Most certainly!

>>what other things is it good for?<<
I have 2 and shoot a weekly TV news magazine show, commercials and corporate video.
Randy

Ever seen the movie 28 Days Later, they used the XLIs' to shoot a lot of it. IF you look in the extras on the DVD you can see them shooting scenes with the camera.

The Danny Boyle movie "28 Days Later" was shot with a PAL XL-1. I have also seen a number of shorts shot in NTSC on the XL-1 and they also looked very good.

It looks like Jsnkc beat me to the Enter button.

Here is another trailer for a movie, also shot with the XL http://imagenfilms.omegahed.com/

Have any of you guys had problems getting really sharp focus with an XL1?

It's plagued me on a few shoots.

XL1s is a great camera, but uh...here comes the flames..

Get a GL2.

Just got one and, well, it's a heckuvabunch nicer than the GL1 and, in my opinion, the XL1. Once you learn the camera, get the lighting down, you're set. Oh, and for the price difference between the GL2 and XL1, you can get yourself a nice bolt-on mic amp for the GL2, making the two entirely comparable.

> Get a GL2. >

Good point. There is an interesting report comparing the GL2 to an XL1S (and PD150) worth taking a look at if you are in the market for an XL1S. See here: GL2 review part3

JL

Me, too....

Have a GL-1. Will buy a GL-2 before an XL1s (and am planning to shoot a feature on it this spring).

No, no focus problems here.

No flames, you're simply attempting to compare apples and oranges. Each is a great camera, each can/does serve different needs.

J--

No focus problems for me either.
Randy

It really depends on what you mean by 'produce movies'.
If you are serious about transfer to film then the DVX100 is the way to go, shoot 24pA and read the Sony white paper on 24p. If you live in PAL land same thing, actually better! Shoot 25p, the film xfer guys can convert that to 24p for you or the whitepaper also covers doing it in Vegas.

I'd agree the XL1 takes great pictures but we've found them anything but robust. The PD150 is hard to beat as an unbreakable camera. Even if you don't want to shoot progressive the DVX100 gives you both lots more image control and very good audio. Not the camera for low light but if you want to make 'movies' then you'll have proper lighting anyway. The new model of the PDX100 also gives smoother focus control and very slow zoom capability.

not slamming the XL-1 at all here, but just want to make sure we're all informed and not comparing apples and oranges. an XL-1 used on the set of a movie is not going to be the same as your standard XL-1 right out of the box.

yes, that movie was shot with an XL-1, but remember, when shooting movies, they'll often use a 35mm lens adapter with very expensive prime lenses and such, probably to the tune of around $10-15K each, also a huge mattebox with 5x5 filters, follow focus system, and the accessory list goes on and on. basically, at this point the only thing the XL-1 is being used for is capturing the images onto a DV tape. they might as well have used a GL-1 if it weren't for the XL-1's ability to accept many accessories, unlike a GL.

my $0.02

I've looked into this and you're right on the money. Take the XL1 or the DVX100A and add all the goodies to give it a ghost of a chance to shoot 'film like' images and you've doubled the cost of the camera and that's before you get into lenses.
Which makes me stop and think. If you aiming to release on film given how much prints etc cost shooting on super 16 is probably only going to adds a few percent if that to the overall cost.

Advice: rent the Canon and the DVX100 for a couple of days first. Then compare progressive modes and everything else...

"I'd agree the XL1 takes great pictures but we've found them anything but robust."

Have you found them to be fragile in the field? I've only used the XL1 in the studio, so sturdiness hasn't been an issue for me. OTOH, I've used the GL2 in the field fairly extesively, and so far no problems what so ever.

Thanks,

Shawn

We used to have one for hire but after having some troubles with an out of alignment block we sold it. Since then I've been handed an XLI to shoot with and it wouldn't thread the tape so I shot the job on my D8, thank god it was only auditions!
Then I've two people come to us with problem footage from XL1. Basically the heads were out of alignment meaning the tapes would only play back on the camera they were shot on. In one case the camera had the problem fixed before the guy realised so his last four weeks of tapes would replay in the camera or in any of our VCRs. DSR-2000 saved the day for him.
Everyone I've met that owns one loves the pictures but keeping it running seems to be an issue. Mind you here in Oz the environment is pretty harsh and you don't have a big choice in people who can fix these things.

By comparision we have almost no problems with four PD150s that are hired out all the time and used by some pretty rough handlers. Cannon cameras do better pictures and if you owned the thiing it might be different, they're just not as rugged as the PD150.

