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

Which camera would you guys pick?

Posted: Mon, 26th Apr 2004, 9:57pm

Post 1 of 47

Kevo

Force: 0 | Joined: 25th Mar 2004 | Posts: 31

Member

I've been debating which 3CCD camera I want to upgrade to... What do you guys think of these ones...

1. Canon GL2
2. Panasonic DVX100(A)
3. Panasonic DVC80
4. Sony VX2100

Those are the ones that I've been looking at the most... other suggestions are welcomed...

Oh and also, what is the freaking difference between the DVX100 and DVX100A?! I know the 100A replaced the 100, but what's the difference? What did they upgrade?

THANKS!!!

Kevo
Posted: Mon, 26th Apr 2004, 10:04pm

Post 2 of 47

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Hey, another one of these!

Buy all of them, or any of them. Whichever you choose, you'll be happy with. Guaranteed.
Posted: Mon, 26th Apr 2004, 10:07pm

Post 3 of 47

Kevo

Force: 0 | Joined: 25th Mar 2004 | Posts: 31

Member

haha i sense some sarcasum! But a little more specific if ya could!
Posted: Mon, 26th Apr 2004, 10:09pm

Post 4 of 47

Brettsta

Force: 3385 | Joined: 15th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2114

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Canons a good company. Get the GL2. But as aculag said, no mattere which one youll pick youll be happy. (well, you better be with those! wink)


PEACE OUT
Posted: Mon, 26th Apr 2004, 10:09pm

Post 5 of 47

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

No seriously. You're not going to get a huge wave of "Buy the sony" posts, because everyone has different tastes. Try them all out, see what suits you best. No matter what you pick, you'll be glad you picked it. If you don't believe me, fine. Just wait for more people to tell you what I just did.

Search the forums. You'll find a LOT more topics EXACTLY like this one, all with the same outcome.
Posted: Mon, 26th Apr 2004, 10:45pm

Post 6 of 47

Gibs

Force: 1663 | Joined: 21st May 2002 | Posts: 1611

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Well, I personally haven't used any of these cameras, but I have heard that the VX2100 performs well in low light conditions, as opposed to the GL2. But Aculag's right. Try them out first, and see which one you like. I'm sure a local camera store would let you test drive the cameras for relatively low cost, provided you buy from them. But Aculag's right again. Whichever camera you get you will be happy with in the long run. smile
Posted: Mon, 26th Apr 2004, 11:12pm

Post 7 of 47

Kevo

Force: 0 | Joined: 25th Mar 2004 | Posts: 31

Member

I see what you guys mean... thanks for the input!
Posted: Mon, 26th Apr 2004, 11:19pm

Post 8 of 47

anonymous

if i were you..id definitly get the dvx-100a...no doubt..the rest of the cameras arent in the same league as the dvx-100a...the canon gl2 and the dvc-80 are not nearly as good as the dvx-100a and the vx-2100....get the dvx-100a
Posted: Mon, 26th Apr 2004, 11:48pm

Post 9 of 47

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

The 100a... there should be no hesitation about that..
Posted: Tue, 27th Apr 2004, 12:09am

Post 10 of 47

Spanish Prisoner

Force: 310 | Joined: 21st Aug 2003 | Posts: 378

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

yeah, all of them are good and you'll be happy with em all. but when i have to really chose, then I'd take one of these two:

1. Canon GL2
2. Panasonic DVX100(A)


seriously, they are good cams and they are capable of enough options, most of 'em you propably will never use. The only matter is good video quality and a good handling.
Posted: Tue, 27th Apr 2004, 12:57am

Post 11 of 47

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

Rating: +1

The Sony VX2100 is king when it comes to image quality and has the best CCD. Although there were some problem with the first models off the production line these have been fixed and its basically the best quality miniDV camera on the market.

Before the XV2100 the Canon GL2 was king of the miniDV market. It has higher quality than its bigger (older) brother the XL1S and is pretty cheap.

The only reason I can see for getting the DVX100 is the manual zoom and focus rings. I don't really consider 24FPS as a useful feature unless you only print your DV to film (which always looks a bit poor) - for everything else 24FPS it is pretty pointless. Its a good quality camera but both the Canon and the Sony offer a more complete package.

The Panasonic DVC80 seems to be a rather odd camera. There are many good deals to be had and its good quality but it also lacks progressive capture which really counts against it. I think Panasonic have stopped making it now (or they will be soon) which might be why they are so cheap.

In conclusion... If money is no object then get the Sony. If you would like to save some money while still getting a fantastic camera then go for a GL2.

