Canon Optura Xi MiniDV Camcorder w/11x Optical Zoom
By: Canon Average Rating: 4.5 Total Reviews: 8
More Information
 On: 2005-05-25
Ive owned the Optura Xi since June 2004 and my experience has been wonderful. I am a novice user in that I have not spent a lot of time learning the intricacies of the many, many features on this camcorder, such as the aperture settings and things of that nature and outside of using the zoom feature, I let the camcorder figure out the best options for what I am filming.
But what I can share is that the video is clear, crisp, and I give it very high ratings. The image stabilization is great and the zoom feature is awesome. The audio is so-so and if you are filming something that requires adequate audio, you may want to invest in one of those boom microphones that can be attached to the camcorder. The low light limitation is also pretty frustrating and the filming in my house did not have very good results more than half the time. I had to turn on way too many lights to get a halfway decent video. I have actually broke down an ordered the VLF-1 auxilary light to combat this limitation. I havent received yet, but I am pretty sure it will vastly improve my problems when filming indoors.
All in all, it has been almost a year and I still get a thrill when I play back something that I have taped and see the clarity and resolution. I have also made some great DVDs of home videos, with music, cut scenes and narration...pretty cool, indeed!!
On: 2005-05-24
Ive owned the Optura Xi since June 2004 and my experience has been wonderful. I am a novice user in that I have not spent a lot of time learning the intricacies of the many, many features on this camcorder, such as the aperture settings and things of that nature and outside of using the zoom feature, I let the camcorder figure out the best options for what I am filming.
But what I can share is that the video is clear, crisp, and I give it very high ratings. The image stabilization is great and the zoom feature is awesome. The audio is so-so and if you are filming something that requires adequate audio, you may want to invest in one of those boom microphones that can be attached to the camcorder. The low light limitation is also pretty frustrating and the filming in my house did not have very good results more than half the time. I had to turn on way too many lights to get a halfway decent video. I have actually broke down an ordered the VLF-1 auxilary light to combat this limitation. I havent received yet, but I am pretty sure it will vastly improve my problems when filming indoors.
All in all, it has been almost a year and I still get a thrill when I play back something that I have taped and see the clarity and resolution. I have also made some great DVDs of home videos, with music, cut scenes and narration...pretty cool, indeed!!
 On: 2005-01-12
Nice features which are included because Canon saved money by using a cheap tape transport. Within very little time expect to be continually exposed to the "Remove the Cassette" which can, apparently, only temporarily fixed at the Canon Repair Center. It appears that the cheap transport is not model specific. Caveat Emptor
On: 2005-01-11
Nice features which are included because Canon saved money by using a cheap tape transport. Within very little time expect to be continually exposed to the "Remove the Cassette" which can, apparently, only temporarily fixed at the Canon Repair Center. It appears that the cheap transport is not model specific. Caveat Emptor
On: 2005-01-05
This cameras amazing one of the best canon has to offer (for the price anyways) this camera has great zoom features not to mention it takes great pictures which is half the reason I bought it. I recomend buying this if you have nice video editing software...I dont think imovie will cut it but vegas 5.0 is very compatible with this camera..I have not had a problem yet...
On: 2005-01-04
This cameras amazing one of the best canon has to offer (for the price anyways) this camera has great zoom features not to mention it takes great pictures which is half the reason I bought it. I recomend buying this if you have nice video editing software...I dont think imovie will cut it but vegas 5.0 is very compatible with this camera..I have not had a problem yet...
by: dreamtheater4ever On: 2004-09-15
I recently purchased this camera for $1000 (with the $200 rebate) this was a steal. I had a Canon ZR65 earlier and I wasnt too happy with its low light performance and hence decided to buy this camera. The other thing I didnt like about the ZR65 was its inability to reproduce true colors.
This camera is amazing. We took a helicopter ride recently and the pictures of the sky , the terain was stunning. Once we played it back on our TV, the quality was was as good as broadcast quality playback. It was truly amazing!!! I highly recommend this camera.
On: 2004-08-21
I bought my Canon Optura Xi two months ago. I almost bought a Canon GL2, until I studied the spec sheets. Both camcorders have the same features: 16-bit stereo recording; f/1.6 lens; 11x zoom; Av, Tv, and manual exposure control, etc. What stands out as different in their spec sheets is their CCDs (the chips that record the image). Digital video (DV) is 640 x 480 pixels, or 307,200 pixels, or one-third of a megapixel. NTSC broadcast video is 525 lines with a 4:3 aspect ratio, or 367,500 pixels. To get color you need three times that number of pixels (for red, green, and blue), or about one megapixel. In the past, CCDs had far fewer pixels, so camcorders had three chips to get enough pixels. The GL2 has three 1/4" chips, each with 380,000 pixels. Three chips demands a lens three times bigger. Splitting the light three ways requires a big, heavy prism. 3-chip camcorders are big, heavy, and expensive.
