|
Author
|
Topic: The Best Darn DV camera out there
|
SFE
|
posted 12-25-2000 04:15 PM
I am thinking of saving and scrimping to get enough money to buy a cannon XL1. I want to know your thoughts as to what the best dv camera is out there. And if the XL1 is worth the money. Thanks .... [This message has been edited by Webmaster Dale (edited 01-04-2001).] |
Prism
|
posted 12-25-2000 07:05 PM
My opinion probably means nothing, but if I were you, I'd save the extra bucks and get its little brother, the GL1.Isaiah ------------------
Isaiah, "Sound Guy" Eyre
www.iEyre.com |
SFE
|
posted 12-25-2000 07:55 PM
your opinion means plenty.Or else I wouldn't have asked for it. Have you worked with the gl1?... [This message has been edited by Webmaster Dale (edited 01-04-2001).] |
Prism
|
posted 12-25-2000 08:16 PM
Well, no.. and that's why my opinion doesn't really mean much. But from what I've heard, the GL1 is much like the XL1 in many respects. I would personally prefer a GL1 over an XL1 mainly because of the price difference. If I couldn't afford either, I'd like one of Canon's older L1 or L2 Hi8 camcorders with interchangeable lenses and lots of nifty extra features. They can be found for less than $1,000 most of the time. Only the GL1 has picture quality which is pretty darn impressive. I haven't seen much from the L1 or L2 (practically the same camera, with a few differences...mostly price, it seems.) but I think the picture is pretty good on those, too.. but anyway, you probably want digital, so I'll shaddup.  Isaiah ------------------
Isaiah, "Sound Guy" Eyre
www.iEyre.com |
Fastlou
|
posted 12-26-2000 03:05 AM
I just recently got a GL1 after agonizing over exactly the same decision you're facing.
The guy I eventually bought it from at the camera shop told me not to bother with the XL1, wasn't worth the extra price, though that wasn't my only decision making factor, I was just surprised by his honesty.
Basically, the GL1 has a better manual zoom lens (20x) and the exact smae glass. The ccd pickups are better on the XL1, but not by a lot. Both have full manual everything, but they are plced a little better on the XL1. so far my biggest complaint with the GL1 is that it is so small it is harder to hold still than the bigger variety. I am working on kludging together some kind of shoulder support for it right now to tqake care of this problem
Anybody with suggestions on that I'd love to hear them. |
ADOM
|
posted 12-26-2000 03:42 AM
For a quick, affordable form of shoulder stabilization get yourself a monopod and put the head at full tilt. The leg can rest on either shoulder (depending on how you set up the head) and it really helps steady the smaller cameras.ADOM PS Are you dedicated to Canon or have you considered the Panasonic DVC 10? I've seen it for under $1800 and it has a shoulder mount.
...
[This message has been edited by Webmaster Dale (edited 01-04-2001).] |
morpherguy
|
posted 12-26-2000 08:10 AM
I have a GL1 and I swear that there is no difference between it and an XL1 except for the looks.. Maybe I'm missing something with my GL1 but I'm pretty damn sure that it does not have a manual zoom ring. Only a manual focus ring. That's the only real difference I've noticed between the two cameras. The images and sound are every bit as good as the XL1. At first I didn't like the small size of the GL1 either but after working with it for a month or so I realize that it is actually an advantage. It is much easier to to "steady" shots. Instead of holding the camera up to your face when you are walking with it, just hold it out in front of you. Hold it loosely in your hand and walk. The results are amazingly smooth. |
Sarge
|
posted 12-26-2000 09:40 AM
Best is kind of relative in this discussion, relative being the most value for dollar. I mean, we researched the heck out of everything, and bought a JVC GY-500 DV. If we had to buy it now, it would cost us about the same as three or four GL-1's. But, in discussing the better lower-priced prosumer cameras, I have to agree, the GL-1 is the one to go with.
