Canon XL2

• Average user rating: 3.5 stars out of 26 reviews
• My rating: 0 stars

• 1
• 2
• 3
• next

• Sort by: Most helpful Highest rating Lowest rating Most recent

• 8 stars

  XL2 Could be a 10...it's close!

  by mikeandbecka on April 16, 2005

  Pros: Pro Design & Expandability; Audio XLR ports; Telephoto standard Lens with stabilization

  Cons: LCD/Eyepeice, IRIS control, Weight (in some cases)! Low light grain, Price for Expansion!

  Summary: There's no doubt that this is a great camera, I had the pleasure of using it for 2 weeks before giving it up. There were some issues that I ...

  Read more

  Summary: There's no doubt that this is a great camera, I had the pleasure of using it for 2 weeks before giving it up. There were some issues that I had with this camera, first of all and my main concern is that the LCD viewfinder is not the best for finding you focus point, this can be frustrating at times knowing that this camera has the best lense for focusing ability. There is also no separate "pop-out" LCD, so inorder to correct this problem, you will need to add a monitor somewhere on the camera (on top mount or on sled/stabilizer) this increases weight and cost. Another great option for the viewfinder is to purchase the optional evf monochrome viewfinder; this would be ideal to use with an additional 4"+ mounted LCD (as this viewfinder eliminates the standard evf's flip-up LCD screen) but this comes at a heavy price tag of $1500. The Iris control is a step system, which is noticable when using and not fluid.
  This camera has great options if you want to pay for them, no doubt a great choice for any pro or amature film maker, great for event shooting, but would take some getting used to for artistic shooting.
  Recommended!

  Show less

  5 out of 5 users found this user opinion helpful.

• 7 stars

  XL series has always had weak results for prosumer

  by rcryniak on June 8, 2005

  Pros: Interchangeable lens system is fabulous

  Cons: Lower quality imagery than can be had for less money

  Summary: Well, I've been using DV since its inception, and have an educational background in broadcasting and comp-sci. The Canon offerings have always offered unique and useful features, including this ...

  Read more

  Summary: Well, I've been using DV since its inception, and have an educational background in broadcasting and comp-sci. The Canon offerings have always offered unique and useful features, including this XL2, but simply can NOT compare to Sony's offerings in the same category. The Sony VX2100 (consumer) / PD170 (pro), offers a substantially superior image. The image isn't oversharpened like it is on the XL series, and offers cleaner results with better color reproduction. To top it off...the XL2 is only 5.5 lux min rated, which is very poor, and not suitable for professional use. It's "okay" for home use, but the lux rating (for those of you that don't know) is the measurement used to define how sensitive the imager is. The lower the rating, the less light required to generate a decent picture. In most indoor venues (homes, restaurants, bars, churches, etc.) the lighting is not enough to generate a decent picture on a greater-than-4 lux camera without lots of gain, which introduces substantial noise to the image. The Sony VX2100, in contrast, is priced about $1000 less, and is rated at a far superior 1 lux (natively, not with digital enhancement) which means that indoor shooting is very natural with no additional lighting to lug around, and without the introduction of noise due to higher gain requirements. Overall, the Sony prosumer line (VX2100/PD170) is a substantially better offering. The ONLY advantage to the XL2 is the interchangeable lens system, which is really not that useful unless you have a very specific need. For most uses, a standard lens with telephoto, wide, and anamorphic adapters are more than enough if you need to add lens capability. For widescreen shooters, the Sony offerings can utilize a manual focus pulling anamorphic adapter by Century Optics... which really makes the interchangeable lens system of the XL2 a nicety rather than a necessity.

  Show less

  4 out of 5 users found this user opinion helpful.

• 9 stars

  Move over, Panasonic!

  by on January 12, 2005

  Pros: Sure, the 5k entry price is a little steep. But when you're filming in TRUE 16:9 ratio, 2 XLR outputs, 24p frame rate, it's worth it. The ability to expand is mind boggling. This is the new standard for all independent film. Lack of HD is a bit of a bothe

  Cons: Finicky switches, alot to learn, high entry price, no HD, some lenses cost more than the camera!

  2 out of 2 users found this user opinion helpful.

• 7 stars

  No HDV, which is fake HD anyway

  by on August 5, 2004

  Pros: Great upgrades to XL1.

  Cons: Going to be blown away by revolutionary CMOS cameras coming from Concept HD, Summix, and Silicon Technologies. True HD, not fake HDV, is on the way.

  1 out of 1 users found this user opinion helpful.

