Best Camera out in the Market>>>CANON XL1?

I'm willing to invest in whatever's best out there.

I really want to buy the Canon XL1 but is it one of the best?

 

One of the best? Yes. The best? No. Krapitino owns an XL1. Unless, of course, he sold it to get a different camera.

 

I'm not really sure what the best brand is, but remember:


an excellent camera can be useless to someone who doesn't know how to use it properly. Have you had previous experience with a Digital camera?

 

The best? Will we ever know? There's been so many debates... no one really knows I'm afraid. However, AWB is correct in saying it is one of the best.

 

Well.. the Panasonic AG-DVX100 looks really good.. the image quality is sharper than the pd150 and its got 24p. Can't beat 24p .

Now if you really want the best go for the sony "CineAlta" .

 

If you are going to spend that kind of Cash, I HIGHLY recomment you invest in a Panasonic AG-DVX100. It's one of the best, if not THE BEST Mini DV camera out there. It's progressive abilities alone make it awesome. And the 24p isn't bad either. It makes your video look just like a real film.

 

It makes your video look just like a real film.

It's resolution is a bit lacking to make it look like "a real film."

 

if money is no object go digi beta or a hd cam.
why go prsumer if you can go straight pro.
that is asuming you have mad cash.

 

Well of course, no camera in the world has a resolution that will match film except for the Dalsa Digital Cinema Camera. I meant it creates the same motion signature.

Why do you seem to hate the DVX100 so?

 

The XL is the only cam I'll ever use....save for anything Canon has a hand in that costs more.

 

well if you are going to buy ANYTHING, get a SONY DSR-570W. $15,000 + $800 for battery + cost of lens. Mmmmmmmmmmm

 

Why do you seem to hate the DVX100 so?

Because it's a marketing scam. Get a PAL camera for half the price, get 100 more lines of resolution and real progressive imagery instead of that WWSS pseudo-interlaced 3:2:2:3 pulldown insane stuff that camera outputs.

I mean NTSC resolution is *horrible*. In my opinion, there is no such thing as good looking NTSC video, because 480 vertical lines is WAY too little.

It's no wonder that HDTV is taking off in the US because you actually get a radical upgrade in image quality! My quite normal PAL widescreen TV looks like an NTSC HDTV does! (Well not quite, I'm exaggerating, but hey, exaggerating is fun.)

/Z

 

What about PAL DVX100?

 

/me giggles to self as head shakes in a downward nod.

 

First, I agree with d.l.biped, in that, if you've got the cash around to drop on a XL1, you should really look at all the professional grade cameras around.

Keep in mind that the XL1 has been around now for about 4 years. It's getting to be old tech. It's popularity is a result of the fact that, for it's price, it's the one VIDEO camera that acts most like a film camera. (esp. with interchangable lenses.) The other thing is that it's distinctive design yells "HEY! Look at me! I'm and XL1!" whenever it's carried into a room, so you notice them immediately. Good move on Canon's part, since the JVC's, Sony's and Panasonics (that have just about the same popularity) all look like regular camcorders and you may not even think to notice how many are around unless you're really looking.

Anyway, another thing to take a look at side-by-side with the XL would be JVC's HD camera. I've not seen one myself, but from what I've read, it has a similar price tag as the XL1, but records in High Definition. Reviews have said that the image quality is as good or better than the XL, but I'm guessing that's going to be a personal choice. The JVC also lacks lens interchangability, but it does include optical image stabilization.

I've just about saved enough for an XL and had originally planned on buying one this year, but with the JVC's HD camera out now, I'm going to hold off until it has a little more competition to select from and just go right to HD when the technology is proven. In the mean time, I rent DVCPRO gear for important shoots and everybody is happy.

Good luck.
Have fun.

 

I mean NTSC resolution is *horrible*. In my opinion, there is no such thing as good looking NTSC video, because 480 vertical lines is WAY too little.

I agree. That's why everyone should get the PAL version of the DVX100

 

The one downfall of JVC's Hi-Def camera is that it's a single CCD. That means you'll see a lot of video artifacs (even more than those you'd see in miniDV footage anyway) inherent to single-chip cameras. This means things like black halos around bright objects and vice versa. However, I've seen screencaps, and the images this cam produces are, admittedly, very impressive resolution-wise. Even for a single-chip camera. If I had a choice, though, between that, the DVX100 and the XL1/XL1s, I'd probably still go for the PAL XL1s. I'm kinda kicking myself for having gotten the NTSC version, but it's still a fine camera, even after 4 years on the market.

 

whether or not its hard to say which minidv camera is the best.... Its easy to say which is definitly NOT the best...

and thats the XL1

 

These debate threads on camcorders almost seem as if someone already on the boards just registers a new name and starts another thread for more and more debate.

End the madness.

 

I always find it interesting in these debates about "the best camera in the world", and yet they only talk about DV cameras, which are far below the norm as far as filmmaking goes. There are plenty of HD cameras and *gasp* film cameras out there that make DV cameras look like exactly what they are.. home video cameras made for shooting baby's first steps and family picnics, not for filmmaking. I don't care how big and fancy your DV camera is, it'll always be just a low-res video camera.

 

Why do you seem to hate the DVX100 so?

For one thing, with the DVX100, it records 24p and plays it across 30 images per second, right? (Well, 29.97.)

After that, would you rather rotoscope 30fps or 25fps?

I agree. That's why everyone should get the PAL version of the DVX100

So then you have 24 frames recorded per second spread out across 25 frames per second. Or, you could have more information there.

But seriously. Who has footage from a PAL XL or a DVX 100? I like the look of 30p, but haven't really seen consumer-level 24p or 25p. Well, except for Zap's stuff. But he adds lots of camera and 3D effects, I don't know what his video originally looked like.

This isn't my worry about shutter speed, but rather what frame rate I like best.

Even with PAL's advantages over NTSC, if I can't stand 25p, I'll get NTSC.

 

I agree with Jedi2016...

100%

 

I'd love to see someone host full quality dv video footage of the dvx.. xl.. gl2.. so on and so and son (sarcastic)

 

I would, as well. But, I'd rather see 24fps dv next to 25fps dv next to 30fps dv.

Can you set an NTSC GL2 to 1/48 shutter speed? Or just certain presets? (i.e., 1/8, 1/30, 1/60, 1/120, 1/15000, etc.)

 

also if your going to do any production work in the US a PAl cam will not do you much good. with out sending it out after editing and having it converted. the production house im at just sent out a tape that was NTSC to be converted to PAL.
you can do inhouse conversions but they are not all that great.

I do agree that ntsc is well crap.
Never Twice the Same Color
is a commonly used term in the states. HD is a vast improvment over NTSC. too bad they cant speed the conversion faster.
I watch shows on tv at 1080i wow the depth of feild is almost a non issue. unless you want something in the distance out of focus.