THE OPEN BODIED BEAUTY...Canon's XL2

[Digigenic]

Briefly touching on the attributes of the XL2 in my article entitled "It Has Arrived". I realize there are many other details some potential users would like to discuss about this camera. So I started this thread. How significant is the release of this camera to you? How do you think this camera compares to the DVX-100a?

 

[DerekEastham]

Well... having not used the camera... nor even seen it in person... it's hard to tell.

I would expect the camera, however, to compare with the DVX... if it dosen't, then it was a mistake to even bother releasing the camera.

However, I have my concerns with the XL line of cameras, though it's more based on personal taste than anything else.

For instance:
> image grain... even when XL-1 footage was on a computer screen, the image had a texture all it's own... the XL-1 is a camera that is easily identifyable, and the look it gives it's footage is very specific... for me it dosen't work...
So, I've got a question... were you able to see the camera's image? if so, would you comare that image more to the quality, look, feel & texture of the XL-1, or the DVX?

> Lens quality... I've seen footage shot with the standard lens and the wide angle lens on the XL-1... and for my own personal taste... I really do not like the way those lenses work with the camera...
Personally, I prefer the DVX lens... it's got a wonderful way with colors and texture... giving the image a nice focused yet soft look...
So, do we know anything yet about the XL2's lenses?


I don't know... maybe Cannon just isn't the camera company for me... and I'm not going to lie... I'm a huge Sony fan... and Panasonic is second on my list... but Cannon's products just don't seem to do it for me... so to answer yoru first question... I find this release to be just another version of the XL-1, nothing really special...
(that's not to say that the XL-1's release wasn't, because that was HUGE!)

Cannon has created a look & style all their own with the XL line... and it's likely to never fit my style...
I'll keep an open mind... but I'm just not expecting anything from Cannon that I would be interested in.

 

[Digigenic]

The XL2’s range in operation and performance was clearly improved over its predecessor, though it still shared much of the same characteristics with the XL1. Much of the time, people just wanted to see the “True 16:9” and “24P”, which were a couple of high profile advantages over the old model, but the comparisons between the XL2 and DVX100 remained a theoretical affair.

I will say that based on the footage I saw at the Expo, the in-camera customization potential achieved by the XL2 appeared to have exceeded what was previously set by DVX100a. However, more tests will have to be conducted with official production models before confirming the XL2’s status among the competition.

The XL2’s new L-series IS 20x lens now at least has the same optical oomph as the GL2. All of the new image control and cine settings are really nice and the 2 XLR/optional 4 XLR ports with 4-channel audio control finally meet the demands of professional audio acquisition. The most attractive feature is what's always been praised of the XL series; its' open body architecture. Nobody in this category can compete with that.

Sony and Panasonic will continue to do well in the presence of the XL2, but if Canon announces a GL3 with similar characteristics to the XL2 at a fraction of the cost, then Panasonic and Sony will definitely have to step it up a notch or two.

I haven't really made up my mind as to what I’d get. I have a polygamous relationship with various camcorders, but when the DVX100 came out, I completely fell in love with it; promising myself I’d own one.
So, for me the XL2 could just turn out to be a brief detour on my way to ultimately deciding on a DVX100a. We’ll see…
8)

 

[Digigenic]

?

?

:?:
I was wondering if it was worth considering a PAL XL2 over an NTSC XL2?
My primary interest in choosing PAL over NTSC is the increase in vertical resolution.
Example, the NTSC XL2 when 16:9 is activated is 962 x 480, and the PAL XL2 when 16:9 is activated is 962 x 576...(almost an extra hundred lines of res)
Of course, I would also have to worry about converting my 25P footage to 24P in post, but I can do that in FCP's Cinetools.
The other thing that worries me if I purchase any PAL model camera is the servicing costs. I'll have to ship it oversees to get the damn thing looked at if anything goes wrong wouldn't I?
Just wondering if it's worth it... :?

 

[MarkG]

Personally I wouldn't buy a PAL camera in America unless you're expecting your movie to be transferred to film for a theatrical showing. Otherwise your final format will most likely be NTSC video, so you'll just be degrading your final image quality by shooting PAL and converting formats.