Last edited Tue, 8th Jun 2004, 9:07am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Tue, 27th Apr 2004, 1:19am

Post 12 of 47

Kevo

Force: 0 | Joined: 25th Mar 2004 | Posts: 31

Member

So in picture quality you the VX2100 is the best? But the panasonics (100,100A and 80) all have higher pixel counts and CCD's. Or is the 2100 just better in low light?

Also...what is the differennce between the 100 and 100A...I know that the difference between the 80 and 100 is the 24P...which i guess doesn't seem to be that important...
Posted: Tue, 27th Apr 2004, 1:24am

Post 13 of 47

wdy

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

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User MacOS User

Gold Member

GL 2 smile
Posted: Tue, 27th Apr 2004, 2:02am

Post 14 of 47

Gibs

Force: 1663 | Joined: 21st May 2002 | Posts: 1611

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

schwar wrote:

The only reason I can see for getting the DVX100 is the manual zoom and focus rings.
Wait. Are you saying the VX2100 doesn't have a manual focus ring?
Posted: Tue, 27th Apr 2004, 3:08am

Post 15 of 47

anonymous

24p is not pointless..most people who are making movies want to mimic the film look as much as possible..24p really gives it that filmlook everyone desires..its hard to tell the difference between film and dvx-100..its easy to tell the difference between film and the gl-2 or vx-2100
Posted: Tue, 27th Apr 2004, 3:10am

Post 16 of 47

Coureur de Bois

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

VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

schwar wrote:


The only reason I can see for getting the DVX100 is the manual zoom and focus rings.
you are forgetting the excellent Cine-like Gamma on it.

There are plenty of other factors involved, but when it comes down to it the DVX100A will give you the most "film-like" footage right off the bat.
Posted: Tue, 27th Apr 2004, 3:38am

Post 17 of 47

Marek

Force: 2225 | Joined: 25th Dec 2002 | Posts: 1754

EffectsLab Lite User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I've been looking at getting the VX2100 for some time now. I havn't exactly gotten a lot of information other than the suggestions from various community members, mostly just drooled at the thought of owning it smile

It seems like a good solid camera to me. Its only a bit more than a GL2 at www.cameratopia.com, about $1,800 I think.
Posted: Tue, 27th Apr 2004, 10:58am

Post 18 of 47

Solidus

Force: 240 | Joined: 15th May 2002 | Posts: 103

Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Well 24p is pretty pointless when you can emulate the 'film look' in pretty much any decent NLE, especially us PAL users who are shooting Digital Video at 25fps anyway. And let's face it how many people are really going to be converting their footage to film stock?

One of the Digital Filmamking modules I am currently doing for University often has the films shown at a few film festivals and none of these places expect to have your film on film stock to play it on a cinema screen.

By all means create the 'film look' to achieve a less video style on your film, but don't start getting delusions of grandeur, it's digital video not film and if your film is good enough as it is, it doesn't matter what format it is.


I purchased a Sony VX2100 just about a month ago now and have used it to record a small documentary piece, a film, an advert style product shoot and just some little things messing around. To say it is a superb camera is an understatement, the manual controls are excellant, it's like it's a digital SLR that shoots at 25fps. The built in Neutral Density filter is great for outdoor shooting and getting a shallow depth of field when your throw a lot of light at it. It does have manual focus and zoom rings for whoever it was who thought it didn't. It's low light performance is amazing, you can point it at near darkness and it will not come back with that horrible grainy image you get on other cameras, like my 1 chipper. It's a real clincher for filmmakers I think because a lot of guerilla digital films are shot in low light. It has a few other beneficial filmmaker features such as the ability to drop the sharpness to give a softer image and shift the colour and white balance in camera. Progressive scan is pretty useful for slow motion shots or that stuttery action effect. Then it has a few options like stop motion recording and time lapse which I haven't had on a video camera since VHS.

I've used the Canon GL1&2/XM1&2 as my University has them available for loan and they are a good, cheaper alternative, but they don't offer the same low light performance or quite as many features. Still a good camera though. Part of the reason being that the VX2100 has bigger size CCD chips than some of the competition.

Personally I can't recommend the VX2100 enough, the only other camera I would consider getting is the Canon XL, but then it's only worth it if you can affoard all the different lenses.

Check out www.camcorderinfo.com and www.dvinfo.net which both have user groups for the VX2100 and the other bigger 3 chip cameras. Lots of information there.
Posted: Tue, 27th Apr 2004, 11:55am

Post 19 of 47

Erico

Force: 0 | Joined: 24th Feb 2004 | Posts: 51

Member

Just wondering, I especially hope for answers from Schwar and Solidus: Would you still recommend the VX2100 if the PD170 was amongst the alternatives?
Just wondering, because I'm getting a 3CCD soon, too.

