DR wrote:
The XL-1 (not "s"...) and the VX-2000/PD150 are
(critically...) reviewed on my web page at:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm
Unless several very basic items have been improved
on the XL-1 in the "s" version (and in any case,
really...;-), I would look at the VX-2000/PD150
also... (BTW, a properly equiped XL-1 is FAR more
expensive than its base price, unlike some others.
Consider the cost of a decent power source,
viewfinder, WA capability, etc. - things that
are included, or are relatively cheap to add for
others [which may also have a better picture...].)
Frame grabs from the XL-1 standard zoom with two
Century converters added (not cheap!) are in the
review - and are not impressive (soft edges, and
color fringing). The Canon WA is only 3X, without
stabilizer, and not cheap... The XL-1 is a neat
concept ("pro-type" camera with interchangeable
parts, cheaper than shoulder-mount cameras), but
the execution leaves much to be desired, alas,
especially in comparison with its cheaper or
similarly-priced competition... (VX-2000/PD150/
JVC500).
>David says these things a LOT, but I find him biased against the XL-1, and I
>can't put my finger on why. It is an EXCELLENT camera. It is a little long
>in the tooth compared to the VX2000, but for many tasks it is still the best
>available tool.
I do not regard what I said as bias, but as "observation", a
VERY different thing...;-) The two XL-1s tried and commented
on in my reviews simply were inferior performers for picture
quality and for control useability compared with some other
camcorders reviewed - and those other camcorders were
anywhere from somewhat to VERY MUCH less expensive, not to
mention smaller and lighter! (Especially when the XL-1 is
fitted out with accessories to bring its capability up near the
competition's in stock form...) Within the context of
the original poster's request, my observations were appropriate.
It is you who defend this overly-complex-and-
expensive-and-large-for-its-output-quality camcorder in
a way that would indicate bias...!;-) There are VERY few
tasks for which the XL-1 is the best choice, IMNSHO...
>The XL-1S does deliver a sharper picture, a more configurable setup, and the
>lens operation has come remarkably far. (Especially if you want to do rack
>focus.) It is hardly the same camera as the XL-1.
This may be true - I have not tried the "s" version. But I
note that it is often hard to make "a silk purse out
of a sow's ear", and I do not see enough basically changed
in the "s" to see how some of the claims made for it could
be true...
>The nice thing about the XL line though is that the old XL-1 has access tp
>all the new goodies for the XL-1S, including that crazy 4 XLR and BNC video
>shoulder adaptor. Whoa. (MA200)
If what the original poster wants is a big/heavy/expensive
rig with good B&W finder, XLRs, better image quality,
better controls, and interchangeable lenses, the JVC offers
that (and more) for not much more money; if the original
poster wants a compact/light/cheaper rig with good B&W
finder, XLRs, and better image quality, the Sony PD-150
offers that (and more) for much less money. The XL-1 sits
in an awkward (and to me, nearly useless) position between
"handicam"-form camcorders and shoulder-mount-form cameras,
without offering much advantage over either, or very
useful compromises...
>What do I like better about the VX2000 ? The LOW light video. I have not had
>a chance to test this on teh XL-1S though.
>
>David, why do you choose to do *all* your tests using the auto mode of the
>cameras ? I think the auto modes are important to many users, but I NEVER
>use the auto features on my XL-1...just like I hate driving an automatic. My
>favorite feature of these cams is using them with all the auto junk turned
>OFF.
I tested this way (it was for me that I originally
carried out the tests...) since for my purposes that is
generally how I would use the cameras (in auto modes, with
manual over-ride when necessary). Others may go a different
route. But the manual lens controls of the XL-1 were
TERRIBLE! And some of the auto controls were also poor
(I had to trick the XL-1 into decent AF focus and AE
exposure in the outdoor tests to get a picture that could
be compared with the others...).
>I am not saying you should not test the auto features, just that you should
>test specific manual setups.
Possibly true, but this was not an "all-out" thorough
test - it was a quick one to see how various camcorders
would perform in a set of identical common situations,
used as I would want to be able to use them. The XL-1
was miserable, others were much better (I'm kinder in the
reviews, at:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm , but
the bottom line is: the XL-1 is a bloated, overpriced,
awkward camcorder to use in view of its control problems,
picture quality, and price... [jes' me 'umble opinion,
though...!;-]). I don't see basic changes in the "s" that
are likely to change that opinion - but I'm open to the
(remote) possibility...;-) Heck, the VX-2000/PD-150
picture is excellent, its low-light ability is excellent,
its AF and AE operation are first-rate, its manual
controls are acceptable (for its form-type) its sound is
good, and the 150 offers in stock form the XLRs, sharp
B&W finder (and color panel...), and high-capacity power
solution that are expensive extras with the XL-1, and
excellent WA lens converters fit to extend the 12X zoom
to wide-angle (more compactly and cheaply than the XL-1,
with a wider zoom range and without losing the
stabilizer...).
>If I constrained my evaluation to the automatic modes of the camera I might
>be bent towards the Sony camp...they have better electronics. The manual
>operation of the XL-1 is to me easier and produces better results.
I have a hard time figuring out how, after one becomes
used to the cameras, but I will say that the non-lens
controls are better laid out and designed on the XL-1
than on the others...
>For example, looking at your VX2000 page, I often found the auto controls of
>the VX1000 did a better job than the VX2000!!!
?????
The AF of the VX-2000 is better, and is so good, I have
stopped trying to better it with manual focus - the rare
times it (slightly) misses (contrasty, bright background,
with flat subject) I would probably err equally "badly" in
manual...;-) AE works VERY well, especially in combination
with AE-bias, and the occasional AE-lock (when needed,
rarely...;-). The camera is fast and easy to operate,
and more than 95% of footage is well-exposed and in focus
(wild guess - actually footage lost to poor exposure or
focus in auto modes is amazingly rare...).
>Now we all know that the 2000
>is a better camera in almost all regards. Manual operation in odd
>circumstances will definitely show this.
>
>Well, I am rambling...
So, why do you continue to defend "the dinosaur",
huh...? ;-) Heck, jes' git yo-self a nice PD-150
or JVC500 and see what real cameras (in their categories)
are like, 'stead o' thet mongrel XL-1 (1/2 not really
"handycam", 1/2 not really "shoulder-mount"...;-).