On Sat, 01 Mar 2003 23:27:39 GMT, "Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" <mweissX294@earthlink.net> wrote:

[...much deleted...]

>I think you can do quite well with the VX2000 at $2399 and use the

>difference between that and the XL1s for some good lenses. A lot of people

>like the Century WA. For budget-conscious, the Raynox WA is a decent and

>quite good alternative. Lots of bang for the buck, and in the long run, no

>end view is going to know the difference.

For WA for the VX2000, the best WA converters I've seen are:

- Canon WD-58 .7X (low flare, excellent sharpness throughout

zoom range, some barrel distortion, acceptably light/small,

shade available)

- Sony 0758 HG .7X (more expensive, larger/heavier, slightly

lower distortion at wide end)

- Raynox .66X Pro (sharpest at short end, with least

distortion, zooms first 2/3rds only for good performance,

higher flare, light and small)

- Sony VCL-ES06 .6X (actually about .5X, very little zooming,

very light/small/cheap/low-flare, high distortion)

- Raynox DCR-FE180 Pro .24X (expensive but excellent

full-frame fisheye with some zooming possible)

See www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/WA-converters.htm for images

shot with some of these (full-frame - the TV area cuts

off the edges). See also (for VX2000 odds-and-ends)

www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/VX2000_odds.htm.

>> >Personally, I like the images from the VX2000 the best of the three cams

>> >mentioned. If you're going to do DVE, you might have a problem with the

>> >Canon units because they don't use the entire 720 pixel wide area for

>active

>> >image--showing black borders. This seems to be a trademark of all Canons

>> >from consumer to prosumer.

While the VX2000/PD150 does now have some real competition

from the Canon GL2, Panasonic DVX100, and JVC 300, I still

prefer the image of the VX2000 by a bit in good light, and

it can shoot well in slightly lower light than the others...