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

Canon Cameras

Which Canon?

XL250%[ 10 ]
GL235%[ 7 ]
XM215%[ 3 ]

Total Votes : 20

Posted: Tue, 20th Mar 2007, 6:12pm

Post 1 of 25

SilverDragon7

Force: 2265 | Joined: 29th Jun 2006 | Posts: 1990

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Whixh one would you guys suggest, I'm thinking the GL2.

note* I might goo with a Sony later on...
Posted: Tue, 20th Mar 2007, 6:23pm

Post 2 of 25

Mellifluous

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

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

I thought the GL2 was the US version of the XM2? That makes this topic a bit stupid for a start. The best way to make a decision is to pinpoint what features you value in a camera, decide your budget and read a lot of reviews about the cameras you're interested in.
Posted: Tue, 20th Mar 2007, 6:30pm

Post 3 of 25

Link123456

Force: 1099 | Joined: 20th Dec 2006 | Posts: 237

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

If eventually you go with sony, go for the sony dcr-trv 255E. It's inexpensive and great.
Posted: Tue, 20th Mar 2007, 7:05pm

Post 4 of 25

Aculag

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

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I vote XL2, because it's more expensive, and you probably can't afford it.
Posted: Tue, 20th Mar 2007, 7:13pm

Post 5 of 25

SilverDragon7

Force: 2265 | Joined: 29th Jun 2006 | Posts: 1990

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Mellifluous wrote:

I thought the GL2 was the US version of the XM2? That makes this topic a bit stupid for a start. The best way to make a decision is to pinpoint what features you value in a camera, decide your budget and read a lot of reviews about the cameras you're interested in.
If it is, then it would be the GL2 I get/ I live in the US.

link123456 wrote:

If eventually you go with sony, go for the sony dcr-trv 255E. It's inexpensive and great.
1. I have one
2. Digital 8 is a dead format
3. Only 1CCD = crap picture and lighting.

Aculag wrote:

I vote XL2, because it's more expensive, and you probably can't afford it.
Thank you.
Posted: Tue, 20th Mar 2007, 7:52pm

Post 6 of 25

Rawree

Force: 3250 | Joined: 27th Jun 2002 | Posts: 1925

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Once again I hate to sound like a dick but are you seriously considering buying one of these and actually want advice or are you just bored. Either way you don't seem to have done any kind of research which makes the poll redundant. As with many things in this life it's impossible for someone to decide for you so why not go and try them out for yourself and see first hand what they're all about.

Only you know what you'll use this for and only you know what features you want and which ones you don't.
Posted: Tue, 20th Mar 2007, 8:12pm

Post 7 of 25

SilverDragon7

Force: 2265 | Joined: 29th Jun 2006 | Posts: 1990

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I've taken the time to research on them, but I would like to see what others may suggest, and maybe share their experiences.
Posted: Tue, 20th Mar 2007, 8:33pm

Post 8 of 25

Rawree

Force: 3250 | Joined: 27th Jun 2002 | Posts: 1925

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

SilverDragon7 wrote:

I've taken the time to research on them, but I would like to see what others may suggest, and maybe share their experiences.
But two of the cameras you listed are the same one which leads me to believe that the research you claim to have done extends no further than seeing the names posted in other topics around here. Tell me if I'm wrong but you don't seem to have looked into this as someone who wants to buy one would. Are you seriously considering getting one of them?
Posted: Tue, 20th Mar 2007, 8:50pm

Post 9 of 25

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

I would just buy a Panasonic DVX100B for that money.
Posted: Tue, 20th Mar 2007, 8:58pm

Post 10 of 25

SilverDragon7

Force: 2265 | Joined: 29th Jun 2006 | Posts: 1990

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rawree wrote:

SilverDragon7 wrote:

I've taken the time to research on them, but I would like to see what others may suggest, and maybe share their experiences.
But two of the cameras you listed are the same one which leads me to believe that the research you claim to have done extends no further than seeing the names posted in other topics around here. Tell me if I'm wrong but you don't seem to have looked into this as someone who wants to buy one would. Are you seriously considering getting one of them?
I was more interested in XL2 and GL2, I hadn't really checked out XM2, all I knew that it was in existence.
Posted: Tue, 20th Mar 2007, 10:07pm

Post 11 of 25

Aculag

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

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Bryan M Block wrote:

I would just buy a Panasonic DVX100B for that money.
Truth! It's much nicer than a GL2, and much cheaper than an XL2. And probably nicer than an XL2 as well. Except no interchangeable lenses. WHO NEEDS EM!? (www.redrockmicro.com)

Are an XL2 and a GL2 really even comparable at all, apart from being video cameras made by Canon?
Posted: Tue, 20th Mar 2007, 11:19pm

Post 12 of 25

er-no

Force: 9531 | Joined: 24th Sep 2002 | Posts: 3964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Aculag wrote:


Are an XL2 and a GL2 really even comparable at all, apart from being video cameras made by Canon?
Yes. You compare to what you want to do with them and what moneys you have.

This xl2 vs gl2 topic comes up around once a week. Its getting tiring now, SilverDragon, if you had just looked down or a page back on this forum you would have seen a very similar post where the cameras are discussed.
Posted: Wed, 21st Mar 2007, 12:05am

Post 13 of 25

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

The XL2 doesn't have the GL2 beat in every regard. Color and price are your main determinants. The GL2 I've found to produce color (particularly greens and blues) significantly better, whereas the XL2 has better clarity (native 16:9) and shallower depth. Aaaaand the XL2 costs considerably a great deal more. But then again, it's a newer, bigger, generally cooler-looking camera, so why wouldn't it cost more?

Let me put it this way: I know how to use my GL2 and the several people I know with XL2's only rudimentarily know how to use them, so their images come out much, much worse. There's one friend who's an exception, but regardless, you've gotta know how to use the XL2, or it'll look just plain bad.

I'd go GL2. Probably the best for the money, and a good camera to buy now. The next step up from the GL2 money- and quality-wise would be the XLH1 (HD XL2) or the XHA1 (HD GL2), not the XL2.

I can hook you up with a number of stills and/or videos, or you can search the forums for the word "GL2" posted by author "ben3308" and find the thousands of things I've had to say, post, and link to regarding the GL2. I love it, it's a great camera.
Posted: Wed, 21st Mar 2007, 12:12am

Post 14 of 25

Aculag

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

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

ben3308 wrote:

you've gotta know how to use the XL2, or it'll look just plain bad.
This applies to every camera. There's no magic default setting on the GL2 that makes it look good, you still had to learn to use it correctly. Just sayin! wink
Posted: Wed, 21st Mar 2007, 1:19am

Post 15 of 25

SilverDragon7

Force: 2265 | Joined: 29th Jun 2006 | Posts: 1990

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I was waiting for you to come say something Ben, because I've seen you disscuss the GL2 many times. So now I think I will purchase one, when the money comes around.
Posted: Wed, 21st Mar 2007, 2:18am

Post 16 of 25

HandsomeScholars

Force: 208 | Joined: 18th Jun 2003 | Posts: 128

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

SilverDragon7 wrote:


3. Only 1CCD = crap picture and lighting.
False- If you were to have the same lense on a 1CCD camcorder as a 3CCD camcroder you would have a darker picture from the 3CCD camcorder because the light is going through 3 chips instead of one. Now in most cases 3CCD camcorders will always have better lighting, but their are a few 1CCD camcorders that can produce better lit shots than some of the 3CCD camcorders out there.

Just wanted to point out that common misconception wink

By the way the GL2 is an awesome little camera, the only big problem I have with it is having to buy an adapter for XLR inputs.
Posted: Wed, 21st Mar 2007, 2:22am

Post 17 of 25

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

SpikeCoFilms wrote:

SilverDragon7 wrote:


3. Only 1CCD = crap picture and lighting.
False- If you were to have the same lense on a 1CCD camcorder as a 3CCD camcroder you would have a darker picture from the 3CCD camcorder because the light is going through 3 chips instead of one.
I'm sorry, but you're failing to realize that what the three chips are doing is interpreting color with more precision and accuracy than one chip; are are therefore more likely to correctly view whatever is onscreen, seeing as they're interpreting the color within the dim light with considerably greater accuracy.

