Canon XM2 reviews

I have reposted this from a dying discussion in the A/V section because it pertains to the latest issue of CV (December 02 – blimey, are we there already? No we’re not. Phew) and no one has responded.

Lisa Keddie has an excellent review of the Canon XM2 in the latest issue of CV and I’m sure everything she says is accurate. But there seem to be some remarkable inconsistencies in general in reviews of the XM2, which might almost refer to different cameras. I wonder if effectively they do and the issue is one of Canon’s quality control.

For example, Lisa’s review thoroughly complements the XM2’s sound. But here is a quote from the Simply DV review – remember this is from a company trying to sell the camera (http://www.simplydv.co.uk/Reviews/canon_xm2.html):

“Sounds dodgy
“Canon has received criticism of late for the high level of audible motor noise in recent camcorders, and sadly the XM2 doesn't escape this problem. Even outdoors, the so-called Direction Accurate stereo microphone picks up the camcorder motor noise very clearly. Indoors, the intrusion verges on the unacceptable - and certainly not worthy of a camcorder of this pedigree. To confirm this, we connected a Sennheiser MKE300 shoe-mounted microphone and monitored audio via Sony MDR-V300 headphones which then produced acceptable results. The built-in microphone is also prone to pick up camcorder handling noise - something its bigger sibling the XL1S suffers from too. This is a problem that Canon must address soon.”

Lisa heavily criticises the image: “We thought that the XM2 gave cold-looking, blue tinged, outdoor images using auto and manual white balance – and we checked this with another reviewer’s sample, and found it no different.” And in conclusion: “But, from the samples we’ve seen, we can’t recommend the XM2 over Sony’s TRV950. The Canon may have better audio, but colour reproduction is far less natural….”
Here is a quote from the ZDNet review (http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/review/2/2/2092.html):
“The most important factor with any video camera is the quality of the output, and the XM2 certainly doesn’t disappoint here. Our test footage was both clear and sharp, with minimal colour bleeding or streaking and a relatively neutral, even colour balance. It’s a little warmer (redder) than the Sony TRV950’s slightly cool video, but that’s more a matter for personal preference rather than criticism. Audio quality from the internal microphone was also extremely good, and there was no apparent motor noise or hiss on our recordings.”

Warmer, rather than unacceptably colder. And again here is the Simply review:

“Optical qualities
“As you'd expect, the image capabilities of the XM2 are excellent. … Rendition of images with the 20x (4.2-84mm) F1.6 optical zoom lens is very good indeed even in macro mode, with colour balance and contrast ratio being everything you'd expect from a camcorder bearing the Canon marque. … Sensitivity is very good, even in murky, low-light conditions and compares highly favourably against other comparable models - including the VX2000. In average quality external light conditions, the Canon renders impressive images; in conditions of bright weather the images are stunning, and more so when the ND (Neutral Density) filter is switched in to improve overall depth and balance.”

Questions for the knowledgeable: Lisa says that the 16:9 mode produces an anamorphic image in the viewfinder and screen. Does this mean that the XM2 is doing something like the new Sony DSR-PDX10 and achieving something towards true widescreen?

Does the 25fps PAL ‘Progressive movie' mode have anything in common with the Panasonic DVX100 everyone seems to be getting so excited about?
Paul F