XL1 vs. XL1s

What's the difference?

 

As far as the Canon site says, there is only the XL1S.

 

Sorry I am going to take the lazy mans way out....make you read for yourself Anyways, The Watchdog Skinny gives a rundown on both the cameras. Take a loo, hope it helps.

A.

 

There is such thing as an XL1. I believe one was used in the filming of Duality.

 

My good friend owns an XL1.... they do exist.

Look on ebay... you can see them being sold.

 

take a loo...? does someone here think he no longer needs a toilet? or does he keep a bunch in a little jar on his desk to give out to passerbies?

 

Well, we Normal people here in the states don't have a loo, or a washcloset...No no no, we have the only sensibly named room of uh...defacation? That's right! The bathroom...wait...now that I mention it, I have never actually seen a shower, let alone a bath in a public bathroom, and it's not like I'm gonna take a nap in a restroom...Also, it's not like we are releaving (sp?) our selves in a bath, so what's the point? But...well never you mind. okso maybeit wasjust alittle typoand ididnt noticeit untilit wasto lateto editit BUT SERIOULSY!!! A LOO?!?

XL1s has a few new features, but you can get the XL1 a whole lot cheaper...just to make my post worthwhile

 

And I hear Cannon has plans to release the XL-2 before the end of the year.

 

"Drugs" was shot entirely on an XL-1, and I'd back that camera to the day of my death. Course, I'm sure the XL-1S is pretty and everything, but you shouldn't be using the Gain for low light anyway if you want a pristine image...and I can't even imagine how distorted and grainy the image would look if you used the additional grain the XL-1s features.

...as for other XL-1s features, I don't know much about it. Get an XL-1 for cheaper and you'll be happy.

--Chad

 

All I can say honestly is XL-1 is a piece of junk in comparison to other cameras ot there in its price range.

Sure, you get the lens switching options, but why the heck would you want old technology 3CCD chips inside a new camera?! And chips only capable of 460 lines resolution?! It doesn't even take full advantage of the in camera resolution. You have 480 lines in DV. The Sony PD-150 has 500+ CCDs, the JVC DV300 (WOW CAMERA!!!) has over 500 lines CCDs and so does the Panasonic DVX-100. And a big pet peeve of mine has always been the darn color LCD viewfinder. The problem with that is you aren't getting a hi-res representation of your picture, which may result in focus problems later seen in the footage, vs some of these other ones like the PD-150 and the JVC both have B&W hi-res viewfinders with flipout color screens. The B&W screens make a world of difference. This technology is always used in high-end cameras like Digibeta, BetaSP and even High_Def cameras (however don't use the color LCD flipout screen obviously).

I've seen the XL1S go through benchmark tests up against the others I mentioned and it flopped horribly. Came in dead last actually. I will try and post all the gamma curve and color tests done on a couple of these cameras. You can see for yourself.

Of course if you get people like Chad Peter who knows what the hell he's doing with his equipment then you can get some good results out of the XL-1. But on the technical end of things that camera does not perform as well as some of the others out there in its price range. I personally would fork over for the JVC DV300, an advertised as "Streamcorder," but shouldn't be overlooked in the aspect of using it for a 3CCD professional model camcorder. This thing has beautiful picture quality.

ULTIMATELY though you can do an excellent movie with a bad camera. It's all how you deliver your story. You could have the best camera in the world and make a piece of junk while a guy who used a DV camera pulls off an amazing flick in his own way and delivers it far more effectively than the other guy with the fancy stuff. I saw some HD footage come in a couple times at work and you'd swear it was DV quality. It was shot so horrible I swear! They had NO professional lighting and the shots were BAD... That brought their level of professionalism down to crap! Just use the tools the best you can with what you have and you'd be suprised what you can do with it.

Ryan

 

"The Sony PD-150 has 500+ CCDs"

WOW, that's a lot of CCDs.

If I had to choose, I would get either the PD-150 or an XL1. Well, truthfully, I'd get a GL2 and save myself $1500. Either way, you're getting a beautiful image. And you're lucky, since I and many others are stuck with a low end cam.

But between the XL1 and XL1s, get the XL1. The differences are minimal.

Cometgreen

 

Okay I meant 500+ lines CCDs. It was 4 in the morning, what d'you expect?

