DVX100A has 24p capability which, most people believe, is more "film-like" since it emulates the frame rate of movie film cameras. Personally, I'm in love with my dvx100a--it is an amazing machine.

Don't know much about the other choices you listed but you should probably want to find out which frame-rate types each of the vidcam choices may support.

Best regards,

Lee

anybody with personal experiance withthese cameras?

Thought I heard that the XL2 Standard lense was suffering the same issue that the first one suffered. I heard that they didn't get the backfocus right on the lense, so if you do decide on the XL2 make sure that you get the Broadcast Lense. (if what I heard is true, but it's still not a bad idea to get the high end lense, it'll make a pretty big difference in the quality).

IMO, 24P is HIGHLY over-rated. Film style lighting and shot composition is FAR more important than using a temporally inferior frame rate. My choice of the cameras you listed would be the FX1, absolutely no question about it. Sony has done an outstanding job with this camcorder and the upcoming "pro version," the Z1U, will be even better.

If you haven't seen this web page, it's worth checking out::

How the FX1 works--a very thorough explanation

John

Absolutely no question about it, the DVX is the best camera for your stated purpose. I have spent a lot of time with all four of these cameras, evaluating them for this specific purpose. We also just finished a side-by-side comparison of the FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2, all three shooting the same subject side-by-side on the same tripod.

The DVX is the choice for a film club wanting to make films. Hands down.

Barry, why do you say that?

How did you find the XL2's 16x9 performance?

Speaking of XL2s I saw what must be the ulimate XL2 setup today. Camera mounted on a Mitchel head ( the kind that you crank to pan), Mini35 adaptor and a monster hunk of glass on the front. I think the XL2 would have been the cheapest part of the rig.
Bob.

I second that.

Maybe 24 fps is an overated feature if you don't have to transfer to film but true progressive scan is very well acheived with the Pana. and it's invaluable for me, as is the lens and image outstanding quality. Ease of use, ergonomics and sound quality are also a plus, IMHO.

http://www.royalcamera.com/canonxl2s.html

is this to good to be true? anybody deal with this company, wondering if it is a bait and switch.

http://www.resellerratings.com/seller_rating_history.pl?id=1895

Many customers rated it 0 out of 10....

Simple rule still works: "if it sounds too good..."

Never buy expensive gear from a company you don't have qualified positive references for.

If you want to know what happens with these kind of resellers, do a Search here or in just about any other forum. It may make your hair stand straight up.

so we have narrowed our search down to 2 cameras. We have eliminated the hd1(bad reviews and experainces) and eliminated the xl2(cost). so that leaves us with the fx1 and the dvx100a. From what i am reading I should be leaning towards the dvx100a, but i dont know anyone who has used the fx1, so i dont have a un biased opinion

I entered the FX1/XL2/DVX comparison with what I consider an unbiased opinion. In the interest of full disclosure, others may think I'm not unbiased, since I wrote a book called "The DVX Book/The DVX DVD", but hopefully people can understand that I entered this test with the intention of doing a similar book/DVD for both the Sony and the Canon. The DVX's been around for two years, so there was plenty of time to learn it well to the point of being able to write a book about it. The FX1 and XL2 are only a few weeks old, comparatively.

Frankly I don't care which camera "wins", because better is better. I am no brand loyalist -- I used Sony products before the Panasonic, switched to the Panasonic because it was far better for my purposes than the PD150, and entered into this 3-way comparison test to see if the XL2 or the FX1 surpass the Panasonic for my purposes (television commercial, corporate film, instructional DVD's, and indie film production). My conclusion is that these particular cameras don't.

This discourse is not to say that one camera is "better" than the other in any way other than to answer skibumm101's original question, which is: which is better FOR US, for our film club, for producing indie film stuff. In that context, I offer the following summary:

Each camera has significant advantages over the others, in some way or other. They're all very different, which is a good thing -- it helps you choose which one does what you want best. The thing you have to ask yourself is, which advantages suit your stated purpose, and which ones do not affect your stated purpose.

