Canon XL1 V XL1S Camera. Anybody compared?

Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2002 2:16 pm

Cool. Video productiom as well as music! I don't know if it's appropriate to do equipment queries, comparisons etc. as we do say on Julian's forum.
If not - sorry....but if so...I have an opportunity to buy a second hand Canon XL1 camera. I was comparing the specs to the ones for the newer XL1S and XL1Sv2. Anybody compared these camera's? Anything about the newer ones that is a quantum leap in quality (say picture quality for e.g.)?
Appreciate any comment.

Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2002 6:11 pm

Hi,
the cannon camera is pretty good. It has gotten popular faster than most due to lots of third party product for home movie producer/director. If this is not what you are looking for, maybe you should look at the new Sony cam. got some cool feature plus you can shoot at no lux. for some cool fx
hope that help.

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2002 12:39 am

Hi Stedel, and JT!..The mini DV format is staring me right in the face at the moment, cause our organization may be forced into implementation of the mini-dv, dvc, dvc-pro line. This is a marketing push from the major mfgrs. SVHS, is being cut back in MFGR., and we supply literally hundreds of small production systems.

I believe it is an interum format, and will be short lived. Perhaps another 5 years, remember DAT? HD/and on board DVDW is coming down the road. Well aside from that, I have used some fine equipment, with true to life reproduction. But, darn!, that Sony look gets me everytime, Beta sp, or a small DV. It has something special,not exactly true, so to speak, but is warm, detailed, and produces even color tones, like a great make-up job looks.

It has some kind of appeal, like the Sony DV cam footage I recently integrated into a job, was about a 400.00 camera, and shot by ametures. It had a very international look to it, almost film like, and caught me by surprise. However, with my larger format camcorders, D-9 DY700 1/2" ccd,17x Canon lens and the larger 2/3" version DY900 has fantasic detail, but unless the system is fooled by a white balance shade card adjustments, they cannot duplicate that Sony look.

Running the D-9 Master through the Proc of a Beta SP machine is like the finishing touch, taking the edge off, and warming up the look. Don't know how they do it, but my next major camera move is going to be a Sony, for when I need that "special" look.
--Rick

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2002 1:26 pm

Hi JT916 and Rick.
Thanks for replyng.The Canon I have the opportunity to buy is second hand, and set at a v. good price.A couple of comments (although I'm buying the camera).
I was interested to read Rick's comments re the quality of the Sony pictures. I tested the Canon camera in less than ideal conditions yesterday, but I've used (almost) exclusively Sony camera's for (wow Have WAM really broken up?) er longer than I wanna think about, the last three years in particular have been with the mini DV format. When the DV stuff came out I was VERY impressed with the picture quality of the Sony's in particular, they rated incredibly well in comparison to the higher end pro. camera's I'd used (and they didn't break my back!). This is gonna sound like a Post on Julian or Greg's forum, but your comment about this quality I agree with. The Sony's do seem to have a
"warmth" about them - the Canon despite the blurbs re its picture quality doesn't seem to have the enhanced "sparkle" that the Sony's have.
Also there seems to be a discrepancy in what the view finder shows. The picture seemed darker with less clarity in the tones (particularly the "mid-range" ones) and I thought huh? But when played back through the monitor it was much better (in fact no real problems).
In respect to DV being transitional technology - God what isn't nowadays? I was however never impressed with SVHS as a format - in fact I refused to work with it. Using a range of the more pro level Sony DV camera's for the last few years I was really glad that the studio I now run hadn't gone down the SVHS track - although we do have a SVHS camcorder but I only use it for training purposes.
DV seems to be much closer to Beta quality.
JT916's comments re the prevelance of the Canon in
production studio's is true here also.
So the Canon will be run in tandem with Sony DV's, I was really cautious about the Canon design, Imean I thought hmm....sexy...but practical? Anyway it's not too bad, although I think my forearm and wrist are gonna feel as though they've been through a work out each time I use it. The mic also seems pretty bad...but I'll be getting the shoulder pad accessory thingy which gives you XLR in puts.
So thanks for replying...I'm sure I'll be visiting this forum pretty regularly. Do you guys do sound also? The studio I run is a small digital video and audio studio and we cover a range of work..from working with local bands, musicians, festivals, schools etc. to doco's.
Kind regards

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2002 2:27 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by stedel:
I was however never impressed with SVHS as a format - in fact I refused to work with it. Using a range of the more pro level Sony DV camera's for the last few years I was really glad that the studio I now run hadn't gone down the SVHS track - although we do have a SVHS camcorder but I only use it for training purposes.
Do you guys do sound also?

