Camcorders... which is the best for the money?

I'm getting ready to shoot a full length movie. I need to buy a new camcorder. I was thinking about the XL2. I'd like to keep it under 5k. Any suggestions? I haven't had a lot of experience with pro-sumer cameras. Any info would be appreciated.
 
RE: Camcorders...

Lefteye said:
I'm getting ready to shoot a full length movie. I need to buy a new camcorder. I was thinking about the XL2. I'd like to keep it under 5k. Any suggestions? I haven't had a lot of experience with pro-sumer cameras. Any info would be appreciated.

First of all, let me say that I am not biased against the XL2 nor do I want to start an XL2 versus DVX100A debate thread... Having said that, I recommend the Panasonic DVX100A if, for no other reason than the XL2 really hasn't proven itself yet and it's likely that within a year, another updated model of the XL2 will come out... Kind of like the XL1s did after the XL1.

I don't have an XL2 nor do I plan on getting one... But I have used an XL1s for a number of shoots and it was okay. In fact, before I ever purchased a DVX100A, I really liked the XL1s. But now I have the DVX100A and wow...

It's small and easier to handle than the XL1s (so I assume the same for the new XL2). You can put it in a lot of tight places. It doesn't draw as much attention when you run and gun... The XL2 does look more professional but that's probably more important to videographers and their clients than those of us making films.

True, you can change lenses on the XL2 which is a definite plus but it sure isn't inexpensive to do so... And, the 16x9 feature on the XL2 isn't true 16x9 anyway... Simply a 4x3 chip masked at the top and bottom... I've seen some footage that looks really good from the XL2 but to my eye, no better than my DVX100A so until they come out with something a little better, I'm happy with my purchase...

Just my two cents of course...

filmy
 
The XL2 sure is a sweet camera. I had a chance to go see one today in person. Good stuff.

That said, the DVX is great too. I think we need to know more about your situation before one can truly be recommended above the other. You say you want to stay under 5K so I would agree with FilmJumper - Go for the DVX. You will save yourself some money with which to enhance your production via sound etc.

The only true benefits to the XL2 are, as I see it, interchangable lenses and a higher res 16:9 for going to film (well that and the cleaner image). If you aren't going to buy another lense or go out to film for certain then go with the DVX. It is a much better investment in that case.

FilmJumper: The 16:9 is true on the XL2. It uses an "oversized" CCD block, yes, but the capture area is full resolution 16:9. Sadly this has to be squeezed to fit the DV spec though :(.
 
Well, I don't know too much but I do work at Henry's (In Ontario, Canada) And the best consumer (Pretty much just one under pro-sumer) would be the Panasonic GS400... I'm sorry, that's the extent of my knowlage in that department.

Oh yes, and otherwise I would go with JVC cause they have 1.2 lenses, which no one else has. Very good if you want to use ambiant light, and you don't have much of it.
 
Last edited:
Cool. Well, i'm not buying this camera just for one event. I'm doing projects all the time. Plus, i'm transferring to UT Austin next year where I'll get a lot of use out of a good camera (i'm doing RTF with a masters in film and video production). I'm leaning towards the DVX. filmy made some good points. Plus, I like the picture quality that Panasonic cameras offer. True, i probably wont be changing lenses very often, i like the image stabilization that the XL2 offers. i haven't been shooting in 16x9. I will do so for this next project. That's part of the reason i want a camera that's tried and true for those dimensions. I work for a director who uses the same the DVX. He loves it. i should check his out on my own.
 
16:9

Shaw said:
FilmJumper: The 16:9 is true on the XL2. It uses an "oversized" CCD block, yes, but the capture area is full resolution 16:9. Sadly this has to be squeezed to fit the DV spec though :(.

I guess what I meant is that the 16:9 on the XL2 isn't coming from a native 16:9 chip... From my understanding, it is a 4:3 chip that's masked internally on the top and bottom creating a 16:9 picture which, technically, is native 16:9 sure enough...

filmy
 
FilmJumper said:
I guess what I meant is that the 16:9 on the XL2 isn't coming from a native 16:9 chip... From my understanding, it is a 4:3 chip that's masked internally on the top and bottom creating a 16:9 picture which, technically, is native 16:9 sure enough...

Can you guys clarify what's being discussed here?

Normally, when people talk about "masking" they're saying that the 16:9 picture actually uses less pixels than the 4:3 picture because it's just letterboxed off. According to the XL2 specs, the 16:9 target area of the chip is 680,000 pixels (962 x 480) and the 4:3 target area of the chip is 350,000 pixels (720x480).

Does this oversized block mean the chips in the XL2 are larger than you're average 1/3" CCD simply as a means of getting the extra pixels for the 16:9 res? (as opposed to having actual 16:9 chips?). If so, to me it doesn't seem like a negative at all, it means the XL2 has as much chip area as any other 1/3" camera, but there's a lot of unused target space on the chip that other cameras with "regular-size" chips don't even have?

Or am I just totally lost on this one?
 
