Canon GL-2

[On a Roll]

Okay, since I'm probably one of the few Canon Guys up here, and considering I've owned and used it's primary rival in our industry, the VX-2100, I thought I'd give my two bits on this popular camera. So here's my take on the GL-2, the good, the bad, and the ugly.


The Good.

Bang for the buck-wise, the Canon GL-2 has a ton of power. It has some features on it that you can't find on cameras that list for significantly more, such as dual audio levels, and separate controls for everything. One of my gripes with Sony's VX-2100 is that there's no way (as far as I know) to seperately control the iris and the gain, but it's easy as anything on the GL-2.

Another thing I like about it is how easy it is to hold. when you hold it in the cradle position (right hand on top, left hand on bottom), all of the controls are exactly where you'd want them to be. The focus control ring sits right at the end of my thumb, perfect for minor tweaks as I'm recording, or to set depth of field adjustments.

And while this is something you can do with about any prosumer camera, I have to admit that I love how easy it is to set your depth of field on this camera.

The Bad.

The biggest, and most glaring problem with this camera is the fact that it just doesn't have much power in low lighting situations. In my opinion, Canon undersized the CCD's, settling for 1/4" chips when a minimum of 1/3" should have been used. The result is that when you get into a room with less lighting than your average home office, the picture is going to either wind up being dark, or you can kick up the gain, and the lighting will be fine, but your picture is going to be very grainy. As a compromise, I only turn my gain about halfway up, and finish correcting the lighting issues in my editor. This solves the graininess issue, and actually gets the picture looking good, but the cost of this is that it takes considerably longer to render the footage at the end of the project.

The Ugly.

One thing I noticed about the GL-2 is that the case is sort of flimsy. I know, it's plastic, just like all the other camcorders out there. But still, I come from the professional studio world of video production, where you find at least some sturdy material on the exterior. Then again, adding real metal would mean adding weight to the camera, and I like the light weight for handheld applications.

Another issue with Canon Cameras is the serviceability, or lack thereof. Unless you live in New Jersey, there's nobody close by who can open up your unit to fix it, and that means that servicing the cameras will take some time. Even our local repair guy, who services Sony, JVC, And a few other brand camcorders can't get into them, thanks to proprietary screws holding much of the camera together.

That can be a problem when you consider that Canon has a reputation for heads needing services at about a two year interval to keep the camera at peak performance.

Overall.

It's a great little camera, and I'm happy with it, aside from the low light issue. It has more features and control than the VX-2100, and it's at a better price. Ultimately, I would probably buy them again. On a scale of 1 to 5 stars, I give it 4 stars out of five (Well, I would rather give it 3-3/4 stars, but let's round up.)

[HankCastello]

I can't vote on this because I've never used one but as for

I know, it's plastic, just like all the other camcorders out there.

..well, not quite.  Panasonic and Sony have made metal-bodies for prosumer cameras.  The VX2100 has some kind of metal alloy body and that is the only reason I have three working VX2100s today instead of only two.

A couple years ago, I was walking along a road with my VX2100 attached to a cheap (Velbon) tripod.  A pickup truck swerved as trying to hit me. I jumped out of the way and the camera came lose and dropped from a height of over six feet onto asphalt!

Repairable?  Yup!  Just had to replace a switch and epoxy a plastic part of the body - $350. (it isn't all alloy)  (I'd like to meet the driver of that pickup!)

As for iris/gain adjustments - it has been my experience that the VX2100 first increases iris, then goes to gain (& shutter if on auto) changes - which is probably just what I'd do manually in 99.9% of cases.

[On a Roll]

Hank, you might have bigger problems in your life than a damaged camcorder if trucks are trying to hit you!

But I suppose you're right about that. The sides of my 2100 do appear to have something other than plastic in their composition. BUT I tell you, even that, when you compare it to those monsters they use in news station studios, nothing quite comes close. But then, if you're already dropping something like a 1-3/4 inch CCD into a camera, I suppose keeping it affordable isn't you biggest priority!

On the subject of usefulness for wedding videography, the GL-2 is great for most ceremonies, but bad for most receptions. I only have one Sony, so I usually stick to my three GL's for the ceremony, and we'll have the VX-2100 and some fresh batteries for a GL-2 ready to go for receptions. I'm probably going to buy the XH-A1 next, which brags better low light performance in SD mode than the VX-2100 (but you know as well as I do how subjective those LUX ratings are!) My local A/V supplier said he'd let me borrow his for  weekend sometime, and he offered to match the B&H price if I buy them, so we'll see what happens there.

--Edited to add: You know, it makes you wonder how much money suppliers actually make off camcorder sales if they can offer to lower their prices by hundreds of dollars at the drop of a hat...

[HankCastello]

Hank, you might have bigger problems in your life than a damaged camcorder if trucks are trying to hit you!

Unfortunately, I live in a part of the country where it is not at all uncommon to see pickup trucks sporting confederate flags, driven by beer-guzzling cowboys.

They rarely signal for turns, but if you listen for the shifting of hundreds of empty beer cans in the bed of their trucks, it's almost as good as a turn signal.