You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

Canon gl2

Posted: Sat, 22nd Nov 2003, 12:45am

Post 1 of 33

SFX-Spaz

Force: 460 | Joined: 7th Jun 2003 | Posts: 100

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

I was thinking about buying a Canon GL2. I am looking for cam that has crisp video quality, and I think the gl2 is the one. Do any of you have one? If so, is it good?

cheers,
-j
Posted: Sat, 22nd Nov 2003, 1:11am

Post 2 of 33

potman

Force: 700 | Joined: 3rd May 2003 | Posts: 123

EffectsLab Pro User MacOS User

Gold Member

Hummm every one is getting a GL2 these days....

I have one and it produces great results biggrin
Its price for quality ratio can not be beaten, in my opinion.

Oh and i think the folk at CSB have one, so it must be good!!! wink
Posted: Sat, 22nd Nov 2003, 5:21am

Post 3 of 33

wdy

Force: 1700 | Joined: 30th Dec 2002 | Posts: 1258

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User MacOS User

Gold Member

I beleive that "yes" Canon GL-2 would be perfect for what you are looking for and it has dropped in price. I'm about to buy mine in the next week or so from cameratopia.com they sell it for about $1600 US. Shipping cost is failry cheap and very good service so far. Good luck. Also if you are in the US (which im not) there is a $250 Mail in rebate on the camera right now too.
Posted: Sat, 22nd Nov 2003, 8:37am

Post 4 of 33

jjuerss

Force: 1150 | Joined: 5th Jul 2003 | Posts: 332

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

I have this camera (XM2 in Europe) and I can thoroughly recomend it.

Cheers,

JJ
Posted: Sat, 22nd Nov 2003, 1:06pm

Post 5 of 33

fallen

Force: 1595 | Joined: 11th Nov 2001 | Posts: 586

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

i have one and i often think about having it's babies
Posted: Sat, 22nd Nov 2003, 4:31pm

Post 6 of 33

X

Force: 1399 | Joined: 28th Dec 2001 | Posts: 542

FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

what are some of the differences between the gl1 and the 2?
Posted: Sat, 22nd Nov 2003, 4:45pm

Post 7 of 33

SFX-Spaz

Force: 460 | Joined: 7th Jun 2003 | Posts: 100

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Well, for one the gl2 is much lighter. I also believe that the gl2 has the audio dials on the side. Now I'm not sure if the gl1 did, but all the reviews I read of the gl2 strongly emphasized how nice the audio dials were.
Posted: Sat, 22nd Nov 2003, 5:26pm

Post 8 of 33

fallen

Force: 1595 | Joined: 11th Nov 2001 | Posts: 586

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

the XM2 has many more manual controls giving you much better control over the picture, aswell as an improved optic system based on the XL1
Posted: Sat, 22nd Nov 2003, 8:02pm

Post 9 of 33

SFX-Spaz

Force: 460 | Joined: 7th Jun 2003 | Posts: 100

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Alright, sounds good. Also, if I were willing to spend the money, would the XL1S be worth it, or should I stick with the gl2. Thanks,


-j
Posted: Sat, 22nd Nov 2003, 8:15pm

Post 10 of 33

potman

Force: 700 | Joined: 3rd May 2003 | Posts: 123

EffectsLab Pro User MacOS User

Gold Member

I would go for the GL2 as the XL1S only real advantage is the changeable lenses.

That way you will have more money to get a good mic...etc

Just my 2 cents......
Posted: Sat, 22nd Nov 2003, 8:18pm

Post 11 of 33

SFX-Spaz

Force: 460 | Joined: 7th Jun 2003 | Posts: 100

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Wait, wait isn't the xl1s supposed to have better image quality too? What about the sound, is it better than the gl2's? Basically, I'm looking for a camera with very nice audio and video that's below $3,000.
Posted: Sat, 22nd Nov 2003, 9:16pm

Post 12 of 33

potman

Force: 700 | Joined: 3rd May 2003 | Posts: 123

EffectsLab Pro User MacOS User

Gold Member

Yeah....the image quality is pretty much the same for the two....

Some other things to take into account.


*The xl1s chews through batteries
*No fold out screen on the xl1s
*The xl1s is heavy and big in comparison to the GL2
*The xl1s has got better audio management than GL2
*To get good quality sound you will need an external mic no matter what cam you have.

Thats all i can think of at the moment, If i were you i would get the GL2 with a nice mic, and maybe a few other accessories.
Posted: Sat, 22nd Nov 2003, 11:03pm

Post 13 of 33

SFX-Spaz

Force: 460 | Joined: 7th Jun 2003 | Posts: 100

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

wait, I would think that the XL1S' picture quality would be at least a tad bit better than that of the gl2, because you're paying $1000 if not more than the gl2. If the quality of the video is the same, then what are you paying for?


-j
Posted: Sat, 22nd Nov 2003, 11:12pm

Post 14 of 33

andrewlogan

Force: 400 | Joined: 24th Feb 2002 | Posts: 218

MacOS User

Gold Member

The XL1 is heavy and meant to be shoulder mounted, this makes it much more suitable for broadcast. I believe the image is a bit better due to the flouride lens(or whatever, the lens is much better). Although if you want portability at all, the GL2 is the way to go. I hate to mention this because it might change your mind completely, but JVC has a Camera like the GL2 that records in HD. Just a thought...
Posted: Sat, 22nd Nov 2003, 11:14pm

Post 15 of 33

SFX-Spaz

Force: 460 | Joined: 7th Jun 2003 | Posts: 100

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Actually, the XL1s weighs only about 6 pounds, that's not bad at all. And, I hate to sound like an idiot, but what exactly is HD?

-j
Posted: Sat, 22nd Nov 2003, 11:23pm

Post 16 of 33

Hajiku_Flip

Force: 3786 | Joined: 2nd Jun 2002 | Posts: 1669

Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I'm looking to get a GL2 in a few months or so, what are GL1's selling at at the moment? confused
Posted: Sun, 23rd Nov 2003, 12:30am

Post 17 of 33

SFX-Spaz

Force: 460 | Joined: 7th Jun 2003 | Posts: 100

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

I believe the gl1 is discontinued. I might be wrong.
Posted: Sun, 23rd Nov 2003, 3:02am

Post 18 of 33

Slick

Force: 1140 | Joined: 20th Jul 2003 | Posts: 924

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

SFX-Spaz wrote:

Actually, the XL1s weighs only about 6 pounds, that's not bad at all. And, I hate to sound like an idiot, but what exactly is HD?

-j
High definition
Posted: Sun, 23rd Nov 2003, 3:07am

Post 19 of 33

SFX-Spaz

Force: 460 | Joined: 7th Jun 2003 | Posts: 100

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

andrewlogan wrote:

The XL1 is heavy and meant to be shoulder mounted, this makes it much more suitable for broadcast. I believe the image is a bit better due to the flouride lens(or whatever, the lens is much better). Although if you want portability at all, the GL2 is the way to go. I hate to mention this because it might change your mind completely, but JVC has a Camera like the GL2 that records in HD. Just a thought...
What cam might that be? Thanks,


-j
Posted: Sun, 23rd Nov 2003, 3:09am

Post 20 of 33

Slick

Force: 1140 | Joined: 20th Jul 2003 | Posts: 924

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

It means that Jvc has a new type of camera that records high definition quality which means the picture is really crisp and it looks great.
Posted: Sun, 23rd Nov 2003, 3:40am

Post 21 of 33

SFX-Spaz

Force: 460 | Joined: 7th Jun 2003 | Posts: 100

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

slick wrote:

It means that Jvc has a new type of camera that records high definition quality which means the picture is really crisp and it looks great.
I mean what's the model...
Yarg, I hate to keep making these short posts,

sorry,

-j
Posted: Sun, 23rd Nov 2003, 4:46am

Post 22 of 33

Coureur de Bois

Force: 1394 | Joined: 23rd Sep 2002 | Posts: 1127

VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

andrewlogan wrote:

The XL1 is heavy and meant to be shoulder mounted, this makes it much more suitable for broadcast. I believe the image is a bit better due to the flouride lens(or whatever, the lens is much better). Although if you want portability at all, the GL2 is the way to go. I hate to mention this because it might change your mind completely, but JVC has a Camera like the GL2 that records in HD. Just a thought...
Sorry, but there are quite a few errors in this post I need to point out. First of all, no, the XL-1s does not produce better picture quality. Secondly, they both have flourite lenes. And lastly, the GL-2 actually produces better picture quality, it had more lines of resolution and better low light performance.

Get a GL-2. I have one, and it rocks. It rocks my fudging socks off.
Posted: Sun, 23rd Nov 2003, 4:46am

Post 23 of 33

Hajiku_Flip

Force: 3786 | Joined: 2nd Jun 2002 | Posts: 1669

Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

SFX-Spaz wrote:

I believe the gl1 is discontinued. I might be wrong.
No, I'm meaning to sell my GL1 to help pay for the GL2... Knew I shoulda clarified, was just too lazy sleep
Posted: Sun, 23rd Nov 2003, 4:48am

Post 24 of 33

Coureur de Bois

Force: 1394 | Joined: 23rd Sep 2002 | Posts: 1127

VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

GL-1, eh? I'd say you could sell it for $1200 to 1300, depending on what kind of condition it's in.
Posted: Sun, 23rd Nov 2003, 5:02am

Post 25 of 33

SFX-Spaz

Force: 460 | Joined: 7th Jun 2003 | Posts: 100

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Alright then, but just for choice...


What is the best Camera for under $3,000? [I stress image quality] wink
Posted: Sun, 23rd Nov 2003, 10:10am

Post 26 of 33

fallen

Force: 1595 | Joined: 11th Nov 2001 | Posts: 586

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

HD - high definitioon. Its a new TV format basically, with supurb picture quality, and much higher resolution. It's pretty big in the states atm but hasn't really caught on here in europe yet. Back on the subject, I am told (by a fairly reliable soucre) that the picture quality has been improved in the XM2 over the XL1, and that the extra cost for the XL1 is just for the ability to change lenses. The XM2 also uses a flourite lens.
Posted: Sun, 23rd Nov 2003, 10:53am

Post 27 of 33

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Just a few things. Firstly of the XM1 (GL1 NTSC), XM2 (GL2 NTSC) and the XL1S the XM2 has the best quality - none are broadcast quality but they are as near as you can get in miniDV. Sony has recently released with VX2100 which is worth a look if they have at last fixed there terrible progressive capture but it is quite an expensive camera.

As for the JVC miniDV MPEG2 HD cameras (GR-PD1 PAL, GR-HD1 and JY-HD10 NTSC) we will be reviewing one of these over Christmas. The fact that they are HD gives huge image resolution but I'm not sure the quality of the single CCD and MPEG2 encoding is up to that of the XM2 - we will find out an do a review for both the view point of film and special effects. One great feature on the JVC is the ability to capture full progressive PAL at 50FPS or NTSC at 60FPS!

We'll get on the review as soon as we can, JVC currently has all its cameras out with magazines etc but we are in line for one.

Last edited Tue, 8th Jun 2004, 8:57am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 23rd Nov 2003, 1:13pm

Post 28 of 33

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Was just wondering why miniDV isn't viewed to be broadcast quality? I've never really understood why, in all my years of working with miniDV & Beta SP & DVCAM.

When you look at pretty much every 3ccd miniDV cam you have superb picture quality, whether it's on a flatscreen tv or PC monitor.

Is it because with miniDV cams you can only have a certain amount of resolution... confused tard
Posted: Sun, 23rd Nov 2003, 5:23pm

Post 29 of 33

SFX-Spaz

Force: 460 | Joined: 7th Jun 2003 | Posts: 100

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

orion0340 wrote:

And lastly, the GL-2 actually produces better picture quality, it had more lines of resolution and better low light performance.
I did some research on this, and he is correct. Check out these three images: The forth and fifth shots are taken from the GL-2, and the sixth is from the XL1-S

http://www.dvinfo.net/canongl2/images/images1.php

-j

EDIT: Also, for any one who is intrested, I found this: http://www.dvinfo.net/canongl2/reports/gl2-bg2.php
Which is a very insightful article comparing the GL-2 and the XL1-S.
Posted: Mon, 1st Dec 2003, 2:19pm

Post 30 of 33

jamesgrahamuk

Force: 210 | Joined: 26th Nov 2003 | Posts: 7

Gold Member

Hmmm....

