount)--virtually any lens in any format is usable, a cinematographer's dream--de rigueur option for virtually any 8, 16, 35mm film camera. Canon already has a superior lens line that is adapted to 35mm film and other such media lenses.

Why--at this stage of competition where the market has split into prosumer/entry indie vs established indie/broadcast--limit it to one XLH1 camera body? It's the dvx and Panasonic that needs to rethink it strategy! They don't have a mount on the dvx/200 line. The dvx is sd. I see that as a major hole to drive a Canon K-wacker thru. That's why I proposed the next iteration of the dvx into 16:9/HD with the 13x Lieca. They can't just sit there with all the marbles in the 200--and why reinvent the chassis wheel when the dvx is a proven wheel. There are virtually no redevelopment costs to tweaking the dvx. (A mount; it already has three chips...) No brainer from industrial design viewpoint.

I think the Panny 200 will sell well--but it ain't no camera that will sell in dvx numbers. No way. Too many virtues? Too many HOLES! That's the problem with a dedicated P2 architecture, non interchangeable lenses. You don't have the cinematographer's options--which is what makes a still or cinematographer/dp--light&resolution/focus/contrast ratios. Sharpness isn't it. That's a poor mans substitute for all the aforementioned called craft. DOF. Gimme some selective dof, light, noir, good optic and let's have some fun!

That's what a GLHD with interchangeable lenses may give us. 24f, 24p--I don't care how they do it. Think about it--the only thing 24 that made any sense is that it's the speed of the film going thru the gate with any particular design shutter that provided an exposure which provided the options needed to produce an image a cinematorgrapher could craft "a look"--any particular look via light.

The dvx does it thru 24P BUT MORE THRU FIRMWARE than we care to admit. 24P is no answer to anything. It's just a door. Video is digital. CD-DVD; there are a gazillion lines of resolution in a single 35mm frame that daunts the storage capacity of any known electronic media. It isn't just lenses and chips.

So we shift the pea under the shell. That's cool. Give me the 4-5k shell in a Canon GLHD with Canon's line of lenses and you just watch indie's jump thru the hoop, backwards and forwards. It'll look like a kinetescope of Chaplins in a Keystone Copper caper.

turk, aka nostratomas, has spoken...

And Canon is the only one who would dare to do it!

Muuuuuhahahahha...let the next generation of games begin

...and as far as suggesting these options to Canon...they're already reading this...
 
If Canon puts out a GLHD for $5,000 with almost all the features of the XLH1, it will simply kill the more expensive camera. Why would people spend almost the double for a removable lens and a few extra features?

24F on the new GL? I don't think so... call me pessimistic, and I wish I'm wrong but Canon would be shooting themselves in the foot.

It's like the HC1... I'm positive that Sony could have add a gain control option and shutter/aperture control. why didn't they? Cos it would kill FX1 sales, that's why.

Besides I just don't see how much stuff they could remove from the XLH1 to get it down to $5,000...
 
It's not so much what they would take off the XLH1, it's more a question of what little they'd have to add to a smaller form camera. Remember, they're in the lens business. The object--at this point for Canon--is to sell more lenses. They only have two cameras at this level. Why not just add a lens mount to both? Both cameras would need strong features to convince prosumer/indie people to opt for one or the other. In that sense it's about offering options that others can only offer via thrid party adapters--hardly desirable.

The XLH1 series is a different animal. There's just so much more surrounding this system than lenses in terms of high end 35mm-like adapters and support equipment via rental houses. It's as close to a production camera as one can get. A GLHD wouldn't have that full blown form but enough beef as a hand held to be versatile to entry field broadcast/indie market. I mean, a 20x flourite is nothing to laugh about--especially with a 35mm slr wide angle one could throw on, or an extender. They could even put a 16x flourite on, expand its wa capability. Be useful for cine/sports/doc with less in-the-bag add ons.

I don't see how a $4-5k camera can kill a 9k system camera. I understand the reasoning how it could happen but if that were the case then it is US shooting ourselves in the foot by limiting our own choices and options to what manufacturers care to offer up at any given time. One HD camera from each manufacturer? Fixed lenses?

These battles are internal--strictly between intracorporate divisions protecting their respective market shares and interests. Canon doesn't have to worry so much about that. What difference would it make if one body--at a range of 5-9k--or the other were more successful if Canon is in the lens business? They have to believe that both cameras--hand held or production--will find their respective niches to compete across the board with entry to advanced hd. They only way I see them doing it is two distinctly different bodies that share a common ground.

It's either that or just have one body at that level to compete. That's not a good option--especially for an optic company when increasingly shooters are looking for optical solutions. The first thing users noted about the jvc setup was the inferior fuginon that's marketed with the camera. The one argument that sticks out in comparing most cameras/images is the quality of the optic on the body. With a one body/lens option--that image will be very constrained, very limited, even though we might think its great. In comparison to what?

Raise the bar with more optic solutions--force the firmware to measure up, let the hardware follow. Let Canon shoot themselves in the foot? Why not if it means more market share via bodies AND optics. Neither panasonic nor sony or jvc have optic markets worth selling independently of camera bodies. Canon does.

The difference between 4-5k and 9k MSRP may very well be in who can afford to go hand held as opposed to fully blown production. Either way we get a versatile unit.

Encourage them to find a solution! It can only benefit us, raise the bar, keep everyone on their quality toes and tuned into entry to advanced indie demands for products that meet a cinematographer's needs. Soon enough all the manufacturers will need to cross this bridge...
 
