PDA

View Full Version : Is a Canon GL2 good?

pinkyandthesheep
06-25-2009, 01:16 AM
I have been looking at it for a while and I'm wondering if anyone could tell me if it is any good? Is it a good camera? Is it durable? Is it is just overall a good camera?
3amigosproductions
06-25-2009, 01:19 AM
I have been looking at it for a while and I'm wondering if anyone could tell me if it is any good? Is it a good camera? Is it durable? Is it is just overall a good camera?

Its 4:3, not HD

It is not good compared to newer cameras

Get an hv30 or an fx7
WesScog
06-25-2009, 02:02 AM
It's OK for a camera that old, but it's sorely outclassed, and there are vastly superior modern cameras for far far less.
alacran6
06-25-2009, 04:47 AM
I used this camera in school and it is good. But as Wes points out it is outdated. As I am finding out, from being on this forum, you can get a much better camera for the same or less. I was looking at the GL2 as well. After doing a bit of research and asking around the forum I've decided to get a FX7 or a A1s. Hope this helps
atomic9studios
06-25-2009, 10:56 AM
I've got myself an A1. I originally wanted a GL2 but i did some research. Good thing i went with what i did! :D
gonzo_entertainment
06-25-2009, 12:17 PM
Yeah, at this stage of the game it's overpriced for the technology. It was not the bext camera of that generation anyway, look at DVX100B, or XL2 instead. If that price point ($1000) is your limit, THEN look at the consumer cameras like the HV20/30. They aren't a bad little cameras for a cheap price.
bobaandy1
06-25-2009, 05:37 PM
My god people are getting more angry about the GL2 every day.

I think the 3amigosproductions guy should be ignored, first of all. Your not going to get the best quality out of the camera if you "just tried it today." Plus, it has a 16:9 mode, so there.

Anyway, I've posted these before. Just some stills i've took with my GL2 over the years.
http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/5915/brisnipe2.png
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/9079/noiseawesome.jpg
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/3599/ep5best1.jpg
http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/397/brian1.jpg
3amigosproductions
06-25-2009, 05:55 PM
My god people are getting more angry about the GL2 every day.

I think the 3amigosproductions guy should be ignored, first of all. Your not going to get the best quality out of the camera if you "just tried it today." Plus, it has a 16:9 mode, so there.

Anyway, I've posted these before. Just some stills i've took with my GL2 over the years.
http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/5915/brisnipe2.png
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/9079/noiseawesome.jpg
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/3599/ep5best1.jpg
http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/397/brian1.jpg

Ok, your point is valid, but there are way better cameras for the price, or even cheaper

HV30, HV40, FX7
Koolpenguin89
06-25-2009, 06:00 PM
Why do people keep recommending the FX7? Not only is it not manufactured anymore, but it is not that great of a camera. For the price, their are better cameras.

Dylan
WesScog
06-25-2009, 06:31 PM
Why do people keep recommending the FX7? Not only is it not manufactured anymore, but it is not that great of a camera. For the price, their are better cameras.

Dylan

Because it's about the same price as the GL2, but can do everything it can do, and more, only in HD.

It's brought up because it's impertinent to the decision of picking a GL2.
jcapellman
06-25-2009, 11:45 PM
I picked up a used GL2 last October for a little over $1k, it's done very well for me. Yeah it's not a true 16:9, but it does do it nearly as well using the digital squeeze that is selectable in the menu. Couple that with the Canon Wide Angle lens and you've got yourself a pretty nice SD camcorder. For a first camcorder it has done well, I've since upgraded to the Panasonic HPX-170, but I still use it as a second camera.
thepie
06-25-2009, 11:49 PM
While it is true that the GL2 has 16:9 mode, it isn't anamorphic 16:9, so it just squeezes the image and looks like shit.
bobaandy1
06-26-2009, 04:53 PM
While it is true that the GL2 has 16:9 mode, it isn't anamorphic 16:9, so it just squeezes the image and looks like shit.

That IS anamorphic 16:9. The squeezing is an anamorphic process.

Not too many cameras (if any) around that same price have native 16:9 either.
Koolpenguin89
06-27-2009, 03:29 AM
Because it's about the same price as the GL2, but can do everything it can do, and more, only in HD.

It's brought up because it's impertinent to the decision of picking a GL2.

Ok, fair enough. I hadn't checked the price in a while, thats my mistake. Back when i was shopping for a cam in that range, the fx-7 only had a $400 price difference from the XH-A1.

Dylan