"gothika" <Vampyres@nettaxi.com> wrote in message news:r0ih80dn3iq53smli2ks7lj2q0e3vf1h33@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:04:12 GMT, "David Ruether"

> <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote:

> >"gothika" <Vampyres@nettaxi.com> wrote in message news:qfie80dtm8jd88t6od1ktpc0nmj7nklmf2@4ax.com...

[...]

> >> 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...;-)

>

> Not a Canon addict, just some of what I'm currently using.

> Actually I prefer Panasonic(pro/industrial) for work not demanding a

> tough rig.(In my past experience they didn't hold up well to the

> rigors of field use. I'd be happy to hear from any who can show me

> newer models that can.)

> JVC's and Ikegami's were what I used in the past for eng/field work.

> Good image quality with the durability of a tank.

> I've used a good bit of Sony over the years and have mixed feeling at

> best.(Bought 3 DXC3000 rigs back in the late 80's which all crapped

> after a year and a half. Two came apart in the field, the third had

> crappy chips that showed noticable pixel drop after just a few

> months.)

> Like most I have to show a return on any gear I buy and over the years

> have had my share of bad equipment.

> I stand by what I said about the Sony low end camera's I tested out in

> the past couple of years. Maybe I just got lemons. That said they

> still cost more than comparable models of the other brands.

> There's too much bad blood between Sony and myself for me to switch

> over or give them much slack.

> I would love to get my hands on Panasonics newer offerings with the

> 24p modes just to give them a test drive.(Not having shot on actual

> film for some time I'd love to do something withat least a "film

> look".)

> BTW has Sony done anything to improve their customer service in the US

> in the past few years? Just curious, that's one aspect I absolutely

> have to have.(Panasonic used to give me a no questions swap unit

> whenever I had to bring in a camera for service, something Sony never

> did.) If a camera dies I've got to have an immediate replacement to

> keep my customers happy. One lost shoot and my rep goes down the tubes

> real quick.

OK, thanks for a good answer this time, without the "problems"

of the first...;-) I always recommend that people test thoroughly

all new and used gear - defects can appear in either. Purchases

for either should be made from sellers that will accept returns or

exchanges "gracefully". A bad run of experience with Sony and

a good one with another with defects is interesting, but it should

not "color" your opinions of image quality...;-) Neither should

service policies, though those are important, too, for obvious

reasons (I hate dealing with Sony, too, but the relative high

quality of many of their low-end products, even if at sometimes

slightly higher prices than the competition, makes it worth it to

me). I prefer to evaluate all of the separate issues about products

separately, and not make blanket evaluations of all aspects

based on one "nasty" part (or on the good marketing skills of

the manufacture, either...;-). All buying decisions are compromises

and we need to be as unbiased as possible about all the parts that

make up the balance for each of us that results in the purchase

decision. Throwing in inaccurate or misleading conclusions about

some of those parts helps no one...

--

David Ruether

d_ruether@hotmail.com

http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com