The whole interchangeable lens bit is nice, but you can make outstanding movies without it. And the GL-1 (and maybe the XL-1, too, I din't remember) has a frame capture feature which is incredible. Instead of saving 60 interlaced fields a second, it saves 30 frames a second, like still pictures... like a movie camera. Trust me, it is a good feature.
It's also light, easy to use, and has nice ergonomics.
A little more expensive... well, a lot actually, is the Sony - - 150. (I can never remember the letters.) It's a DVCAM and Mini-DV camera with great sound capabilities and more pro than sumer features and quality.
But, all in all, I wouldn't trade the GY-500 DV for a Canon factory with a Sony franchise in the lobby.Sarge |
doubleyou
|
posted 12-26-2000 01:11 PM
What about the Sony VX 2000 ? |
DigiteyeZ
|
posted 12-26-2000 02:08 PM
yeah, i got to try the Sony PD-150 for a night. it had outstanding color saturation and contrast. i used it to record a musical production, and after mixing it with 2 other cameras, the result was great. i'm sure, however, that the XL1 or GL1 could match it's image quality, and with the PD-150 being $4000 list, i would think it's better to go with the GL-1.my only complaint about the GL-1 (I held it in the store) is that it feels really cheap (the body is like plastic). the XL-1, however, has a really nice feel to it. also, the PD-150 was definitely designed to be used with a shoulder mount (which i didn't have). so when i was walking around with it, it was kinda difficult to use because it's very front-weighted. other than that, it's a great camera. |
Cold_as_ICE
|
posted 12-26-2000 03:42 PM
I currently own both the GL and XL I much prefer my XL. The controls are easier to access. more controls accesible through buttons and not just a menu, although the XL does have a menu to access certain controls.
the GL and XL are similar camera's but I wish I would have bought a second XL but the money wasn't available at the time.just my 2 cents ICE ps. do some research and know what functions are most important to you. Image quality is pretty close to the same.
yes I feel the XL is worth the money. You might check and see when the XL2 is coming out you might wait for it.
[This message has been edited by Cold_as_ICE (edited 12-26-2000).] |
morpherguy
|
posted 12-26-2000 04:43 PM
I actually bought the Sony VX2000 and returned it to the store after 1 day!! It looks nice. It feels nice but it didn't do one thing that is oh so necessary. It did not shot 30 fps progressive scan. it only shoots 15 fps progressive scan. After becoming ill due to the strange 15 fps video, I read through the manual and found that they (Sony) boast about the progressive scan mode that their camera has just like the Canon XL1 but they do not tell you right up front that it can not shoot 30 fps in that mode. Only 15 fps. They claim that their progressive scan feature is so you can videotape certain actions like swinging a golf club and then look at clear pictures of the action later. It is not meant to be used as a general way of shooting as is the case with the wonderful Canon cameras. Anyway, I got my money back and bought the GL1. The camera I really want is the JVC -- 700. That thing does true 16:9 . In the meantime, I plan to buy an anamorphic lens for the XL1 I plan to buy next month.Do any other cameras shoot in 30 fps progessive mode or is that something unique to Canon?
....
[This message has been edited by Webmaster Dale (edited 01-04-2001).] |
doubleyou
|
posted 12-26-2000 06:50 PM
What exactly is progressive scan ?
What can you do with an anamorphic lens ?Thanks |
SFE
|
posted 12-26-2000 11:35 PM
Thanks for the input guys. I was wonder where you have been able to find both the Xl1 and Gl1 for the cheapest price. Still working on the solution for myself but price is definetly a factor. Just wanna be sure when i lay out the cash i don't end up messing up. Thanks again.
|
morpherguy
|
posted 12-27-2000 08:21 AM
Progressive scan is when the camera records an entire image at once instead of recording it as odd and even fields (60 fields per second (NTSC)). Progressive scan is a lot more pleasing to the eye and looks a lot more like film than regular video (interlaced).An anamorphic lens allows you to squeeze a wide screen frame size (16:9) onto a standard CCD (4:3). This makes the video look tall and skinny when you watch it on a regular tv but if you watch it on a widescreen tv the video will be stretched back to it's intended widescreen format. Just like when a 35mm movie is shot with an anamorphic lens. The image is squeezed into the film frame but when it is projected in the theater, the movie projector has a special lens on it that will "un-squeeze" the images so that everything looks normal on the screen. [This message has been edited by morpherguy (edited 12-27-2000).] |
doubleyou
|
posted 12-27-2000 03:27 PM
I didn't know that it would work with video too. How much is an anamorphic lens ?