The following is in my opinion, and my opinion only, others may disagree.

A summary of the major differences are:

XL2: it has interchangeable lenses. It has the longest telephoto lens (and thus the potential for the shallowest depth of field). It is a much larger camera, a shoulder-mount style, as opposed to the other two. It is the most expensive. It has great glass but the least-usable lens, from a professional usability standpoint (no feedback whatsoever on focal length or focus position, no repeatable focus capability, very difficult to repeat a framing or focus move unless you want to use the motorized thing it offers). Its viewfinder is awful - better than the XL1's but not in the same league as the LCD's on the other cameras. Poor wide-angle, superb telephoto. The menu system offers a great array of image controls, but no way to precisely know what you're setting them to: the other cameras offer discrete numbered settings (i.e., detail level = +4) whereas with the XL2, it's a consumerish little bar graph thing. Iris control is the worst of the bunch, a steppy-little clicky-button. High-resolution 16:9, compromised 4:3. A modular camera system which can be built upon (add a better VF, add a different/better lens) but at significant expense.

FX1: The overwhelming difference is interlaced high-def video. Watch it on a high-def display, and you will say "wow". Very impressive. It really gives that "looking through a window" feeling. It looks nothing whatsoever like film, it looks like very high resolution video, but it's video all the way. You could maybe hack-job it with post effects to make it somewhat filmic, but you'll be sacrificing resolution every step of the way, and resolution is what this camera's all about. Nice solid feel, good selection of manual controls (gain/iris/wb switches are exactly as they should be). Offers peaking and zebras, but incomprehensibly, not at the same time! Dropouts are terribly destructive, even the tiniest dropout will cost you 15 dropped frames each and every time. The audio is the worst-designed system of any of these cameras, with no XLR's, no balanced input, no way to control audio levels separately, and no way to turn off the limiter. It has the poorest low-light performance of the three, the lowest sensitivity, and the lowest latitude. No timecode options at all. The Cineframe 24 mode is completely unusable. Completely. For controllability and feedback it's a little better than the Canon (in manual mode you get an approximate feedback of your lens position, and you can get feedback on your focus position in meters, plus numeric readouts in the menu settings). Great wide-angle, decent telephoto. Lots of chromatic aberrations, the left side of the screen exhibits green outlines whereas the right side shows purple. Magnificent LCD, the best of the three. The least amount of in-camera image control, of the three cameras, but still a lot, and at least the feedback is with discrete numbers so you can dial in the look you want without guesswork. Sweet manual iris dial, iris is calculated in 1/4 stops, but the change in iris settings is quite noticeable. High-resolution 16:9 even in DV mode. Vertical smear on bright light highlights that scream "video" -- even warned about in the manual.

DVX: easily the most filmlike of the bunch. Incredible range of picture controls, including 7 gamma settings and four color matrices -- you can make this camera look like anything you want, I've even simulated about a dozen "magic bullet" looks in-camera with the DVX. Best audio system of the bunch. Lowest price. Superb LCD, great wide-angle, but shortest telephoto. 24P with Cinegamma and CineMatrix just looks an awful lot like film -- add a little film grain and it can look very, very much like film. Widest latitude, most sensitive, and best low-light performance of the group. A full stop faster than the Canon, and 1.5 stops faster than the Sony. Great iris wheel, calculated in 1/6 stops, with smooth (almost seamless) transition between them. Repeatable focus ring, and true manual zoom, the only true manual zoom of the three (unless you buy an optional lens for the Canon, at which point you'll have to give up optical image stabilization). Best feedback on controls, most repeatable focus and zoom moves. Lowest-resolution 16:9 (although still as high as a PDX10's "native 16:9"), excellent 4:3.

The XL2 could be "pimped out" to be a great filmmaker's camera, but it would take a $1500 viewfinder, and a $1500 lens, and then you're talking about an $8000 camera. For a film club that's trying to pool their money together, that's not really an option.