And, here in Europe our cameras shoot in 25fps as you might know.
Does that mean that the film can be converted over to film without having to do something with the quality or framerate first?
Posted: Tue, 27th Apr 2004, 1:02pm

Post 20 of 47

Coureur de Bois

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

VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Erico wrote:

Just wondering, I especially hope for answers from Schwar and Solidus: Would you still recommend the VX2100 if the PD170 was amongst the alternatives?
Well, I am not Tarn or Solidius, however I would still go with the VX2100. from my understanding the PD-170 is just the more "Professional" version of the VX2100. I believe it is actually the exact same camera with some more "pro" features (which you probably wouldn't need to use anyway)

Good Luck on your Decision. I bought a GL-2 and am extremely happy with it, however I am positive that if I would have bought the VX2100( or any other Prosumer 3 chip cam) I would have been just as happy.
Posted: Tue, 27th Apr 2004, 1:05pm

Post 21 of 47

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

orion0340 wrote:

Well, I am not Tarn or Solidius
Nor are you Schwar. biggrin
Posted: Tue, 27th Apr 2004, 1:13pm

Post 22 of 47

Coureur de Bois

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

VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Aculag wrote:

orion0340 wrote:

Well, I am not Tarn or Solidius
Nor are you Schwar. biggrin
eek Hmmmm... tard It's obvious I have short term memory issues. I don't believe in editing posts so thats going to stay there...
Posted: Tue, 27th Apr 2004, 1:27pm

Post 23 of 47

Solidus

Force: 240 | Joined: 15th May 2002 | Posts: 103

Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

The PD170 is pretty much the same camera though one major difference is that the PD has XLR audio sockets. If your planning to use high quality microphone inputs this might be a clincher to you. However there is an XLR convertor available for the VX series.
Posted: Tue, 27th Apr 2004, 9:54pm

Post 24 of 47

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

forget all these fancy 3ccd so called "digital" "camcorders". just do what is natural and get a shoulder mounted Vhs from a reputable company like quasar. I think you can still find them on ebay. if you can, try to get the model from 1995, as i feel the picture quality is far and away the best.
Posted: Tue, 27th Apr 2004, 10:39pm

Post 25 of 47

Kevo

Force: 0 | Joined: 25th Mar 2004 | Posts: 31

Member

wow this has turned into quite a conversation... I have premiere, which converts to 24 fps...right? Or am i completely off...

So it's looking like you guys are torn btwn the DVX100(A) and the VX2100 So lets have it... just single post...


DVX100(A) or VX2100

GO!
Posted: Tue, 27th Apr 2004, 10:41pm

Post 26 of 47

Brettsta

Force: 3385 | Joined: 15th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2114

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

You mean vx2100 vs. GL2. Thats the way Id go. If you have the money for it, get the vx2100, if you dont, get the gl2. You wont regret either choice.
Posted: Tue, 27th Apr 2004, 10:43pm

Post 27 of 47

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Alright, heres the deal, premiere doesnt convert anything to 24p, that being said, the vx2100 is the best by far, having large ccd chips and more features(that dont include 24p or cinegam) unless you want to print to film, which you dont, right?
Posted: Tue, 27th Apr 2004, 10:43pm

Post 28 of 47

Kevo

Force: 0 | Joined: 25th Mar 2004 | Posts: 31

Member

I dont know I'm not really that attracted (and yeah I'm attracted to cameras... confused ) to the GL2... The the vx2100 and 100A look so much better
Posted: Tue, 27th Apr 2004, 10:45pm

Post 29 of 47

Kevo

Force: 0 | Joined: 25th Mar 2004 | Posts: 31

Member

I know it doesn't covert it to 24P... but it can export with 24 frames per second...right?


and are the film style gamma settings really that good on the 100A?
Posted: Tue, 27th Apr 2004, 10:51pm

Post 30 of 47

Brettsta

Force: 3385 | Joined: 15th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2114

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

24p isnt important at all, unless your planning to print to film. THe gl2 and vx2100 both have awesome progressive modes which I think shoots 24p on a 29.79 frame rate. Anyway, it makes it more movielike.
Posted: Tue, 27th Apr 2004, 11:14pm

Post 31 of 47

Solidus

Force: 240 | Joined: 15th May 2002 | Posts: 103

Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

and are the film style gamma settings really that good on the 100A?
Nothing that you can't already do in post.