So is the GL1 (I think in Europe it's called XM1) the only camera able to do progressive scan ?
I heard only good thinks about the VX 2000. But why can it only shoot 15 fps progressive scan ? Isn't that useless ? Maybe it can shoot 25 fps in progressive scan mode ?
|
morpherguy
|
posted 12-27-2000 05:59 PM
Nope. Only 15 fps.. I don't know why. It seems pretty useless to me too.I know that both the Canon XL1 and GL1 shoot 30 fps progressive. |
ADOM
|
posted 12-28-2000 02:36 AM
I recently read an article that if your plan is to transfer to film the PAL format which shoots at 25fps transfers better. There is software that can account for the 3% difference over a 90 minute period of 25/24fps.I only mention this because frame mode is better to shoot in for this process as well. I think SONY and Panasonic both make cameras that can shoot in 25/30 fps (depending on format) in frames, but they are of the more expensive variety: $4,000+ and up. This is all from memory and so not intended to be taken as total fact, but rather a reference a point. ADOM |
Louis M
|
posted 12-28-2000 08:43 PM
are there any where you can adjust the fps?------------------
Louis Matthews
http://www.AManimation.com
"I'm a Master at Animation, and thats why I use Animation Master..." |
doubleyou
|
posted 12-29-2000 06:56 AM
morpherguy: do you always film in progressive scan mode ?
But how does the computer handle the odd and even fields ? Isn't there always a full image ?
No, I don't think you can adjust the fps. Only if you use filmcameras, super8, 16mm... You can switch between 18fps or 24fps.The advantages of the VX 2000:
-sharper LCD then GL1 (200,000 pixel)
-better image quality
-memory stick photo mode (but only 480x640 pixel)
-analog in
-stop motion
-manual zoom
-more sensitive in lowlight
and hey, it's the successor of the legendary VX 1000  GL1 -20x optical zoom !
-the price
-second start/stop button
-and this progressive scan thing what a dilemma, I planned to buy the VX2000 but this progressive scan feature seems to rock...!?
What do to ?
I want a VX2000 with progressive scan
|
morpherguy
|
posted 12-29-2000 03:56 PM
Yes, I always shoot in progressive scan. If you were to see some footage shot with progressive scan side by side with footage shot interlace, you would then know what I mean. I've seen some progressive scan footage right out of the camera that looks very much like film. It really is amazing. Yes, the computer does display a whole image when you edit whether you are using progessive scan or interlace but if you plan on doing blue screen shots you will have a little bit of a challenge with the interlace because, for some reason, if there is movement within the frame, there is a strange off setting of the odd and even scan lines. This makes pulling a matte very diffecult. I'm serious, don't buy a Sony 2000. Once you learn how wonderful progressive scan is you will be kicking yourself for buying a camera that only shoots progressive scan at 15 frames a second. For the money, the GL1 is the best DV camera I've used. True, the XL1 has some features that the GL1 doesn't but to be honest, most of those features aren't used by most people shooting mini DV. The people who really want a camera that can handle different lenses are also the people who want to shoot 16:9 and who have enough money to buy a professional level camera. Remember, lenses cost a lot of money. Let the truth be known that the XL1, as cool as it looks, is just a consumer level camera. Save the extra money for movie supplies and buy the GL1. [This message has been edited by morpherguy (edited 12-29-2000).] |
doubleyou
|
posted 12-29-2000 05:51 PM
Hey morpherguy, thanks a lot for the input !
I will rethink about my decision.Wish you and everyone a happy new year !
[This message has been edited by Webmaster Dale (edited 01-04-2001).]