The FX1 is a very nice HD interlaced camera, but that's all it is. If you were shooting a reality series, something where you need that interlaced "immediacy" look, the FX1 would be the first choice (acutally the Z1 would be the first choice, but it's $2300 more than the FX1). If interlaced 1080i HD is your priority, the FX1 would be the first choice. For filmmakers... if you want HD, wait for Canon or JVC or Panasonic to respond with a real progressive-scan 24P HD camera. Big-screen filmmakers don't use interlaced HD to make movies, they waited until Sony introduced the 24P CineAlta. Trying to use the FX1/interlaced is a step backwards, in my opinion. However, the Z1 could be nice, with CineFrame 25 converted down... but then you're talking about a $5946 camera.

For precision, control, and filmlike footage, the DVX is still the camera to beat. And since your film club is likely broke (which is why you're all banding together to buy one camera) the lower price of the DVX makes it the choice over the XL2, even if all other things were equal (which they're not). The 16:9/4:3 issue is becoming more noticeable, but right now still 90+ percent of the TV's in the USA are 4:3, and neither the FX1 or XL2 can deliver the 4:3 image that the DVX can, and a letterboxed 4:3 image will give the look of 16:9 on a 4:3 set, without downsampling (which both the FX1 and XL2 would require).

For progressive/24P footage, both the XL2 and the DVX gain resolution in that mode, whereas the FX1 loses resolution when trying to simulate 24P, so the gap in resolution closes between them. With the FX1, for a filmmaker, you're having to settle for a camera that doesn't do what you want, just so you can pay extra to get a feature you don't need (HD resolution). Three years from now when HD distribution is more realistic, that situation may need to be reviewed, but right now DVD is the reigning distribution method, and the DVX and XL2 make better-looking DVD's than the FX1 does.

As a camera, regardless of the footage, the DVX is the most professional of the bunch. The others have consumerish compromises that the DVX just doesn't. As far as footage goes, the FX1's is easily the highest-resolution for HD, (especially on still shots, moving shots are another story) but the DVX's is the most filmlike, with the XL2 a close second. And when downrezzed to DVD resolution, the FX1 isn't any higher-res than the XL2 or DVX, so for DVD release, the FX1's high-def isn't necessarily even an advantage. (I know this conflicts with what some people have been saying; all I can say is, I've got identical footage from all three cameras here, I'm making DVD's with it using Vegas to do the conversion on "best" video quality, and that's the results I'm observing.)

We shot with all three cameras side-by-side, mounted on the same tripod, shooting the same scene (of course there are parallax and framing errors, but you get the general idea). I'm working on a large comparison article, and the raw footage from the cameras will be made available as well, probably the transport streams and the .AVI's on a DVD so people can review the footage and come to their own conclusions. These are my conclusions, and are shared by the guy I did the test with -- but others may have differing priorities and may interpret the footage differently than we did.

The cameras are all very different, and have some majorly different features, which is a good thing -- it actually makes it a lot easier to choose between them. Pick your priorities, then pick the camera that suits them best. They're all three absolutely incredible cameras, but they have very different "personalities" and each is suited to certain tasks much better than the others. For the indie filmmaker, the DVX is still king. For reality shows or high-def interlaced productions, the FX1 would be the choice. For events/sports/concerts, I'd probably choose the XL2.

VERY nice review Barry. I think you've nailed the important facts.
Thanx for sharing it.

Thanks barry, that is exactly what i am looking for. His remark should be pinned for all those with which camera is best questions

I Made a list of MY Priorities..

1) Picture quality
Sony HDV blows everything DV out of the Water

2) DoF

wELL Here is what John Jay said from DVINFO

____________________________________________________________
to put things into perspective and to be consistent with all other 1/3" CCD (which are 4:3)

the FX1 CCD is wider and equates to a letterbox of a 1/2.7" CCD

This gives a wider FOV and means more Bokeh for the same DOF as other 1/3" CCD


__________________
John Jay

_____________________________________________________________

I Assume this means the Chips are Equivelent to over 1/2 Ordinary Types
HeyI dont Know correct me if IM Wrong !