That, and one chip is generally smaller than any of the three chips, so it contains less resolution as well.

But this could just be me..... wink
Posted: Wed, 21st Mar 2007, 2:39am

Post 18 of 25

HandsomeScholars

Force: 208 | Joined: 18th Jun 2003 | Posts: 128

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

ben3308 wrote:

SpikeCoFilms wrote:

SilverDragon7 wrote:


3. Only 1CCD = crap picture and lighting.
False- If you were to have the same lense on a 1CCD camcorder as a 3CCD camcroder you would have a darker picture from the 3CCD camcorder because the light is going through 3 chips instead of one.
I'm sorry, but you're failing to realize that what the three chips are doing is interpreting color with more precision and accuracy than one chip; are are therefore more likely to correctly view whatever is onscreen, seeing as they're interpreting the color within the dim light with considerably greater accuracy.

That, and one chip is generally smaller than any of the three chips, so it contains less resolution as well.

But this could just be me..... wink
True they are interperting with better accuracy because they are individualized for red, green, and blue. If you look at the size of the lense on your GL2 and then compare it to the size of most 1CCD camcorder lenses you will realize it is much larger to let in more light. That's why I pointed out a 1CCD camcorder with the same exact lense as the 3CCD would have a better lit picture. wink

Remember we are not talking resolution here, we are talking light. 3CCD camcorders are far superior in resolution biggrin
Posted: Wed, 21st Mar 2007, 3:43am

Post 19 of 25

SilverDragon7

Force: 2265 | Joined: 29th Jun 2006 | Posts: 1990

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Well from what I've noticed with it is that it can't adjust from light to dark very well.
Posted: Wed, 21st Mar 2007, 4:24am

Post 20 of 25

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Let me put it this way:

The image will be a little bit brighter on the 1CCD, but how accurate a reproduction of what is being filmed will be worse than on a 3CCD. It's as if the 3CCD has three passes of color as opposed to the 1CCD's one. Though the 1 has a higher inital brightness, the layers of color in the 3 make it more distinguishable of an image...

I can't even understand myself anymore, am I making any sense here? biggrin
Posted: Wed, 21st Mar 2007, 4:59am

Post 21 of 25

SilverDragon7

Force: 2265 | Joined: 29th Jun 2006 | Posts: 1990

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

1CCD is bright because the image only passes through one set of color, were as 3CCD is more clear, as it passes through 3 sets of color.
Posted: Wed, 21st Mar 2007, 5:58am

Post 22 of 25

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Are y'all seriously arguing about agreeing with eachother? wink
Posted: Wed, 21st Mar 2007, 6:12am

Post 23 of 25

SilverDragon7

Force: 2265 | Joined: 29th Jun 2006 | Posts: 1990

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I was simplifing what he said, so he knew I understood what he meant.
Posted: Wed, 21st Mar 2007, 10:22am

Post 24 of 25

Mellifluous

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

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Lens plays a factor, but also the size of the CCD chip and number of pixels. 3CCD does mean better resolution but it doesn't automatically mean better light. I've used a Sony 1 chip (1/3") camera in the past that visually looked better than a 1/4" 3CCD camera in the lighting conditions. It's worth bearing in mind if you're confronted by a 1 chip camera with a great chip size, and a 3CCD camera with a poor chip size.
Posted: Wed, 21st Mar 2007, 6:09pm

Post 25 of 25

HandsomeScholars

Force: 208 | Joined: 18th Jun 2003 | Posts: 128

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Mellifluous wrote:

Lens plays a factor, but also the size of the CCD chip and number of pixels. 3CCD does mean better resolution but it doesn't automatically mean better light. I've used a Sony 1 chip (1/3") camera in the past that visually looked better than a 1/4" 3CCD camera in the lighting conditions. It's worth bearing in mind if you're confronted by a 1 chip camera with a great chip size, and a 3CCD camera with a poor chip size.
Yep cool