 

That's funny becuase I actually own an XL1s and it also provides over 500 lines of resolution...maybe you had better check your facts before you pose an arguement...

 

I was wondering when someone would start sticking up for the XL1s. darthsaber, I'm with you. It's a magnificent camera. And it's magnificent camera because A) you can override as many automatic functions as possible; B) it's easy to use; and C) can use a manual lens. What else is there?

By the way, if you'd like to see Canon's official list of differences between the XL1 and XL1s, here it is.

 

I do have to say, one disadvantage of the xl1s is its weight...It tends to become heavy with extended use...the shoulder mount could be a tiny bit better in its design, IMO...

 

Well, I didn't state that the XL1s had only 460 lines, I said the XL1 did. The XL1s still didn't perform well over the other models despite its 500+ lines. The chip sensitivity and picture detail levels were bad in comparison to the other ones tested. More light is required to make the shots look decent in the XL models. The overall look you can just tell isn't as good when you look at them side by side along the other cameras.

 

I always like a good debate over DV cameras. To answer the original question posed here, the 1s is basically what happened after Cannon listend to 1 users. Many of the features are easier to find like color bars and things of that nature and it has expandend on the regular options to allow user greater control over the camera. Just type in a search on the 1s and you will almost always come up with an article comparing it with the 1.

*cracks knuckles*
So far every article I've read in magazines and on-line place the XL1s at the top of its price range. It is the most versitle camera in its range and offers MANY more additions that make the camera even better. Oh, and the image stabilization for its standard lens is bar-none the best in its class. Then you have to remember that Canon lenses themselves are near the top of the Prosumer market. You could toss 500+ CCD chips (I know you didn't mean it, I'm just making a hypothetical) in a camera, but if the lens the light is comming through sucks, then what good do all those chips do for you? I would say that if you aren't going to be using the interchangable lenses or the extra features, just buy a GL-2. The GL-1 was a wonderful camera in all but the worst taping conditions and the GL-2 is even better.

 

GL2

ALL THE WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY !!!!!

GL2

 

Stop doing that JediDrew! *starts crying like Milhouse*

And I have to agree with Flpngboy. You can have a 2.0 megapixel chip, but without a good lens, it won't matter. As long as your camcorder can produce enough resolution for a 720x480 picture (ie 345,600 pixels), then you're in good shape. Everything else is left up to the lens (well, along with good lighting and stabilization and zoom and other such options).

Those camcorders that boast "1.33 megapixel capability!" are just standard marketing procedures. After the initial 345,600 pixels, everything else is used for still picture capability.

Cometgreen, who's probably wrong...in so many ways

 

I have to say, that if you are looking to buy an expensive camera, and can not make an XL-1 look good than you shouldnt be buying an expensive camera. ExFilms said something to me the other day while on location which I thought was an amazing compliment. He said, "You are the only person I have ever met that makes the XL-1 look worth the money." In translation, there is a lot to know about shot composition, lighting, settings, using your lense and iris properly etc that contributes to good looking footage. Sure the XL-1 may not have the best innards in the world, but I will argue this. It has a certain look to its footage that I have failed to find in any other camera that is not a HD or Film camera. I use my camera as a tool to paint a picture and tell a story, not to bench mark and have a pissing contest with other people about who has the most resolution.

So long story short, if you are just buying a camera without much skill or practice working with all these various factors, dont buy and expensive one that you will not take full advantage of. I cant tell you how many things ive seen shot with an XL-1 that look like they were shot on a crappy ole 1 chip Hi-8 camera. It makes me sad. Save yourself some time and money and get a GL-1 or GL-2 and learn how to use it then think about the expensive cameras. And I will always suggest this, but voulenteer to work on some film shoots and help with lighting camera etc. The knowledge you gain with that is invaluable. I always light my scenes shot on my XL-1 as if I were lighting for film.

 

Yeah, well, the XL1s won't be around much longer. Canon is releasing the XL2 toward the end of the year. It will shoot with 16:9 native chips, and be able to shoot interlaced video, 30p and 24p. It will be freakin awesome! And my filmmaking teacher is getting one as soon as they hit the market.

 

Well, it seems I'll put use into this XL1, then eBay it off towards an XL2 when it comes out.