<!-- Rating:</B> 4.5<img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/half_star.gif" width=12 height=18><BR> --><BR>It\'s my first camera. Tried a few of the Sonys but their controls felt awkward for my (big) hands. When it came to purchasing I decided that how the camera felt for me and my comfort in using it were just as important as having the latest/greatest techno features. So far: no regrets and much happy shooting.
<!-- Rating:</B> 1<img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><BR> --><BR>i have both cameras as i work for a film crew. Over both cameras i would never use the xl1 partly because it is as ugly as the queen and is gay.
<!-- Rating:</B> 5<img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><BR> --><BR>The XL1 was designed for professionals with its manual controls in the same place as an Arriflex. I\'ve used it for documentary shooting in Europe and Asia and it is as stable and reliable as a jeep. The image quality is more "filmic" than Sony so is great for DV to film transfer.
<!-- Rating:</B> 3<img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><BR> --><BR>have used the XL-1s it\'s all of that. Much more professioanl thane the VX2000 and easier to convert to 35mm. I\'d pay more for this camera any day!
<!-- Rating:</B> 1<img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><BR> --><BR>I bought 2 of these camcorders primarily for wedding videography and some corporate/legal work. I had so many problems with them that Canon could not fix that Canon finally had to admit that they did not know how to fix them and refunded my money (less a 20% "restocking fee"). DO NOT EVEN CONSIDER PURCASHING AN XL-1! I now have 2 Sony PD 150\'s, they are great!!
<!-- Rating:</B> 3.5<img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/half_star.gif" width=12 height=18><BR> --><BR>I\'ve used an XL1s for 6 months now. They are OK for studio work on a tripod. In the field they are hard to use because you have to look thru the tiny eyepiece, very heavy and clunky. The stock digital lens sucks. They look impressive when you show up with one, but a PD 150 will do a better job. If you can\'t afford a different lens then there is no point.
Linear Mode