For anyone that doesnt know Bokeh means Lens Blur (DoF Effect

3) Sound Two XLR Inputs

4) View Screen (Big)

5) Setting controls ect Easy to hand ect

6) Progressive (Cine frame 25

7)Price (Well over here the Canon is £3400 and the Sony Z1 WILL be £3500

In my List the Z1 BEATS any other Camera in this Price range into A Cocked Hat..

The FX1 Comes second Although I would seriously think for ease of use and going for a Film Look about the DVX.... BUT Then I would dig a bit deeper and Buy the Z1..

At this Moment in time I have a Canon GL2/XM2 Which I really like... I to have no Brand Loyalties ! I really wanted the DVX "A Year ago" I also Drooled over the Canon XL2 ..

I never thought the Time would come when I would be able to make Professional Films.. EVEN If I still have a Lot to learn ..I just bought a Couple of Real Film Cameras and Loads a Film In the fridge.. Bought Projectors too.. But this Sony (Z1) mEANS I Got caught out ....

Barry these are just My Opinions.. Only a Summary of what I have Gleaned.. You have had the Cameras.. Done the Tests ect

I have seen Footage from all Three Cams...Read Up from Others ect... You are far more Smarter and Trained than me... But I still Trust My Judgement.. As things stand at the Moment... I Feel that perhaps we actually agree :) BUT Just reach Different Conclusions...

Awesome review Barry and I look forward to seeing the footage side by side. Thanks!

The only other point worth mentioning is: future proofing. If I was about to set out on creating a heart felt indi-film, with my own money and sweat equity, I couldn't sleep if I knew I could be shooting on HD for the same money. I think it behooves anyone to capture as much shear resolution on set as possible. The 24p vs. 30p (framerate) is more about aesthetics than tech (unless they are doing a film transfer - which I doubt), IMHO. Even so, I'd have to imagine HDV to 35mm would have to look better. Right? Yes, I agree that 90% of TV's are 4:3 SD 60i, but we all know HD-DVD is right around the bend and I can't see making a movie this year or next in SD. That is, if I was buying a camera and making a movie. (If I make a "movie" this year it will be on my trusty XL1 until I upgrade to HDV - ha ha) Anyway, if I was working with a producer and we had a direct to video deal in place, it wouldn't't make any sense to shoot HD knowing that the final product is SD. So I'd vote Panny. If this film club is making movies (like most of us) for no reason other than to make them for their own artistic reasons, I think I'd still vote for a camera that allows some "future proofing" -- i.e. the Sony HDVcam. If they have an audience already (an SD audience), then go with a better/cheaper SD camera like the Panny.

One last random thought: if they are doing a sci-fi epic, HD allows for much more framing and cropping options in post.

THe camera needs to be versitle since it will be used in many different types of genre of filmmaking. The film club is a university sposered club, and will lend the camera out to members to shoot there "films". It needs to be a work horse since it will be used almost daily. by students. it also needs to be built tough becasue it will be used by students

Right, that makes sense. I think Barry's advice is best then. I would think that if it is being lended out often, a good SD camera would make more sense than trying to go throught the first generation learning curve associated with new tech such as the HDV format with each and every new student.

"Even so, I'd have to imagine HDV to 35mm would have to look better. Right? "

I intend to find out. Some of this footage will be transferred to 35mm, so we'll get the chance to see how up-rezzed 24P compares against field-blended downconverted-to-24fps HDV. I know people could argue all day long about which one should look better, but I'm just interested in finding out which one actually *does* look better. The film print will be available for anyone who wants it to borrow (or, at least the DVX/anamorphic print we did is set up that way).

Keep us posted...

Thanks.

Barry,

That has to qualify as the best camera comparison review on this board (and perhaps any board)!

Outstanding work, thank you!

Let's remember that SD can look *absolutely positively astonishing* when done correctly (which is rarely the case). This takes work.

It is clear that neither HD nor HDV is a mature technology yet, while SD has a demonstrated potential quite a bit beyond what most people care to do with it.

Using the XL2 extensively and we're extremely pleased with the results!

Jay