Hey everyone, its been awhile since I have been on here. Anyway so football is coming up soon and so is Doritos superbowl contest. And this year I am going to do it again. And this time I wont have help from my friend who has the camera. So I decided to do this myself. And I have been looking at cameras. I wanted to know your opinions on the Canon XL. I heard its really good. And I could prolly get one on craigslist or ebay for around 500.
Canon XL
- Thread starter DesperadoMan17
- Start date
I own an XL1s and I've been using it for the past decade... It's a great camera and has served me well. However, I'm now looking to upgrade. It's old and past its prime... look to the DSLR world, unless you have a specific reason to stay in the standard definition world. You can always turn the HD footage into SD footage... going the other way looks like monkey bottoms.
Any of them. Prolly the XL1 because it would be cheaper for me. Or even the XL2.
Yea DSLR is good, but I want something that is good quality and not that expensive. And I forget does XLs have 24 fps?
The XLs don't have HD, so you're in effect investing money in a product containing completely outdated, and obselete technology. The XLs were good in their time, but you can jsut as good if not better images out of a DSLR for a similar price - you can pick up a T2i for ~$500, and you'll at least be dealing in the HD world in general.
I had an XL1s for about 5 years or so. At the time it was a favorite among low-budget filmmakers because it allowed us to swap lenses and use a nice line up of glass from Canon. However, like Jax says, it's image quality is now outdated. It shoots SD and it shoots on tape. Tape drives can go bad, especially if you're acquiring a used machine -- you'll just never know if the drive its on its last legs. Moreover, you'll have to upload your footage at real time speeds. Which will sting in the long run.
I think Soderbergh and Danny Boyle both shot features on this camera. (Sex Lies and 28 Days Later) But I think Danny Boyle was using Panavision lenses for that, which is sort of like cheating. : ) Not sure about this info, but that story floated around town for a while.
What REALLY bothered me about the camera is that the focus ring floats. You don't get true manual focus. There was even rumors that Canon manufactured this defect on purpose; so this pro-sumer camera wouldn't conflict with their professional line. Regardless of whether this was intended, there were a lot of us XL1 owners who hated the way the camera floated out of focus during certain shots. This was with the native 16x lens that came with the camera.
For $500 you can probably find some kind of HD camera online. Maybe even brand new. It won't have the weight of a real rig but get yourself of a poor man's steadicam and you'll be fine. Make sure you figure out your audio, too. Unless you'll be doing all MOS.
Shanked
I think Soderbergh and Danny Boyle both shot features on this camera. (Sex Lies and 28 Days Later) But I think Danny Boyle was using Panavision lenses for that, which is sort of like cheating. : ) Not sure about this info, but that story floated around town for a while.
What REALLY bothered me about the camera is that the focus ring floats. You don't get true manual focus. There was even rumors that Canon manufactured this defect on purpose; so this pro-sumer camera wouldn't conflict with their professional line. Regardless of whether this was intended, there were a lot of us XL1 owners who hated the way the camera floated out of focus during certain shots. This was with the native 16x lens that came with the camera.
For $500 you can probably find some kind of HD camera online. Maybe even brand new. It won't have the weight of a real rig but get yourself of a poor man's steadicam and you'll be fine. Make sure you figure out your audio, too. Unless you'll be doing all MOS.
Shanked
Actually XL H1 is HD...Im just trying to get a good quality camera that can still get the job done.
Oh, and I forgot to mention that it doesn't shoot true 24p. It's progressive scan. I actually used that mode a lot, and, as long as you don't have too much movement in your shot, the illusion of the film look isn't bad.
But this is about the older XL line. If you're considering any Canon camera made in the last 3 or 4 years, you might actually be able to get value for your buck. Canon really stepped up their game lately.
Shanked
But this is about the older XL line. If you're considering any Canon camera made in the last 3 or 4 years, you might actually be able to get value for your buck. Canon really stepped up their game lately.
Shanked
Last edited:
I think 28 Days Later had a great storyline, and it was certainly distributed pretty widely. I can't say whether or not it was Panavision lenses, but I felt it looked pretty average. To me, it looked like a student film with a half-decent budget, or a british television drama. That's obviously the look he wanted, but I personally wasn't a huge fan. Obviously didn't really hinder much of the movie's success though.
You won't be picking up one of them for <$500
I'm not sure why you're so averse to DSLR if all you're looking for is a good quality camera that can get the job done. DSLRs certainly have their issues, but they are most certainly good quality cameras that can get the job done, and in that price range is going to be your best option. It also doesn't leave you with outdated standard definition technology, an internal tape drive that is likely on it's last legs, all the time in post capturing in real time, and general technology that is 10 years old.
I think 28 Days Later had a great storyline, and it was certainly distributed pretty widely. I can't say whether or not it was Panavision lenses, but I felt it looked pretty average. To me, it looked like a student film with a half-decent budget, or a british television drama. That's obviously the look he wanted, but I personally wasn't a huge fan. Obviously didn't really hinder much of the movie's success though.
You won't be picking up one of them for <$500
I'm not sure why you're so averse to DSLR if all you're looking for is a good quality camera that can get the job done. DSLRs certainly have their issues, but they are most certainly good quality cameras that can get the job done, and in that price range is going to be your best option. It also doesn't leave you with outdated standard definition technology, an internal tape drive that is likely on it's last legs, all the time in post capturing in real time, and general technology that is 10 years old.