The Optura Xi takes a different approach. It uses one chip with 1,230,000 pixels. The CCD is between 1/3" and 1.4"; in other words, bigger than the GL2s 1/4" chips, but smaller than the XL1Ss 1/3" chips. (Pro video cameras have three 1/2" or 2/3" chips, making them much bigger and heavier.) The Optura Xi has more pixels than the GL2, yet doesnt need the prism. The lens and body are smaller and lighter, and the Optura Xi is half the price.
Ive found that my Optura Xi has accurate colors (unlike my old Canon Optura 200MC), and it performs well in low light conditions. The GL2s colors look a little better (more saturated) but only a little. The Optura Xi looks much better than previous one-chip camcorders.
Apparently the size of the pixels make a difference. Imagine a CCD with tiny pixels the size of one photon. The state of such a pixel could be described with a one or a zero (either a photon hits the pixel, or no photon hits it). Imagine a CCD with pixels one million times bigger. Youd need a number between one and a million to describe how many photons hit each pixel. This illustrates that a camcorder with bigger CCDs (and a bigger lens) should produce more color detail, especially in very bright or very dark parts of your picture.
The GL2 is only slightly better than the Optura Xi, and costs twice as much. To get a camcorder substantially better than the Optura Xi youll have to pay many times more, such as for a Panasonic AG-DVX100A or a Canon XL2. Im saving my money until HD camcorders are available. (I dont consider the JVC GR-HD1 to be high-def, as it has one 1/3" CCD with 880,000 pixels trying to fill a 1280x720 one-megapixel format!)
My advice is to buy the Optura Xi, then spend your money on microphones, and good tripod, lights, video editing software, etc. Youll make better videos than people that blew their budget on a GL2.
Another word of advice. I did a "price search" on the web and found various places advertising prices lower than Amazon (and lower than eBay prices). When I ordered from them, they were "out of stock" and tried to bait-and-switch me to other camcorders. I found that the lowest prices for camcorders that really existed are on Amazon.
--
Review by Thomas David Kehoe, author of "Hearts and Minds: How Our Brains Are Hardwired for Relationships"
by: Anonymous On: 2004-04-04
Purchased this Camcorder in January 2003. Did lots of research on comparable Panasonic and Sony models - was totally confused, finally went with the Optura Xi. Am very very happy - yes, it is bigger than the very small models. But I find it very comfortable to work with. The optical stabilizer is great - even video from a moving boat looks good. Another surprise - even though they say you wont use the still camera much on a video camcorder - I found myself using it all the time, so I was happy I had the 2 megapixels on the Optura. Not as high quality as my digital still camera - but great for web and viewing on the laptop screen. As a recent switcher from PCs to Mac - I have also been delighted with the ease of connectivity and use with my new PowerBook.
On: 2004-04-03
Purchased this Camcorder in January 2003. Did lots of research on comparable Panasonic and Sony models - was totally confused, finally went with the Optura Xi. Am very very happy - yes, it is bigger than the very small models. But I find it very comfortable to work with. The optical stabilizer is great - even video from a moving boat looks good. Another surprise - even though they say you wont use the still camera much on a video camcorder - I found myself using it all the time, so I was happy I had the 2 megapixels on the Optura. Not as high quality as my digital still camera - but great for web and viewing on the laptop screen. As a recent switcher from PCs to Mac - I have also been delighted with the ease of connectivity and use with my new PowerBook.
by: Anonymous On: 2004-03-02
First the caveats. This is my first camcorder (after my familys circa 1980s VHS camcorder), and Ive had it for a week. I also seriously considered the panasonic pvdv953, but decided on the Optura Xi because of perceived improvement in low light conditions, known Macintosh friendliness of Canon products, and hot accessory shoe. Though the Panasonic may have an edge in color reproduction, to my untrained eye the differences are arguably unnoticable. First this camera isnt the smallest, but it fits comfortable in my hand and the 3.5" LCD is nice. The zoom slider is easy to control, and most of the cameras functionality is easy to learn. The "special" effects are cheesy and awkward to use. Luckily if you have good video editing software (e.g., iMovie) you dont need these. Optical stabilization works well, and it takes decent photos (the 8MB SD card supplied with camera is practically useless due to its size). USB and fireware connectivity are plug and play, and work as advertised (on G4 laptop). "Low light" filming seems to be something thats continually revisited. What the heck does 1.5 lux mean anyhow? One 60 watt light? Shaded, bare, or broken and a lit candle in the corner? This camera works decently with sufficient indoor lighting (think two 60 watt in overhead frosted fixture). The low light modes are useless unless you hold the camera perfectly still. Since the white LED is underneath the lens to the right, the ultra low light mode casts a dark moon across the upper left of the video frame. When played back on my computer or on the TV, the video images look crisp and the colors vibrant. Overall Im very satisfied with this camera.
