"James Trory" <j_trory@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2k99001f5146o3vcqg3gpgl0s5orak6t28@4ax.com...

> Hrm. Yes, I had noticed that there is a new model out, in fact I was

> quite surprised to see that Sony had removed entirely all mention of

> the VX2000 from their website in favor of the VX2100 (which I thought

> was crazy since people are still selling the VX2000). I even talked to

> customer service about that and all they had to say was "Sorry". Half

> the reason I'm interested in a Canon is simply because they provide an

> archive of specs for previous models of their camcorders.

Canon has always been better at marketing and related issues - but

the "bottom-line" is camcorder performance and repair services

(in addition to price...;-).

> Anyway, I had thought that the VX2100 was a lot more expensive, but

> you're right, they're almost the same price. But I'm finding my

> maximum cost seems to be escalating rapidly. Before, I was interested

> in the GL-1 because I can get it for about $900 now that the GL-2 is

> out. Then I noticed how cheap the GL-2 is, now I'm thinking "oh well

> the VX2100 is only $200 more than that". I've gone from wanting to

> spend $900 to wanting to spend $1700.

The GL1 was one of the worst 3-CCD models in terms of picture and

sound quality - the GL2 was a BIG improvement. See for more on this:

www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/vid_pict_characts.htm and

www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm.

> I guess another question would be, is the VX2100 worth the extra $200?

> It looks to me that there are incredibly few differences between the

> VX2000 and VX2100. They both have 3 1/3" CCDs @ 340k, and since

> quality for me is a big issue, I see no reason necessarily to go the

> extra distance for the VX2100. And how does the VX2100 compare to the

> Canon GL-2 (which I have seen going for $1400). Since it's almost the

> same as the VX2000, I'd say it's $300 I don't need to spend.

Your prices are unrealistic. They may be quotes from bad mail-order

sellers who quote low, but load you up on over-priced and/or unnecessary

accessories, giving you less value than if you had bought the camera from

a good dealer (www.bhphotovideo.com, among others) in the first place.

As I pointed out earlier, good as the GL2 is, unless the longer lens is a *real*

issue, at the same price the VX2000 is a better value in terms of image

quality and low-light range, and most who have tried both prefer the Sony.

The real competition for the Sony is the Panasonic DVX100a, but it is not

cheap. As for the VX2100, I have not tried it (I'm satisfied with my three

VX2000s, and the 2100 appears to have minor "updates" that I do not

need...).

--

David Ruether

d_ruether@hotmail.com

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