24F on the new GL? I don't think so... call me pessimistic, and I wish I'm wrong but Canon would be shooting themselves in the foot
Click to expand...

Yes pessimistic indeed, but only time will tell. They would be shooting themselves in the foot if it had all of the same features (which it wont). But 24f won't be the foot shooting culprit. The XL-H1 isn't postioning itself as the 24p indie camera.
 
theHeadlessPuppy said:
If Canon puts out a GLHD for $5,000 with almost all the features of the XLH1, it will simply kill the more expensive camera. Why would people spend almost the double for a removable lens and a few extra features?
Click to expand...

The XM1/GL1 produced a better picture than the XL1 (with standard lens), but loads of people still bought the more expensive camera.
 
I think canon like the consumer feel of the gl1/gl2 and wont make it up to par with the DVX with 24f, it apeals to more audiences.
 
I suspect a GLHD series will share many of the features of the XL-H1 - just as the GL2 and the XL1s, and the GL1 and the XL1 shared many features. Certainly I think 24F and 30F will be included, if not full 24P. I also highly doubt any GLHD would have interchangeable lenses - that is an XL feature, and will likely remain so.

If Canon made the GLHD with XLR inputs and 24F, I suspect it would crush FX1 and DVX sales... and maybe even take a few HVX200's with it.

-Spiff
 
I think canon will keep the GL series simple, if it does enter into the HD realm it wont have a 24f feature, because this a consumer cam, Gl2 apealed to alot of people I think because of its simplicity, i think if they made this camera more apealing to the proffensional series less consumers would find it apealing, most Gl's I have seen arent used for movies, they are used for sports or personal videos.
 
XLR on the camera would be nice but it's doubtful. I'm betting it will have the selectable frame rates though. If it comes in under 5K with the frame rate features I'm sold.

myfriendimage,

24f is a feature that is easily added, especially If they are using the same chips as the XL-H1. Why not add it? Somehow a switch that says 24f is going to make people not buy the camera? It's not gonna cost more, and it sure isn't gonna scare away consumer level customers, in fact it will only attract more customers. Your reasoning doesn't make any sense.
 
johnnyspacecommand said:
"Little one" needs all the care it can get.

But GL3????? Why? Just why? Get yourself an DVX100B instead....It'll be better.

If you are going for HD, you MUST go HVX100 or XLH1. There just isn't going to be any fight that they blow away anything else. Or just be patient and shoot on Super35 with prime lenses without that grainy ground glass crap that makes you LOSE resolution capacity.

People will be touting 70mm soon, I know it..
Click to expand...

I really like the DVX100B, but it still bugs me they didn't go 16:9. Just go into Best Buy and see all the 16:9 TVs. Everyone talks about HD future proofing, why not 16:9 future proofing.

I saw a quote the other day, "it's better to be in front of the curve than behind it"
 
and if a GL3 comes out it will be HDV and SD. Why not have both for probably under $5,000? For people who don't need to change lens it would be the way to go.
 
Hey, after all you can still buy Digital8 Camcorders in stores.

Actually...I still own mine... sentimental reasons...kinda like the runt in a litter of kittens. :laugh:



I still see VHS-C video cameras for sale and less than 200 bucks!(US) And thats one of the easiest non computer ways to edit. just camera and a VCR!
 
dont think the GL3 is gonna be DV.. canon made it clear last year that the XL2 was the last DV camera they would ever make in the prosumer class.
 
Keep in mind the GL lines normally had everything the XLs had. Why? People would buy XLs to shoot and GLs as second cameras. They had to match up. This was a thing to do. I believe we'll be looking at a GL3 HD with smaller chips, no interchangeable lens nor pro-audio features (but with a decent enough mic). They'd be foolish to do anything less. This seems to have always been their strategy and it seems to work. If I were to invest in HDV and had the cash this would be the route I would go. Buy the H1 and then GL3 HD.

-Nate
 
I would bet that Nathyn's exactly right. The only real question I have, and maybe the reason we haven't seen a GL3 yet is because of this question: what will they do about the chips?

The XL series is 1/3", and the GL series is 1/4". But there are no 1/4" HD chips. Would they redesign the GL to use 1/3" chips? Or are they waiting for someone to produce 1/4" chips (and is that even possible?)
 
if the GL3 is going to be 1080i with the odd frame mode (24+30 for USA) (25 for PAL) with a fixed lens, 3x1/4" CCD's then essentially it's going against the Sony HC-1 or maybe (by the release date) FX-1 in price & features.

i'd certainly be interested.


Has anyone played with 25f on a 50i XL-H1? what's the res hit like? any res charts available?

because i hear that the 50i FX-1 losses a lot of res on CF25. equally i hear that 25f on the XL-H1 is better, so there's hope for the GL3 :)

but I keep worrying that these frame modes reduce the resolution to near 576p...may as well buy a second hand DVX100AE.
 
The HC1 has a single 1/3" chip (although CMOS). I don't know that it's even rational to consider making a 1/4" HD camera -- already 1/3" is pushing the limits of what could be accomplished in HD. 1/4" is probably going too far.

The CF25 mode drops the overall resolution to 540 lines. That's not the same as a DVX though, because the DVX has only 720 pixels across, vs. 1440 for the CF25 shot. So even though the vertical res is the same, the HDV cam is still delivering substantially more horizontal res.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top