The s/video format allowed the installation of full/on line /off line production facilities in a hundred or so different environments, dig this, 2 camera, ag-196, doubling as eng, studio, MX-1, digital switcher, tiltlemaker 3000, 2 ag1980, s/vtrs and a-96 controller, a standard vcr for catv RF generation (closed circuit)and dubbing, 2 lavs, one handheld mic, tripods, 1202vlz pro for audio,(3) 13" line monitors/w tuners., and all associated cabling for less than (15k). Yes, I know ag-195/196 are standard vhs, but s/video allowed a great deal of preservation, otherwise going to the s/models 460 etc. would have pushed up the cost. Other facilities are more advanced. Just 15k for all that, NOW, enter DV...big cost jump here, and interfacing problems to broadcast systems, live latency issues, firewire switch systems, etc. I am working on this now, for the great transition, in other words s/video saved our butts, LOL. But, can't hold out much longer. Many company's cutting back on production of this gear.
I am also concerned with the robustness of the mini DV, in industrial areas. I suppose if you are gentle, it should be OK but time will tell, when decks and camcorders start to pile up for service. Also, the D-9 in my on line/off line sys has served well, I think one glitch from outside to inside, (dew) in the 3 years of use, very robust, but don't know how long that will last either. The JVC rep say's it still going strong.
I do audio as well, and like to choreograph music into my productions, and use the project studio at the bottom of my home page.

Sounds like we have a lot in common, and I am happy to meet you guy's.
-Rick

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2002 4:07 pm

Hi Rick. yeah I know the benefits, versatility, cost benefits that SVHS provided, and certainly many many smaller studio's were able to be established that were/are able to produce much corporate based video...and I don't wish to appear to be some sort of elitist snob. However working also with beta-cam and even 3/4" pneumatic I found two main problems with SVHS (admitedly this was before the days of the amazing digital stuff we have around now - I'm talking A-B roll here (!)

1. Colour bleed was too great.
2. Signal degradation in the editing process was too high.

Working with the pneumatic stuff for instance I was able to produce clips for bands, documenteries etc. that were shown on
some of the major mainstream TV stations over here...something I never considered even trying to do with SVHS. Perhaps you perservered more than I was prepared to do and the system you described above sounds pretty nifty! However the days of SVHS from most manufacturers point of view seem to be over.
Certainly for me IMHO the new DV camera's match the
(rather ugly) "prosumer" moniker more than SVHS. But please, this is just MHO.

And the robustness of the mini DV's? Yeah me too.Extreme caution has to be exercised, even the transport system in the camera's I use (mostly Sony) seems comparatively fragile. 30 seconds meditation helps ("I have the hands of a surgeon, the calm of a Zen monk...Om"!!!)

I also think that digital video is in the same situation as sound and multi-media in general, namely:
1. As professionals we are being asked to resign ourselves to potential for degraded - lower quality
overheads/parameters becoming the norm.
2. This fact is being covered by the all singing - all dancing options offered with equipment nowadays together with factors of convenience.
3. Advertising hype that promises professional standards "in yer own lounge room" for less than X amount of dollars.
4. Our status as unpaid laboratory guinea pigs for the new technologies.

HOWEVER all this has to be factored against the democratic/access availabilty to "almost pro" standards that has happened. This is a good thing.And apart from anything else the versatility of the newer camera's to be able to work with existing lighting conditions is outstanding.
To me, in the long run, content and passion contained within is the thing. Which is why I prefer listening to the old Hot Club recordings of Django and Stefan to the preciseness of say Sting's recent recordings. :w:

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2002 5:40 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by stedel:
However working also with beta-cam and even 3/4" pneumatic I found two main problems with SVHS (admitedly this was before the days of the amazing digital stuff we have around now - I'm talking A-B roll here (!)

1. Colour bleed was too great.
2. Signal degradation in the editing process was too high. :w:

All true, the 3/4 and newer SP/u-matics held chroma together better than s/video, just did not have the brightness. But consider a JVC 525u-dnr w/component outs, through a fully component system. Better than Beta-SP quality, were talking decks here. I still use one upstream, and an 822U downstream for s/or vhs dubs. The 3/4's are stored. Don't get me wrong, resolution, and maitaining it, is utmost priority to me.

Quote:

Originally posted by stedel:

Certainly for me IMHO the new DV camera's match the(rather ugly) "prosumer" moniker more than SVHS. But please, this is just MHO. :w:

All true! And I am in total agreement with the rest of it. Once you have done 12-30 layers with a single "G R E A T DVE and CG" using 4:2:2 and mild compression through a D-85 w/pre-read,in a fully component system, there is no turning back. A-B...what's that? LOL
But, for the new systems out there, the extra cost has to show durability as well, at least 5 to 7 years worth. Do they have TM down there? LOL ommmmmmmmm LOL
--Rick

This topic sponsored by: