"gothika"
<Vampyres@nettaxi.com> wrote in message
news:qfie80dtm8jd88t6od1ktpc0nmj7nklmf2@4ax.com...
> On
20 Apr 2004 00:08:16 GMT, andyscam@aol.com (Andys cam) wrote:
>
>
>>>> > What i need :
>
>>>> >
>
>>>> > 1) Broadcast quality.
>
>>>> > 2) Sturdy cam with a long rec time on the battery..
>
>>>> > 3) Underwater casing
>
>>>> > 4) Extremely cheap
>
>>>> > 5) High funtionality
>
>>>> > 6) comes with the pro video edditing kit, or
recomondations to a great
>
>>>> > edditing software....
>
>>>> > 7) good pictures in dark conditions, some shots in very
green waters....
>
>>>>
>
>gothika wrote:
>
>>Well if you want the most features for the least amount of money go
>
>>Panasonic or JVC or maybe Canon.
>
>>Sony is definitely out.
>
>HUH?? What drugs are you on??
>
Well a masters in film firstly combined with over 3 decades working in
>
film and video.
>
>
You missed the part where he said extremely cheap.
>
Sony is anything but cheap and from the sony's I've tested in the past
> couple
of years they are extremely overrated.
> If
you think Sony is the first choice, why are so many shooters/field
>
eng's in the low/mid end using GL1's or similar models?
>
I've owned Sony's in my past businesses(mostly DXC 3000s)
>
And while they did great work for first gen chip cameras, they cost me
>
twice as much as the next model up in a Panasonic or even two models
> up
in the JVC line.
>
They weren't as sturdy as my JVC's that cost half as much.
>
try dropping six grand on a field setup only to have the head crap out
>
after being tapped at the 40 yard line.(DXC 3000)
>
Panasonics have loads more useful features than Sonys and work just as
>
well in low light.(if not a tad better for some models.)
>
The Sony offerings on the low end market today have terrible image
>
issues. To sharp(edge artifacts) and poor gamas curves for serious
>
use.(granted they can be tweaked, but I doubt this poster will be
>
using a engineer to fine tune any camera he buys.)
>
Instead of going with larger chips they seem determined to go smaller.
> I
for one wnat my ccds as large as possible and would be happy to see
>
something larger than 1/3 in the bottom of the market.
>
That said if many here are happy with Sony, good for them.
> I
like my Canons for overall use. Good prices, fairly sharp, and
>
fairly sturdy for the money.
Ummmmm.......;-)
Sorry,
but your statements, "The Sony offerings on the low end market
today
have terrible image issues. To[o] sharp(edge artifacts) and poor
gamas
curves for serious use", and, "If you think Sony is the first choice,
why are
so many shooters/field eng's in the low/mid end using GL1's or
similar
models?" do bring into question the validity of your other statements.
The GL1
is a good (i.e., extreme) example of the worst in small camcorders
regarding
images with unacceptable levels of oversharpening and
unacceptable
tonality (among several other image faults it has). Hey, even
when
the GL1 was current, Sony offered *two* small cameras with
superior
image characteristics (the VX1000 and TRV900 - see
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm
and
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/vid_pict_characts.htm
[use the "key" to see
what
shot what]). Currently, the Sony VX2000 (and variants) and
Panasonic
DVX100a are the top selections in the small camera field for
best
picture characteristics, with the JVC300 also being very good (and
the
Canon GL2 good - and a BIG improvement over the GL1). And,
the
Sony is generally accepted as the sturdiest of the small cameras...
Dunno -
sounds like either "nappy" is using yet another alias, or we
have
yet another "nappy" gung-ho Canon addict...;-)
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com