XL2 or DX100A

John Atala · August 26, 2004

Hey guys. On the past month i have had the pleasure to work with a panasonic DX100A, and the results were superb. gotta tell ya, the image control- gamma, master ped, and the fast lens made a difference. I was about to buy one for myself when a friend came over with his XL2, from canon. the camera is simply amazing, and we compared the results from his past projects with my month's gig. both cameras did amazing.

i guess that my question is- which one should i buy. yes, yes, i konw that the XL2 is a "bit" more expensive, but i can manage to raise a few more bucks. plus its got a interchangable lens option...

have any of you guys ever worked with either one of these cameras, perhaps both? what did you think??. my goal is image quality and film emulsion, and i guess that both cameras do the job, so which one should i buuy??

thanks and sorry for lousy english. from brazil. B)

thanks

Phil Rhodes · August 27, 2004

Hi,

If it's anything like the XL1, and it is, the interchangeable lens option is worthless for anything but very specific purposes, mainly wildlife photography with very long lenses. The problem is that almost all of the lenses available in Canon's EOS mount are intended for 35mm stills photography, and so are pretty long - meaning an extreme telephoto lens on the tiny sensors of an XL1/2. The widest lenses ever made in that mount were the one supplied with most XL1s, and the optional wide-angle one.

There are many reports of frankly dodgy imaging quality on the XL2. Look closely before you buy.

Phil

David Beier · August 27, 2004

I asked the same question (with pretty much the exact same situation) and everyone here told me to get the DVX100A.

Jon Allen · August 27, 2004

To my knowledge, you can add filters and lenses to the 100a as well. I talked to a videographer my company is associated with and he said that the audio on the canons were not quite as good as the 100a, plus I'm not sure if the xl1/2 has phantom power.

As far as the camera goes, I've heard that either is better. It comes down to what YOU like and what your CLIENTS like (assuming you do commercial work).

Craig Tarry · August 27, 2004

Hello, I'm also considering the DX100A. Somebody had a complaint about the focal ring on the DX100. He said this:

- Ask about manual focus with DX100,DX100A

I quote from Scott Billups, Digital Moviemaking:

"They saddled it with the horrendous focus ring from hell. It is impossible to get

professional results with a lens that has a focus ring that just keeps turning.

Since there is no quantifiable or repeatable point at which you can actually gen-

erate a true follow focus,any camera with a focus ring that does'nt stop turning

is not suitable for professional production. Period!!!"

I quote Scott Billups.

4. Now it may be that new DX100A has different focus range, I do not know.

I spent a full day with DX100 and I did not like it.

Do any if you know if this problem exists on the current model?

Thanks - Craig

John Atala · August 27, 2004

When i worked with the DX100A on the past month i had no problems regarding thr ring or any lens problem. What did call upon my atention was the humming noise that she made once the zoom was used, and the nd filter kept falling in if the operator adopted a perpendicular shot... I figured it was a problem of that single camera, thus it was a rental and it appeared to be a war camera.

I did see the new ones at the store and they seem fine to me. Both problems seem to have shown up only on the rental.

It is a superb camera. What is still keeping me back regarding my purchasing is usage experience with the XL2, any of you guys ever USED IT, and mind sharing the conclusions ?????

thanks

Phil Rhodes · August 27, 2004

Hi,

Mitch Gross posted some thoughts on it a while ago, based on trade show experience. Search function works!

By the way, why did you choose to use the little orange warning triangle icon? It might be important to YOU, but it's dangerous to assume that it's worth everyone leaping to attention over it.

Phil

PVC · August 29, 2004

can you shoot 24p Progressive on the XL2?

Jack Barker · August 29, 2004

Two quick comments on DVX100A.

1. On a prosumer camera, unless you can use primes, the Leica Dicomar lens on the 100A is as god as it gets. Images are slightly soft, but still sharp at the same time.

2. The sound recording on the 100A is superb.

John Atala · September 1, 2004

By the way, why did you choose to use the little orange warning triangle icon? It might be important to YOU, but it's dangerous to assume that it's worth everyone leaping to attention over it.

sorry buddy.

On the other hand, ive made my decision on buying the panasonic.

considerations after the purchase:

1. its image stabilization is so much over Canon's and sony's Steadyshot, amazing the results i got over hand held shots.

2. extra bats are reallyy cheaper than the canon or sony ones.

3. the LCD is extra large and bright.

hope you people find it as amuzing as i did.

thanks,

jon

Landon D. Parks · September 2, 2004

Yes, XL2 has 24p (2:3 and 2:3:3:2 Pulldown)

delmarerik · September 6, 2004

So the XL2 has 24p?

but what is the difference in image resolution?

why does panasonic claim HD, (but not really HD right?)

whereas canon doesn't?

-Erik

Mitch Gross · September 6, 2004

So the XL2 has 24p?
but what is the difference in image resolution?

why does panasonic claim HD, (but not really HD right?)

whereas canon doesn't?

-Erik

There is no difference in resolution, they are both standard def. cameras. The XL2 can shoot in full resolution 16:9 while the DVX100A cannot. Panasonic does not claim it is an HD camera, perhaps you are confused with the Varicam, another Panasonic product.

Valeriu Campan · September 6, 2004

can you shoot 24p Progressive on the XL2?

I noticed that only the NTSC model has 24p. For the PAL version I noticed only 50i and 25p.

I am really puzzled why not 24p in the PAL world? Hopefully they will provide it on the release model. I heard rumors that BBC has requested some software changes.

J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR · September 6, 2004

Some thoughts on the DVX-100/100A after using it many months now on a documentary in 24pA mode. I feel the image is great for SD TV material, I've intercut it with 16mm footage transferred on an URSA Y-Front and most people have no idea. There is a difference in grain, the film (7246) has sharper grain the DVX more like soft video noise, because that's what it is. It's a great camera if you have no/low budget and it will deliver suitable material for TV broadcast. I have my doubts about 35mm filmout and digital projection gets iffy.

I have no problem with the spinning focus ring because of the focus numbers. The ring keeps spinning but the focus range does top out and you can see that visualy. I've used it with the follow focus lockout gear that limits the ring movement and it works like any other cinema lens. The camera IS a bitch to get focused though. I find the LCD to be the best to focus with in combination with a fine pitch production monitor. Sometimes I also A/B the focus against the auto focus.

Onboard audio has been fine.

The biggest complaint I have is the color space. The 8-bit DVX-100 is a complete let down IMO. It just looks far too flat to me and seems to be lacking. The 12-bit DVX-100A is an improvement and the way to go if you're looking at this camera. Still not as good as an SDX and nothing like film in terms of color depth.

Comparing it to the XL2, I like the XL2 ergonomics better for handheld when it is fitted with long rods that go over your shoulder and hang a battery out back. I like the interchangeable lenses on XL2 but they have a serious draw back in the wide angle and expense department. I feel that negates the value of this option unless you are using a mini-35. The Mini-35 though is way too expensive. It seems with the 16:9 arrangement that the included lens is useless without a wideangle adaptor. I'm just not sure the XL2 is worth the price difference, it would be if it came standard with a good wide angle lens.

Alvin Pingol · September 7, 2004

I am really puzzled why not 24p in the PAL world?

Because, as far as I know, anything that originates at 24P is sped up to 25fps for PAL broadcast anyway.

Plus, if one shoots 25P, the trouble of getting a 24fps filmout would be as simple as transferring the footage frame-by-frame and projecting at 24fps (with audio adjusted accordingly).