The VX has the ability to desaturate the colours, but I prefer to keep it at full and then desaturate in post anyways, as it's always better to change something in post rather than having something irreversible.
Posted: Wed, 28th Apr 2004, 12:42am

Post 32 of 47

anonymous

no brettsta..your wrong...the vx-2100 has a nice progresive mode but its not 24p...and gl2 has a frame mode but thats not 24p either....i cant believe all of you guys acting like the dvx-100a is the bad camera..its clearly the best out of all these cameras and gives the most filmlike image period!...who cares if your not printing to film..the extremely film like image gives a whole new level of proffesionalism to your projects..i would defintly NOT Go with the gl2..its just not in the same league as the vx-2100 and dvx-100a...if you use the camera right..the dvx-100a can give results that can rival the expensive film cameras...and premiere does NOT convert it to 24p or whatever u were saying..and u cant just "export" it as 24p...you need the dvx-100a for real 24p
Posted: Wed, 28th Apr 2004, 12:45am

Post 33 of 47

anonymous

and i forgot to add this link to a short film filmed with the dvx-100..notice how filmlike the movie is..if i wasnt told it was shot on dvx-100a..i would of thought it was shot on a 35 mm film

http://www.arkhamfilms.com/fulfilled.html
Posted: Wed, 28th Apr 2004, 12:48am

Post 34 of 47

Brettsta

Force: 3385 | Joined: 15th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2114

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I didnt say it was 24p, I said it shoots in 24p with a frame rate of 29.97, so it basically is emulated. The DVX-100a isnt a bad camera, but its subjective to say its the best, but so is saying anything else. Saying the GL2 isnt in the same league is absurd! Its definately in the same league, and its cheaper. 24p doesnt necesarily give you a "film like" appearance. Its not really that noticable.

Edit: THe clip you showed is nice quality, but that same quality can probably be achieved with a GL2, or vx2100 too.

Last edited Wed, 28th Apr 2004, 12:50am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Wed, 28th Apr 2004, 12:50am

Post 35 of 47

anonymous

it doesnt record 24p on 29.97 frame rate...it records 30p..and the difference is really noticable....ok maybe i exxagerated saying the gl-2 wasnt in its league..its a nice camera..but for filmmaking...dvx-100a is the king
Posted: Wed, 28th Apr 2004, 1:14am

Post 36 of 47

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

Right, the fact the a camera does 24FPS doesn't make it "film like" - the fact its progressive gives this effect even if its a 30FPS (like the other cameras do). In Europe 25FPS progressive gives the best sollution to the problem, being both compatible with our TVs and for printing to film - many (maybe even most) films are recorded in 25FPS now rather than 24FPS.

The pixel count isn't the only mark of quality of a CCD (they all sample down in the end anyway) - the Sony has a great quality CCD with the best progressive capture.

Sure 24FPS is good for printing to video or online clips but it isn't much use if you want to display your film on a standard TV or output to DVD (unless you convert all your footage or the camera does some kind of conversion in hardware which might work for TV but won't help you when you master a DVD).

30FPS Progressive on the otherhand will display on your tv with a very good "film look". "Film look" after all is just showing every frame twice like a cinema projector, and showing 30FPS (or even better 25FPS PAL) progressive footage on a TV is as near as you can get to that (as TVs can't display 24FPS progressive). The rest of "film look" is down to lighting mainly and this is what can really make a lot of difference even with cheaper interlaced cameras.

The DVX-100A is far from king in my opinion - I've tested one a couple of times and it just doesn't offer enough for the money. I know of a few people who took them back and replaced them with XM2s (PAL version of the GL2) or the VX2100. I feel the Sony is a best option and really has outstanding quality. Unless you really want to print to film easily, I would pick the Canon over the Panasonic as well.

The best thing you can do is test all the cameras and make up your own mind.
Posted: Wed, 28th Apr 2004, 1:29am

Post 37 of 47

Kevo

Force: 0 | Joined: 25th Mar 2004 | Posts: 31

Member

That clip filmed with the 100A really looks great... but a VX2100 could probably do the same as you guys were saying... and its costs a lot less. I wish i had some friends that had these so i could play around with both!

About the 24P... So it relly doesn't make much of a differnce when you are watching it on a DVD? The 30 FPS that the GL-2 and VX2100 have would do just fine then?

I'm definatly leaning towards the 2100 right now!
Posted: Wed, 28th Apr 2004, 1:36am

Post 38 of 47

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

To even display the 24FPS footage on a NTSC TV it will have be be converted to 30FPS interlaced cause thats all the TV can take. This conversion can change the look a lot (its the same conversion all real films must have) but the outcome is actually slightly less "film look" that just showing progressive footage on a TV (which can be a bit agressive on the eye). This conversion will also take a long time to render.