Okay but this is for a commercial shot. If its a good quality camera that gets the job done then i want it. I dont want to film with a little DSLR camera.
You are saying you want a good quality camera that gets the job done. Well ok then the XL would do that.. BUT a DSLR is a great quality camera that gets the job done and around the same or cheaper price range..
So you are judging a book by it's cover and too be honest holy shit ITS NOT ABOUT THE CAMERA! Google this... "the revenge of the great camera shootout 2012" They use DSLRS and compare them to film... along with many other cameras.. Now here is something else. A LOT of professional cinematographers had to decide which camera looked best and MANY chose DSLR over film.
Now I am not trying to force you or anything or even be mean but you need to open up your eyes and get your facts straight. Another example "I dont want to film with a little DSLR camera" In this "CAMERA SHOOTOUT" They use a I-PHONE for god sake and some cinematographers CHOSE THAT OVER FILM!
So if you don't want to shoot with a DSLR when people can get amazing footage out of an I-phone then something is up there. Now I don't know why you do not want to and that is not my concern. All I want to say is you do not here about professional cinematographers using XLs anymore and in fact a lot of them ADVISE DSLRs because this is a new generation for film. So again not trying to say your choice is wrong but dont belittle any camera as for the last time IT'S NOT THE CAMERA ITS YOU! Remember those words and you can go out and make that commercial! Whatever camera you get XL, DSLR or I-Phone just give it your all man.
For a commercial shoot? And you want to shoot in Standard Def?
Also, to be clear - no-one chose the iPhone over film. That's not what the shootout is about at all; this current shootout is not a 'what camera is better' shootout, but more of a 'how does each camera hold up' shoot out. The point is that the iPhone isn't nearly as good as the Epic or the Alexa, but hey it actually holds up okay on the big screen if you light it properly.
Also, I'm not sure how you'd pitch a standard definition commercial to a company - 'hey, I'm going to make you a TVC, but you won't be able to show it on any of the HD channels'.
Also, just because a camera is little, doesn't mean it's any better or worse. You know what is not that much bigger than a DSLR? A Red Epic. Does that mean it's terrible? Would you rather shoot with a Canon XL than a 'little' Red Epic?
You may not like DSLRs and that's fine. If you're making personal projects then go ahead and use whatever camera you please. But, if you're shooting things for a client, you need to be in High Def, or at least have the conversation with the client about not shooting in High Definition and carefully explaining the consequences to them - not being able to show things on HD channels, having things look average on TVs bigger than 32", having their footage not being able to be shown on almost anything within 10 years, not being able to use their footage in the future for any HD projects etc. You should also be doing it for a cheaper price, IMO - the only reason I can see for going SD over HD is to save money.
Also remember at a certain point, it becomes no longer about the camera body. Good stories, acting, lighting and production design goes a lot further than the camera body does.
Also, to be clear - no-one chose the iPhone over film. That's not what the shootout is about at all; this current shootout is not a 'what camera is better' shootout, but more of a 'how does each camera hold up' shoot out. The point is that the iPhone isn't nearly as good as the Epic or the Alexa, but hey it actually holds up okay on the big screen if you light it properly.
Also, I'm not sure how you'd pitch a standard definition commercial to a company - 'hey, I'm going to make you a TVC, but you won't be able to show it on any of the HD channels'.
Also, just because a camera is little, doesn't mean it's any better or worse. You know what is not that much bigger than a DSLR? A Red Epic. Does that mean it's terrible? Would you rather shoot with a Canon XL than a 'little' Red Epic?
You may not like DSLRs and that's fine. If you're making personal projects then go ahead and use whatever camera you please. But, if you're shooting things for a client, you need to be in High Def, or at least have the conversation with the client about not shooting in High Definition and carefully explaining the consequences to them - not being able to show things on HD channels, having things look average on TVs bigger than 32", having their footage not being able to be shown on almost anything within 10 years, not being able to use their footage in the future for any HD projects etc. You should also be doing it for a cheaper price, IMO - the only reason I can see for going SD over HD is to save money.
Also remember at a certain point, it becomes no longer about the camera body. Good stories, acting, lighting and production design goes a lot further than the camera body does.
Thanks! Its not that I dont like DSLR but I want a professional camcorder. I could always rent one for a day. I just want this commercial to look good lol
No problem man. I wish you luck on this and hope you get the right camera that suits you!
If you're looking to do commercial work, the clients will expect a final product that looks like they're used to seeing on TV now... quite frankly, the XL line (even the H1) isn't it... the DoF differences with the little chip cameras is simply an outdated look, like VHS footage.
If you haven't shot with them, it's easy to discount the thought of shooting with a DSLR, but shoot with one, rent if you have to, then tell me what you think of the image (the only part that really matters)... if you can't get good footage with that, the XL's footage will look worse.
If you haven't shot with them, it's easy to discount the thought of shooting with a DSLR, but shoot with one, rent if you have to, then tell me what you think of the image (the only part that really matters)... if you can't get good footage with that, the XL's footage will look worse.