I've owned two Canons--XL1 and XL1s. Not had any problems whatsoever in keeping it running. Used it the studio and in the field. No lack of being robust has shown up thus far.

J--

Any Room for more opinions? Good :)

I shot with the XL-1 and the XL-1s extensively in the mojave desert (3 years) and the DC area. The camera is good, flexible, and can give excellent results once the operator is experienced. These cameras were owned by the Army, but would I buy one myself? No. Here's why.

First off, Scottz29 hit the nail on the head- When used for high-end production, the only thing remaining of an original XL-1 is the CCD and tape mech. The batteries, Lens, viewfinder all get replaced at a cost upwards of $20k.
Canon even goes so far as to boast on it's website about the commercial they shot on the XL1, but when you look at the production stills, you can varely see the camera because of all the attatchemnts.
That however, is not my main reason for going in another direction (DVX100), although the DVX was used to shoot a doc on Mt. Everest using only what came in the box. My main problem with the XL1 series is that the standard lens is pretty poor. Not the optics so much as the whole fly by wire concept. It offers manual control of the zoom and focus, but neither of these rings directly control the lens elements. They actuate magnetic sensors that then activate servos which then turn the lens. They really cause problems when you want to do a nice slow follow focus, because if you turn the focus ring to slowly, the chip thinks it's an error and ignores it. The same control system makes it nearly impossible to pull focus accurately during a zoom (that effects ENG shoots more than film).
The other issue is alignment. In the rough and tumble of field work, the tape tansport mech tends to drift, causing you to have to play the tape back in the same camera you shot it in. Trust me, there is nothing more frustrating than having 20 Xl1's, and trying to figure out whch one shot that tape in the archive. Worse yet, would be investing a big chunk of change into a camera and then have to abuse it as a VTR. To avoid this problem, you can keep a tape in the well. This locks the drifting parts in place, but also leaves tape against the heads, and can cause other problems. The XL also lacks XLR inputs, an LCD screen any control surfaces that translate from professional rigs (Betacam, DVCpro, etc)
In the end, if you're willing to spend the same amount upgrading your XL1 as you would to buy a 24p DVCpro cam with big fat CCD's, an XL1 is a great camera for high production films. But why fiddle with a menu trying to get the 'film look' by using 'frame' mode and tweaking gamma and sharpness settings all day? Spend the same (or maybe less) and get a camera that shoots 24p and has several filmlik epresets built in, along with a host of professional controls and features. The only thing the Xl has over the dvx is interchangable lenses. However the cost of using cine lenses on it is 2-4x's the original cost of the camera. If you've got that kind of money, chances are you're not browsing this board too often-
I'm not saying anyone else who posted that was pleased with their XL is full of it - if they can get what they want out of it, I'm very happy for them. Nor is this to say that if Canon dropped a free XL1s (or XL-2) in my lap that it would be on eBay the next day. I'm simply saying that in my own experience, and with my own checkbook, I'd choose differently.

I well understand that not everyone likes and/or uses the same products, whatever they may be. The reasons are countless. Some are valid, some aren't. The fact of the matter is the XL1's open architecture is what makes it such a great camera--it's far more versatile than any other camera in its class, period. Buy any other camera and you are forced to take what you're holding in your hand. You have little or no flexibility whatsoever. For many, that's perfectly all right.

What I've seen written and heard said by many, insofar as the XL1 is concerned, boils down to economics (lack of funds) and their lack of understanding of how the camera works. Since it was introduced, the XL1 has taken a great deal of heat regarding its operation, especially the stock lens. Like so many things, the operator of an XL1 has to be willing to "unlearn," or set aside, their previous knowledge and/or understanding of cameras and lenses in order to understand, truly appreciate, and operate the XL1. Many were unable or unwilling to do that. And that's fine. It's their choice.

For those who would like a truly indepth and unbiased look at the Canon XL1 and the XL1s, I suggest you go to The Canon XL1 Watchdog and browse the site. Then you will have a better, more informed idea as to what you can expect from the XL1 and whether or not it's the camera for you.

Going back to the original question, "Is [it] good enough to shoot a movie?" the simple, straight forward, honest answer is "Yes". That does not imply in any way, shape, or form that any other camera is not "good enough" to shoot a movie. Such a statement would be ludicrous.

"Are there any other cameras that could be used to shoot a movie?"
"Yes!"
" Well, then, which one should I use?"
"Only *you* can answer that question!"

J--