I'm not sure what kind of software the 100A has to do this conversion - you might not get any at all. Otherwise the tools on the market to do this kind of thing could just as well be used to increase the film look of your 30FPS progressive footage hence I really see no point in the 100A unless you really want to print to film - in which case you shouldn't be using a prosumer miniDV camera anyway as it always looks pretty bad.
Posted: Wed, 28th Apr 2004, 1:39am

Post 39 of 47

anonymous

To start off, shooting in 24P won't magically give you the "film" look, although it does help a bit (for example, one major issue is DOF).

Anyways, the DVX-100A is the ONLY camera that shoots TRUE progressive scan. Canon's so-called 30P "Frame Mode" system actually refreshes each field by 25% (instead of the standard 50%) [also noteworthy, "Pixel Shift" actually causes a 25% resolution drop because of the 0.5 pixel shift in the green channel; despite Canon's claims].

Back to the DVX-100A. It shoots in 24P mode, which employs 2-3 pulldown (resulting in 2 of 5 fields being interlaced); and also 24P Advanced mode, which employs 2-3-3-2 pulldown (resulting in 1 of 5 fields being interlaced).
Posted: Wed, 28th Apr 2004, 1:40am

Post 40 of 47

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

Anyways, the DVX-100A is the ONLY camera that shoots TRUE progressive scan.
This isn't true, the VX2100 also shoots in true progressive scan.
Posted: Wed, 28th Apr 2004, 1:42am

Post 41 of 47

Brettsta

Force: 3385 | Joined: 15th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2114

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

How much better is true progressive than frame mode? Also, I thought pixel shift increased qaulity
Posted: Wed, 28th Apr 2004, 1:45am

Post 42 of 47

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

On a TV it can be quite hard to tell the difference in most cases, but on a monitor (and probably some TVs) you can tell the difference fairly easily.

Frame mode is good, a lot better than not having a progressive option or the progressive like Sony used to employ on the VX2000 (15FPS NTSC). But true progressive is better quality.

Jambalaya! - So the 100A doesn't actually have progressive footage when you film 24P - its 24P capture has had pull down applied to make it ready to display on a NTSC 30i TV? I've never been able to get any of the footage to experiment with but that has huge implications when it comes to compositing - if the progressive footage is actually interlaced. That kind of goes against one of the best elements of progressive footage - and technically means its not 24P buy the time you get it on your computer?
Posted: Wed, 28th Apr 2004, 2:25am

Post 43 of 47

Brettsta

Force: 3385 | Joined: 15th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2114

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

So I have saved up enough money for a camera under around 2100 bucks. Ive been looking at BH Photo Video and cant make my mind up between the gl2 and the vx2100. They sell the GL2 for $2229 and with a 250 buck mail in rebate. THe vx2100 goes for $2399. This weekend I am going to go to the store personally to maybe buy one. (Im gonna try to bargain with them a little biggrin .) Will I be that much better off with the sony, or should I go with the canon? I need lotsa help in this desicion.
Posted: Wed, 28th Apr 2004, 3:02am

Post 44 of 47

wdy

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

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Hey Brettsta I pm'ed all the info where I got mine and my expeince with the place I bought my GL-2 from. Hope it helps you out dude.

Wish you luck!
Posted: Wed, 28th Apr 2004, 3:15am

Post 45 of 47

Brettsta

Force: 3385 | Joined: 15th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2114

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

wdy wrote:

Hey Brettsta I pm'ed all the info where I got mine and my expeince with the place I bought my GL-2 from. Hope it helps you out dude.

Wish you luck!
Thanks man, it helps alot. I didnt know to get the UV lens filter thingy. Thats a good site too.
Posted: Wed, 28th Apr 2004, 10:19am

Post 46 of 47

Solidus

Force: 240 | Joined: 15th May 2002 | Posts: 103

Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Like I said before, I own a VX and have used a GL1/2. Infact yesterday I was comparing my camera with a GL1 that a friend had rented from University for shooting that day.

They are in the same league but the main differences are:

- The VX has a lower lux rating, the best on the market.
- The VX has more features, although some gimmicky.
- It's a Sony... so naturally they charge a bit more.
- The VX has bigger CCDs, but this is the main reason it has a better low light performance.

Some say that the Canon actually gives a slightly warmer image, so pherhaps is better for a film look.
Posted: Wed, 28th Apr 2004, 4:19pm

Post 47 of 47

wdy

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

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User MacOS User

Gold Member

UV Filter is very important, nothing like scratching you main lens on your new fancy camera. So protect it.