Videomaker – Learn video production and editing, camera reviews › Forums › General › Video and Film Discussion › canon xl2 or sony 170
- This topic has 4 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 12 years, 7 months ago by Anonymous.
- July 10, 2007 at 1:19 PM #39699AnonymousInactive
Looking for a camera, it’s going to be either one. I know both are great camera’s, anybody ever use both of these and you thoughts on them. I shoot recitals, on school stages, lighting is good most of the time. Use my bosses older sony 300, a dvcam camera, with great results, time I do some of my own. My daughter is a film student at college. I know the answer is probably the sony is good for me and the canon for her, any imput wpuld be helpful. I’m leaning toward the canon
- July 12, 2007 at 5:04 AM #171343Ryan3078Participant
Yeah, definitely go for the Canon, but I’m biased since I love it and have used it.
I shoot recitals, on school stages,
The Canon is great for that – I just used it while filming a rock concert.
It can really get a lot of light with no noise – I also filmed my sister’s play – very little light, save for a spotlight at times, but great results with no noise.
The DSR-PD170 runs in a highly competitive crowd that includes the likes of the AG-DVX100 and the XL-1S. Both of these cameras have been praised for their excellent image quality and in particular the Canon is often considered to rule the throne when it comes to color reproduction.
So the Sony is as good as the XL1s, which I believe is about 8 years old, while the XL2 is better than the Sony for image and color.
It says that the Sony has the best (at the time) color reproduction…at full blazing sunlight with 3000 lux. So get the Sony if you are shooting outdoors…maybe.
The Sony doesn’t seem to be true 16:9…so if you want that cinematic look, go for the Canon.
Overall, the Sony is almost as good as the Canon. GO for the XL2 yourself, and make sure you have a good tripod. The XL2 is 6 pounds of might…it destroyed the threading on my cheap $20 tripod. The Sony is good if you want a somewhat smaller camera.
I know the answer is probably the sony is good for me and the canon for her
The Canon looks like the more professional of the two, but both seem to have a plethora of settings and options.
- July 12, 2007 at 12:34 PM #171344TomScratchParticipant
Both of these are "to die for" cams; well maybe just to max out the cc for…
You said: Lighting is good most of the time. I will paraphrase you: Lighting is lousy some of the time. You cannot beat the VX 2100 or PD 170 in sub optimum lighting conditions. If you don’t want to worry about lighting ever ever, go with one of these.
I shoot recitals in theaters (e.g., Smithsonian auditorium in DC) and bands in clubs. Results are excellent (transcending what the naked eye sees) with funky dunky tunsten; and beyond great in red and/or green and/or blue (etc etc) stage lighting. Overlit, underlit or just right, I shoot in these environments at one thirtieth, to get my "film look."
REGARDS … TOM 8)
- July 12, 2007 at 6:08 PM #171345EndeavorParticipant
I agree about the 170 in low light. I just did a wedding with a borrowed pd170 and wow! I could not believe how well it did in comparison to my old GL2.
- July 15, 2007 at 12:19 AM #171346FitzufilmsParticipant
I have owned a PD170 for a little over a year now and love it. I shot a wedding a couple of weeks ago and during the reception the bride did not want me to use a light. I shot a very dark reception with poor lighting. The photographer couldnt believe the picture I was getting in my view finder. I have not had another camera in its price range so I can compare against the other but I have enjoyed it. Feel free to email if you have any specific questions. email@example.com
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.