• 7 stars

  Great camera that continues Canon's dv dominance

  by on July 18, 2004

  Pros: Amazing picture with several upgrades like xlr inputs added and a great new lens.

  Cons: A bit pricey but if used by the right person can be very much worth it. Take it from a 5 year televison and film veteran.

  1 out of 1 users found this user opinion helpful.

• 5 stars

  HD IS COMING ON STRONG TO PRICEY FOR OLD TECH.

  by on September 1, 2004

  Pros: GOOD DESIGN A LIITLE TO LATE. HD IS GETTING CHEEPER. JVC MAY WIN PROSUMER CONFIDENCE. 45% OF HOUSEHOLD ARE HD READY. (USA) INDIE NEEDS HD NOW FOR LOWER BUDGET FILMS. JVC IS STRONG ON THIS POINT WHEN WELL LIT.

  Cons: GOOD BUT ALITTLE LATE

  1 out of 2 users found this user opinion helpful.

• 6 stars

  Alignment Issue

  by keesvanes on October 1, 2009

  Pros: Great camera to shoot off the shoulder. Easy operation. Good picture quality.

  Cons: - Tapes recorded with this camera can't be played back in a Sony environment This is due to an alignment issue (internal mechanics).
  - Cannot record signal of both front mic and mic connected via XLR at the back.

  Summary: Disappointing. When you need your client the tape(s) you recorded with the XL2 you know there's going to be trouble. It seems Canon failed to produce a camera ...

  Read more

  Summary: Disappointing. When you need your client the tape(s) you recorded with the XL2 you know there's going to be trouble. It seems Canon failed to produce a camera that complies with the strictest DV standards.

  Show less

• 8 stars

  Fantastic Performance With Affordability

  by Creativescape on January 22, 2008

  Pros: Interchangeable lenses

  Cons: Somewhat hefty

  Summary: The Canon XL2 is a fantastic non-HD system that's perfect for entry-level professional videography.

  Summary: The Canon XL2 is a fantastic non-HD system that's perfect for entry-level professional videography.

• 4 stars

  very expensive consumer-quality camera

  by wavereel on August 7, 2007

  Pros: 16:9, 30p, amazing lens

  Cons: not true 24p poor color processing 4:1:1?

  Summary: so, I purchased an RCA CC9390 in 2001 for $499 I was very pleased with the camera and I always drooled when I saw the Canon Xl2 hoping that I ...

  Read more

  Summary: so, I purchased an RCA CC9390 in 2001 for $499 I was very pleased with the camera and I always drooled when I saw the Canon Xl2 hoping that I would someday own a camera like that.
  
  In 2005 I did some green screen shooting with my RCA cc9390 and the results weren't good, but they were ok, they worked and my boss loved them. Amazing that it worked at all considering the lighting was horrendous and the camera was cheap.
  
  I started getting more clients wanting more greenscreen filming, so I purchased the Canon xl2 and did some light green screen stuff also with some bad lighting. The results were a tiny bit better than before with the rca. I thought maybe just because of the poor lighting. Later, I purchased a whole bunch of professional lighting equipment allowing me to evenly light the greenscreen and my subject using keylights, fill lights, and backlights, etc. I was very excited to see the results with my xl2, but to my dismay, the results were no better than before. I pulled out my RCA cc9390 and got the same results. THE SAME RESULTS! I started tweaking around with different features on the xl2 to see if I could get a little better color, but no. my green screen still showed up very dull and my baby blue shirt was still gray. There could be something that I'm missing, but there's no excuse for my $4,000 canon xl2 to behave like my $400 RCA cc9390.
  
  the Verdict
  The canon xl2 is merely a $400 camera with a $1200 lens.

  Show less

• 9 stars

  Wow, the best prosumer camera yet!

  by atidude on April 22, 2007

  Pros: Intercangable lenesInterchangeable lenses, Image control, 4 audio channels

  Cons: Size, Cost, Ergonomics are a little strange, can’t adjust shoulder rest.

  Summary: This is a great camera until today… It “was” working perfect until I went to turn it on and nothing happened battery was charged and outlet power didn’t work; ...

  Read more

  Summary: This is a great camera until today… It “was” working perfect until I went to turn it on and nothing happened battery was charged and outlet power didn’t work; now I have to send it in to have work done on it and it is only six days old. The store I bought it from would not let me exchange it because I cut part of the box out for the rebate, so now I get to seat around for a month before I get my camera back. Other then that this is a wonderful camera, and out performs all other cameras in its class.

  Show less

• 1
• 2
• 3
• next

See pricing