There seems to be a bit of confusion and third party tech-talk regurgitation going on here.

Firstly, to qualify my following assertions let me tell you that I own and use both the XM2 and XL1s:

In my experience, both cameras produce very good quality pictures. Out of the box, the XM2 tends to produce a more neutral, or slightly bluish picture, which may give the impression of higher detail. (Yes, I know, don't start shouting 'lines of resolution' at me!). The XL1s produces a red, warmer tone which is often interpreted as more filmic (mostly by gob-shites).

The truth is that both cameras can be configured to produce whatever look you desire. I know this as I have to shoot footage which will match and I can detect no discernible difference in resolution or detail.

Statistics and technical detail aside, lets talk about practical use.

Both cameras can be fully automatic or completely manually controlled. With the XM2 this often means resorting to a fiddly menu system whereas all camera functions are accessible on the body of the XL1s (white balance, gain, shutter speed, iris control, etc.). Whereas the XL1s stock lens features large zoom and focus rings the XM2 has no zoom ring, only rocker switches, and quite a fiddly (for my hands) focus ring.

In the field, the XM2 is extremely light and very economical on the battery. The flip-out screen comes in handy too. The microphone, however, is appalling (but who uses on-cam mics anyway?) and the tiny camera is more susceptible to bumpy, vibrating images than it's larger (gyro-stabilised) cousin. Good, big zoom on the XM2 though!

The XL1s is much larger, although still very light, but can become quite uncomfortable for prolongued use due to the fact that this camera isn't really shoulder mounted. As the body is quite small, it is only the very rear of the camera which is supported by the shoulder by means of a fold out pad. What this translates to is the fact that most of the cameras weight is on your wrist and not on your shoulder.

XM2 image quality is indeed excellent although one point which I have heard repeated over and over again in so many places is that of 'low light performance'.

Well, I'm sorry to burst the bubble but there is no way that the XM2 comes close to the XL1s in low light. I have edited too much footage from dimly lit wedding receptions to be taken in by this myth. In low light situations, it is always the XL1s which produces by far the best images with minimal grain and digital-gain artefacts at times when the XM2 is producing grainy, unusable mush.

So let's not kid ourselves here. The XL1s IS the better camera. It's price tag does not simply refelect the fact that you can change lenses - as someone rather fatuously commented. For total control, stability, low light performance and, yes, the ability to change lenses (and viewfinder and microphone) I would always plump for the XL1s.

However, this does not detract from the fact the XM2 really is a great camera. If you simply lift both cameras out of their packaging and start shooting then the XM2 will always seem to produce the best images with minimal fuss. The XL1s, on the other hand, requires a little more understanding and attention to produce it's best work.

So there!
Posted: Mon, 1st Dec 2003, 10:25pm

Post 31 of 33

TAP2

Force: 1128 | Joined: 8th Jan 2003 | Posts: 1848

Windows User

Member

I'm going to be clever and wait a year, then buy one of those JVC HD beasts. biggrin
Posted: Tue, 2nd Dec 2003, 1:16pm

Post 32 of 33

jamesgrahamuk

Force: 210 | Joined: 26th Nov 2003 | Posts: 7

Gold Member

***REALITY CHECK***

Somehow, I don't think that you will get a HDCAM unit for the same price as the XM2 (£1600). Seeing as HDCAM's weigh in at £60K - absolute minimum.

Climbing all the way up from miniDV, and giving very rough figures, you have DVCAM (anything from £1.5K to £10K), and beyond that DVCPRO and DigiBeta (up to £50K).

***UPDATE: ERR...ACTUALLY***

I've just done a little digging around and discovered the JVC GR-HD1 which is the camera I assume you are talking about. It seems that this camera takes HDTV resolution images and writes them to miniDV tape with MPEG2 compression. Which is interesting...

High-definition 16:9 images at a $3500 price tag, this really seems to good to be true!

I want one!

There is no PAL model planned as yet though.
Posted: Tue, 2nd Dec 2003, 3:13pm

Post 33 of 33

jjuerss

Force: 1150 | Joined: 5th Jul 2003 | Posts: 332

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Correct me if I am wrong, but, nice though HD undoubtably is, won't it be much harder to edit and add special effects because of the heavy compression involved?