On Fri, 04 Apr 2003 15:48:19 GMT, Chris Hurd <chris@dvinfo.net> wrote:

>Neuman - Ruether wrote:

[...]

>>Involved are image-quality, handling and control

>>issues, VF-quality, battery run-time, cost of needed

>>accessories, etc., etc. Start here, for comparative

>>reviews and image comparisons (XL-1, not "s", but

>>little basic was changed...):

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

>>(compared even with the older generation of camcorders,

>>the XL-1 was not among the top few - and its "betters"

>>have been replaced with even better cameras. See:

>>www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/sony_dcr-vx2000.htm for

>>comparison of the VX2000(PD150) with the best of the

>>older-generation cameras. See for video image

>>characteristics references (with examples):

>>www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/vid_pict_characts.htm (after

>>the page has fully-loaded, click on the "key" to

>>see what took what examples - you should note a

>>certain recurrence of some cameras used for the

>>"bad" examples...;-) These sites also have useful

>>info, and there are some comparisons of

>>newer-generation camcorders (the VX2000 holds up

>>well in these - though several others are now also

>>excellent [the Panasonic DVX100, Canon GL2, JVC 300,

>>Sony TRV950, etc.]):

>>http://www4.big.or.jp/~a_haru/index.html,

>>www.bealecorner.com, and www.adamwilt.com.

>>

>>And, those who "like" the XL-1 (and defend

>>it vociferously...;-) generally have never

>>directly compared it with other, better, options.

>>Kinda like saying, "I really love my Yugo and

>>highly recommend it (and don't believe those

>>who point out its faults) - though I've never

>>really driven anything else." Some of us

>>*have* done the comparisons...;-)

>Be very careful with this source, as the inaccuracy

>of the statement above is highly indicitive of the

>trustiworthiness of what lies within. To say that

>"little basic has changed" demonstrates a complete

>lack of knowledge about the technical differences

>between these two camcorders. Of course, much has

>changed between the XL1 and XL1S, beginning with

>the CCD block and expanding from there to a broad

>range of enhancements and feature set additions.

>One cannot objectively state that there is "little

>basic difference," and outdated XL1 image comparisons

>will not do justice to the XL1S or the reader who is

>researching it for a purchase consideration.

>

>Instead, consider the feedback from a wide variety

>of individuals who actually own and use the XL1S,

>as well as other current camcorders such as the

>PD150, VX2000 and DVX100, found at my site group,

>www.dvinfo.net -- the camcorder reviews therein

>come not from one person with a subjective bias,

>but rather many different people who actually use

>this gear. Not all opinions are favorable, but the

>information gained from reading reviews from many

>talented sources instead of a single outdated

>inaccurate one will be most dramatic.

Hmmmm..., the "battle of the web pages", huh...?;-)

Keeping in mind that CH's site started as a Canon

XL-1 fan-page (mine did not start as a "Sony fan

page", nor is it now one - a reading of my reviews

should easily confirm that - though since I chose

some Sony models to use, I do offer Sony-camcorder

specific related articles, as CH also tends to run

Canon-camcorder specific related articles - and

he has expanded the page from a Canon-centric

one to one that is somewhat more inclusive [though

its roots are still evident...;-]).

Odd, though, that other than a few "die-hard"

XL-1 proponents here, most agree that what I have

presented is fair...

>As a refuge from the kind of "dis-information"

>unleashed above, I also offer my message boards

>where you can ask these camcorder owners what

>they really think about their gear, be it VX2000,

>XL1S or whatever. Currently more than 3100 members

>worldwide, with a searchable database of more than

>50,000 posts; with no anonymity, no flaming and no

>"Ford vs. Chevy" noise (which is really what the

>Sony vs. Canon argument is all about, anyway. The

>location is www.dvinfo.net/conf and you don't have

>to register to read it. Hope this helps,

Gosh, I think owners of most gear, regardless

of what it is, like what they chose (and, if honest,

can point out shortcomings), but this is not the

same as comparatively reviewing a *set* of camcorders.

And, if you have been reading anything I have

written here but for comments on the XL-1, you will

see that I have recommended Panasonic, JVC, *and*

Canon camcorders - but this doesn't fit into the

image of me and what I offer that you are projecting

here, so you do not note this...;-)

And, it is interesting that you apparently found my

VX2000 review (URL above) sufficiently "honest"

to include on your web page - yet you describe

what I (and others, at other sites I [and you

also...;-] refer people to...) as

"dis-information"...! ;-)

But, back to the basics of this thread. Do tell us:

- Is the XL-1s image sharper than that of the XL-1

(which was easily the least sharp of all the

"serious" 3-CCD Mini-DV camcorders)?

- Is the color really better?

- Is the viewfinder improved (and has a side-panel

been added) to the point of useability for MF?

- Is there a cheap compact and light long-run-time

battery solution now available?

- Are control switches less likely to break now?

- Has the weight/size of the camcorder been cut

sufficiently to make handling practical - or

has it been redesigned to be a true shoulder-mount

camera?

- Does the lens now focus properly and reliably in

both AF and MF modes?

- Has the AE been improved enough to use?

- Are there now *good* inexpensive WA converters

available for the standard zoom, or is it still

necessary to pay a lot for a 3X non-stabilized,

not very wide Canon WA lens?

Readers would like to know...;-)