16 total posts
The Canon GL2 can see twice as far, has optical image
stabilization, better low light performance, much faster shutter speed capability, and costs substantially less. The GL2 has done a good job for me, and certainly looks like a better camera than the Panasonic.
I certainly defer to Kiddpeat's
hands-on experience with the GL2 - and in my observation, have seen MANY pros using the GL2 in documentary type capture environments. It has been - and continues to be a wworkhorse.
I have also seen many other pros using the Panasonic DVX100A and B in more "film-like" capture environments (short subject or feature length).
In both environments on many different projects (when I have been fortunate enough to have been on location capturing "behind the scenes" or doing audio), full 20x zoom was not used and in most cases less than 10x was applied, but wanting the flexibility to get there is certainly understandable).
I guess it depends on what your video capture projects will be...
One item that may close the $ gap (as referred to by Kiddpeat) a little - the Panny has built-in XLR audio inputs - and the GL2 has an optional XLR adapter (from Canon to take advantage of the special hot shoe, though 3rd party XLR adapters can also be used). That said, capturing audio separately renders this moot.
I agree that a powerful zoom is unnecessary in a studio or
in most 'location' shots where there is a lot of control over setting up the shots.
However, in the field, the zoom is invaluable. Want to get video of a sporting event? That zoom will be needed to get a decent shot. How about in an auditorium or other event location? Again the zoom is needed.
I recently came back from Alaska. The zoom was a necessity to get good video of wildlife.
Yup. But since we don't know what
the shooting plan is, we don't know if built-in 20x is a requirement. I do agree it is one of those "rather have and not need than need and not have" items. There are 3rd party lenses available for the Panny... just a web-search away...
That may be, but since the GL2 is better on several other
features, such as optical image stabilization, it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that the Panasonic is the preferred camera. Also, I regard the zoom capability (10x versus 20X) that is backed by the lense specs to be a substantial advantage for the GL2. You simply do not use the camera for very long in the field before you are reaching for that zoom.
panasonic or GL2
I have both cameras. THe GL2 is a workhouse. It is a nice second cam to use on weddings, live shoots, etc. Downfalls are it needs an adapter for XLR inputs and it is a second cam. It is not designed to be a first camera for big shoots.
The Panasonic is better. It has better control over the picture, XLR inputs. It has a bit of a sharper image. The difference is around $800 dollars.
Also, the GL2 is usually not used for pro shoots as the main camera. Either the XL2 is, or another camera. I wouldn't use it as a main camera for anything really worthwhile.
Dvx100 vs Cannon GL
DVX100a/b ROCKS. I've worked with GL2 100+ hours the footage is always fuzzy dont like it. It sluggish compared to the panasonic. The footage on the dvx100b is warmer and sharper image. Dont forget that 24p looks awesome.
Wedding footage with dvx100b does not have to look like video it can look more professional with that film quality. I use studio lighting a lot whenever im filming a wedding i'll just prop the lights up there and if they have a problem with it let um know that i need better lighting.
You are always going to have die hard fans of Cannon Gl2 i used to love it cause it was my first camera i have not touched it since i got my panasonic. Since than i bought the 100b as well as the second camera.
I was hesitant to get the Dvx100a but the footage just blew me away. Try
You should have returned your GL2 for service if the focus
did not work. I assume that is what you mean by 'fuzzy'. I have used the GL2 for about 2 years now. It produces excellent video which is clear and sharp. I've never seen it produce a bad result.
What is 'sluggish' BTW? Is it shooting at less than 30 frames per second?
It seems you do not know how to get good results from the GL2. I wonder how a different brand fixed that deficiency.
How does the difference in optical sensor size factor in...
regarding image quality(?) Just curious since one is 1/3" and the GL2 is 1/4".
I have looked at two sources for the DVX100 (cnet and B&H)
and cannot find the sensor resolution that the Panasonic sensors deliver. B&H, in my experience, always reports these numbers if they are available. B&H does show the resolution of the GL-2. Without the resolution, it is not possible to say based on specs which camera produces better image quality.
The Canon GL-2 does have a much better lense with its 20x zoom. It reaches to 84mm versus 45mm for the Panasonic. A better lense usually means better image quality.
You really need to look at the entire camera to compare the two. Sensor size is not sufficient.
longer lens means better quality?
That's news to me at least. Please elaborate.
Telephoto lenses with a long focal length are much harder to make, and are thus more expensive. The longer focal length allows you to capture more detail on distant objects because the object occupies a larger portion of the captured image.
Optical zoom, BTW, is the ONLY kind of zoom that is desirable. Digital zoom should never be used on the camera.
I understand optical vs digital zoom...
but what I was getting at is, what about a short lens with great glass vs a longer telephoto w/ not so good glass(?) Is the glass quality also remarkably different in this particular model comparison? Why would Panasonic Leica glass be so terrible? <again, devils advocate>
Also, if the sensor size is different enough won't that compensate a little making these two cameras very similar in quality outside of the telephoto differences(?)
Are you Panasonic marketing?
On what basis do you suggest that the Panasonic short focal length is a better lense than Canon's much better (2X) focal length? It is no feat to produce short focal length lenses. All point and shoots have them. It is much harder, and highly desired, to produce a lense that has an excellent telephoto capability. I can tell you that the lense on the GL-2 produces excellent results.
As far as sensor size is concerned, it is meaningless because Panasonic does not publish the resolution of the sensor. Canon does, and its resolution is very good. I can attest to that. Panasonic's failure to publish the spec suggests that the resolution is not good. Poor resolution means a poor image. I can also attest to that since I have a camera who's resolution is much less than that of the GL-2.
You are a funny little zealot (n/t)