... [This message has been edited by Webmaster Dale (edited 01-04-2001).] |
Misterthrills
|
posted 01-02-2001 06:44 PM
Hey dudes greetings from canada. I was wondering if there are any dv cameras out there that shoot at different frame rates. I would like a camera with at faster frame rate for some slow motion scenes. Also im deciding between the xl1 and the gl1 right now. I know the xl is top for its price but do any other cameras compare to the gl (like the sony trv900?)[This message has been edited by Webmaster Dale (edited 01-04-2001).] |
Misterthrills
|
posted 01-04-2001 03:18 AM
I'm going to buy the gl1 stop me if i'm doin the wrong thing 
...
[This message has been edited by Webmaster Dale (edited 01-04-2001).] |
B. Rhomboid
|
posted 01-04-2001 07:54 AM
I have an XL-1, which I would recommend highly;Best thing about it is the interchangeable lens system. Worth the extra bucks in my view. .... [This message has been edited by Webmaster Dale (edited 01-04-2001).] [This message has been edited by Webmaster Dale (edited 01-04-2001).] |
Sam
|
posted 01-04-2001 03:04 PM
quote:
Originally posted by ADOM:
For a quick, affordable form of shoulder stabilization get yourself a monopod and put the head at full tilt. The leg can rest on either shoulder (depending on how you set up the head) and it really helps steady the smaller cameras.ADOM PS Are you dedicated to Canon or have you considered the Panasonic DVC 10? I've seen it for under $1800 and it has a shoulder mount.
...
[This message has been edited by Webmaster Dale (edited 01-04-2001).]
Hey! You're back!
|
doubleyou
|
posted 01-05-2001 06:40 PM
Does Canon have a similar system to Sony's Info Lithium Accus ? |
SFE
|
posted 01-07-2001 11:11 PM
How close to a film look can you get with the gl? Can you get better images with the xl? Also the gl microphone looks pretty dinky. I dunno... man money sucks... |
Louis M
|
posted 01-08-2001 10:14 PM
Do what I'm probally doing... wait until the XL2 or GL2 comes out and then purchase the XL1 or GL1. People will sell those cheep and that makes me happy. ------------------
Louis Matthews
http://www.AManimation.com |
SFE
|
posted 01-09-2001 12:21 AM
Any idea as to when those come out? |
morpherguy
|
posted 01-09-2001 12:26 AM
Although the GL1 uses CCD's that are smaller than those found in the XL1, I've done side by side tests with the XL1 and have found no noticable difference in picture quality. Also, The microphone is every bit as good as the one on the XL1 but it doesn't have the cool looking wind screen. Doesn't really matter to me since I use an external mic anyway.[This message has been edited by morpherguy (edited 01-09-2001).] |
FlashPointFilms
|
posted 01-09-2001 03:23 PM
I just bought a XL1 last week. Its one of the best cameras I've ever used... I love it. I never used a GL1 though... I wanted the option of changing the lens... also liked the wider range of accessories for the XL1... things like matte boxes and 14x lens. Also things like follow-focus nobs and etc. Check out the images at:
http://www.dvinfo.net/xl1.htm But I would have to agree with many people here... it depends how far you plan to go with the camera. The GL1 sounds very good as well. XL1 -Same audio quality as a DAT recorder (not sure if thats true with most miniDV cams or not?) -It ability to shoot grain free low light situations (slow shutter, 1/8 1/15 1/30 etc...) -lens and ability to use EF lenses (over 200) -The large amount of accessories and upgrades. And I was able to get mine for $3400... not a bad deal for such a great camera. -Andrew Eckblad
http://www.geocities.com/andreweckblad/index.html
|
SFE
|
posted 01-19-2001 06:24 PM
Well I have made up my mind about eight times now.... Man this is tough..I want the xl but for the gl price. god.....I don't like how small the gl is for somethings and for other things i think it would work alot better..Plus the eos lenses look great. but they are very expensive....crap...one day i will make the final decision...probably won't be satisfied with it though. |