My try at clarification...

ahab,

ahab said:
Normally, when people talk about "masking" they're saying that the 16:9 picture actually uses less pixels than the 4:3 picture because it's just letterboxed off.

Right... In a lot of cameras (not the XL2) the 16:9 resolution is compromised by the fact that the 4:3 chip is letterboxed/masked so that your 16:9 picture is using less pixels since the top and bottom have been cut off to create a wider image.

ahab said:
According to the XL2 specs, the 16:9 target area of the chip is 680,000 pixels (962 x 480) and the 4:3 target area of the chip is 350,000 pixels (720x480).

Right again... As Shaw pointed out above, when using 16:9 mode on the XL2, you maximize the amount of pixels on the chip... Unfortunately, the 4:3 part of the chip has a lot less pixels... So it's kind of the opposite of the DVX100A in that the 16:9 is compromised using squeeze mode and with the XL2, the 4:3 is compromised when using it 4:3.

ahab said:
Does this oversized block mean the chips in the XL2 are larger than you're average 1/3" CCD simply as a means of getting the extra pixels for the 16:9 res? (as opposed to having actual 16:9 chips?). If so, to me it doesn't seem like a negative at all, it means the XL2 has as much chip area as any other 1/3" camera, but there's a lot of unused target space on the chip that other cameras with "regular-size" chips don't even have?

The way it was explained to me by an actual Canon Rep (but hey, maybe he was wrong) was that the Canon XL2 chip when used in 16:9 mode uses almost the exact same amount space on the chip as the DVX100A uses when letterboxing 4:3 to 16:9. Then, when using strictly 4:3 mode on the chip, it's using roughly the same size or smaller than a regular 1/4 inch CCD.

On top of that, my understanding is that Canon has crammed megapixels into the 16:9 part of the CCD. Doing so makes each pixel tinier thus (this is my understanding only of course) reducing its ability to gather light. If you want mediocre low-light performance, get a megapixel video camera. For instance, take a look at the JVC HD1... it's got a megapixel 1/3 inch CCD but has mediocre latitude and less than mediocre low-light ability. Same with the TRV950... Weak latitude and a full stop worse low-light performance than the model its predecessor, the TRV900. The difference? TRV950 adds a megapixel CCD. Megapixel CCD's are great for digital still cameras, where you need the additional resolution for the still frame but they're lousy for video where everything gets sampled down to a 720x480 frame anyway.

My logic could be totally wrong and God knows I'm no engineer... But the larger native 16:9 2/3 inch cameras do not utilize megapixel technology as far as I know... They use larger chips and larger pixels. Canon has basically used a slightly larger 4:3 chip and made the pixels smaller so that you get more pixels than on the DVX100A onto the Canon chip. Some people feel that having more pixels means more resolution... That may be, I have no idea. But all these extra pixels are on a chip approximately the same size as the DVX100A chip and in so doing, I have to believe there is some kind of a trade off somewhere...

Meaning that I'm not so sure that the chip is that much oversized... 4:3 is compromised on the XL2 because the XL2 was apparently optimized for 16:9. It's effectively a 1/4 inch CCD in 4:3 mode. So, with both cameras there is some definite trade off...

The DVX100A solution is very convenient, less expensive, and provides a usable shooting range (nice wide angle, and an decent telephoto), and most importantly it gives you everything you need that being: auto-iris, manual iris, autofocus, manual focus, true manual zoom, power zoom, and optical image stabilization which, in my opinion works really really well.

It's all MOOT anyway... Either camera is capable of obtaining superior results... Probably not even that noticeable to the naked eye... My original post was that even though I've never used the XL2, it doesn't seem a whole lot different than the XL1s which I have used. And, the XL1s is a fine camera. For me however, I like to move the camera a lot. I like to put it in tight places all the time. I love the lighter weight of the DVX versus the XL1s... Granted, the interchangable lenses is totally a plus... But all things being equal... For me, the DVX suits my personal needs a lot better... Possibly, if my needs change (less guerilla type run and gun shooting) I would opt for the new XL2.

But in all honesty, I think the DVX is faster and easier to use out of the box... Being lighter is a plus. I've used 16:9 squeeze mode for DVD output and it seems super clear and full of resolution to me... But hey, if I had the money, I might have one of each... LOL.

Now... Are you really confused???

filmy

*NOTE: Much of my understanding of the XL2 comes from a number of other forums as well as a Canon rep so take them with a grain of salt... If you decide on an XL2, I'm sure you'll be a happy camper...

--By the way Lefteye... I see that you're from West Texas/Southern New Mexico... Where exactly? I'm in Las Cruces, NM.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Now... Are you really confused???

I am :D


(But my brain shuts down the minute anyone mentions something simple like "pulldowns")
smiley_fatpig.gif
 
I'll be damn...

Lefteye said:
I'm in Las Cruces, too. I'm going to State. One more year and I'll be at UT austin doing my masters in Video and Film production.

I'll be damn... You're the first person I've met online from Las Cruces... LOL. My wife is also going to NMSU. Cool! Good luck with it...

filmy
 
Back
Top