On: 2003-10-30
After considerable research, comparing this unit to the similarly priced Sony TRV70/TRV80, and the 3CCD Panasonic PV-DV953, I opted for the Canon Optura Xi. I wanted a digital camcorder:1. That was compact enough to "take it along" without it being a hinderance
2. That had acceptable low-light performance (by low-light I mean average lighting indoors after dark)
3. Had a decent 16:9 widescreen mode (using the entire CCD)
4. Had a decent interface (easy to use with good stabilization)
5. No proprietary parts unless theres a darn good reason Initially I looked at the ultra-compact models, but their unattractive low-light abilities combined with the difficult ease-of-use (hard to keep stable, many buttons on a small area) made me change my mind towards these models. For #1, the panasonic was the largest and heaviest of the three (almost too big for me), the sony the smallest and nicely designed. Since the Optura XI just came out, I never had an opportunity to hold it, but was pleased to see that its compact enough for my purposes. For #2, the Panasonic did not have acceptable low-light performance for indoor home use. Its 3CCDs give it the best color representation of the three by far, however it needs a considerable amount of light to make a difference - better suited to budget-minded professionals who ensure their subjects have enough light. Sonys low light performance was only marginally better than the Panasonics. The Canons low light performance is top-notch. For #3, the sony has a wide CCD which allows for more pixels width-wise which was a nice bonus. The Canon and the Panasonic both use an anamorphic lens that widens the cameras view and forces the widened image onto the 4:3 CCD, which can be later be burned onto a DVD as 16:9 that plays widescreen on widescreen TVs, and letterbox on 4:3 TVs. So all three had good 16:9 modes, with the Sony having a slight edge - and the bonus of presenting the image on the viewscreen as 16:9 as well! For #4, the Sony loses in my estimation - the fact that I have to use the touchscreen during a shoot to change a picture aspect was a big downfall here. Using a touchscreen during playback is nice, but I dont want to have to use it during shooting and risk camera shake or losing my subject! Also, I have heard many criticisms about Sonys too-sensitive zoom feature. The Panasonic has great ease-of-use, however I found the myriad of manual options a little intimidating - a big plus for professionals, though. The Canon has a wonderful look and feel, its easy to hold, all its buttons are easily accessible, and its optical image stabilization is the best you can find. For #5, too bad for Sony, I do not want to have to buy memory sticks. Period. The nice thing about having SD cards around, for example, is the ability to transfer them to your PDA, or your digital camera if needed. If still photos are important for you, all three provide equally nice stills, with an edge in favor of the Panasonic.
On: 2003-10-29
After considerable research, comparing this unit to the similarly priced Sony TRV70/TRV80, and the 3CCD Panasonic PV-DV953, I opted for the Canon Optura Xi. I wanted a digital camcorder:1. That was compact enough to "take it along" without it being a hinderance
2. That had acceptable low-light performance (by low-light I mean average lighting indoors after dark)
3. Had a decent 16:9 widescreen mode (using the entire CCD)
4. Had a decent interface (easy to use with good stabilization)
5. No proprietary parts unless theres a darn good reason Initially I looked at the ultra-compact models, but their unattractive low-light abilities combined with the difficult ease-of-use (hard to keep stable, many buttons on a small area) made me change my mind towards these models. For #1, the panasonic was the largest and heaviest of the three (almost too big for me), the sony the smallest and nicely designed. Since the Optura XI just came out, I never had an opportunity to hold it, but was pleased to see that its compact enough for my purposes. For #2, the Panasonic did not have acceptable low-light performance for indoor home use. Its 3CCDs give it the best color representation of the three by far, however it needs a considerable amount of light to make a difference - better suited to budget-minded professionals who ensure their subjects have enough light. Sonys low light performance was only marginally better than the Panasonics. The Canons low light performance is top-notch. For #3, the sony has a wide CCD which allows for more pixels width-wise which was a nice bonus. The Canon and the Panasonic both use an anamorphic lens that widens the cameras view and forces the widened image onto the 4:3 CCD, which can be later be burned onto a DVD as 16:9 that plays widescreen on widescreen TVs, and letterbox on 4:3 TVs. So all three had good 16:9 modes, with the Sony having a slight edge - and the bonus of presenting the image on the viewscreen as 16:9 as well! For #4, the Sony loses in my estimation - the fact that I have to use the touchscreen during a shoot to change a picture aspect was a big downfall here. Using a touchscreen during playback is nice, but I dont want to have to use it during shooting and risk camera shake or losing my subject! Also, I have heard many criticisms about Sonys too-sensitive zoom feature. The Panasonic has great ease-of-use, however I found the myriad of manual options a little intimidating - a big plus for professionals, though. The Canon has a wonderful look and feel, its easy to hold, all its buttons are easily accessible, and its optical image stabilization is the best you can find. For #5, too bad for Sony, I do not want to have to buy memory sticks. Period. The nice thing about having SD cards around, for example, is the ability to transfer them to your PDA, or your digital camera if needed. If still photos are important for you, all three provide equally nice stills, with an edge in favor of the Panasonic.
|
|
