On Fri, 04 Apr 2003 18:32:35 GMT, Chris Hurd <chris@dvinfo.net> wrote:

>Neuman - Ruether wrote...

>> Keeping in mind that CH's site

> > started as a Canon XL-1 fan-page

>You are sadly mistaken. The Watchdog started

>as a group effort to force Canon to recall the

>XL1 upon its initial release in January 1998

>and correct an internal problem. This is fully

>documented at dvinfo.net/canon/articles/lines.php

I "will take your word for this"...;-)

>The Watchdog in its best moments has been highly

>critical of Canon when the complaints are legitimate,

>see dvinfo.net/canon/articles/article6.php and

>dvinfo.net/canon/articles/article10.php -- this

>is not what a "fan page" does. This is what an

>objective user-oriented resource does.

Or a good fan page...

>> Do tell us:

>I've answered these exact same questions before,

>but in sympathy of an apparantly failing memory,

>I'll happily oblige you again.

Ah, but I'm not satisfied with the "answers" - I

want to see the frame-grabs, shot properly, under

conditions that are honest and revealing...

>> - 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)?

>The XL1S image is substantially sharper than the XL1,

>however it is important to comprehend that "sharper"

>does not mean "better." Many videographers tastefully

>avoid the harsh look of overly sharp video.

Ah, so it is not as sharp as the better cameras,

I take it. Is it still struggling with 270k-pixel

CCDs? I think no-one complains about a sharper image

that is truly higher in resolution, and not just

sharper-looking from boosted edge-effects and contrast...

Otherwise, we would all throw out our D50 cameras with

$15,000 lenses and use ZR10s with diffusers...;-)

You are making excuses for the less-sharp image of

the XL-1, it appears to me...;-)

>> - Is the color really better?

>Better than? Color signatures are completely subjective

>matters of personal taste. The Panasonic CCD block within

>the Canon XL1S is much newer than the original XL1, with

>a much improved S/N ratio. The Canon "flavor" of video

>is distinctly different from Sony... indeed Sony, Canon,

>JVC and Panasonic color signatures are much like flavors

>of ice cream, to state that one is "better" than the other

>is like saying strawberry is better than chocolate. It is

>without question very much a personal preference.

Uh, funny how all the current crop of best camcorders,

like the VX2000, TRV950, GL2, DVX100, and GY300 (all

of the brands you name, and true for all), produce

virtually identical pictures in daylight in terms of

not just color, but also in terms of contrast. Could

it be that all somehow arrived at something we can all

understand as "close to neutral" for these picture

characteristics? ;-) Could it be that color-bias and

contrast problems are not just "preferences" or

"flavors", but "errors"...?

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

>> been added) to the point of useability for MF?

>As you already know, the external body design of the

>XL1S is unchanged to accomodate the compatibility of

>a staggering amount of third-party accessories, but

>at any rate even better than a flip-out LCD is a pro

>B&W CRT: dvinfo.net/canon/articles/article83.php

Ah, yes - but is it still around $1200 or so...?

The $3000 PD150 comes *with* a 500-line B&W finder...;-)

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

>> battery solution now available?

>Any variety of them; the Canon BP945, the Bescor Juice Box.

Anything that fits *on-camera*,doesn't get in the way,

and runs the camera for 4-5 hours...? (Or more, as the

$125 960 does on the Sony VX2000...)

>> - Are control switches less likely to break now?

>Can you cite specific instances where this was a problem

>in the past? The single most delicate part of the XL1S is

>the EVF mount; in heavy field use the system isolator is

>recommended: dvinfo.net/canon/articles/article45.php

Some here have complained of breaking and intermittant

switches on the XL-1, though in my trials, I did not

encounter this problem directly...

>> - 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?

>A wide variety of shoulder mounts are available; see

>dvinfo.net/canon/articles/article76.php for one of them.

I tried one for the VX2000 - but unless the weight

is balanced over the shoulder (the Canon doesn't do

this either unless loaded with about $1200 worth of

batteries...), it tends to pop off the shoulder.

This does not make the camera truly balanced for

either long-term hand-held or on-shoulder use...

>> - Does the lens now focus properly and reliably in

>> both AF and MF modes?

>Yes. The 16x IS II is a completely redesigned auto-servo lens.

It may be redisigned, but problems remain, from

what I've heard... ('course these problems "didn't

exist" at all, according to some, back in the

type I days...;-).

>Need full manual? See dvinfo.net/canon/articles/article82.php

But at the price we are then up to, with added

battery, good VF, and lens, we are now just about

in JVC500 territory, with a much better camera in

almost every respect...;-) Or, we could buy two

of almost anything else, and STILL have a better

picture in an easier to use package...

>> - Has the AE been improved enough to use?

>Huh? I have never known any serious user

>to complain about it in the first place.

I tried two - neither could focus very well...

(Some of us are used to *GOOD* AF and MF

that doesn't "do its own thing"...;-)

>> - 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?

>Any variety of WA adapters are available, I suggest Century

>Optics for their quality and affordability;

I tried two, which were poor on two samples of the

type I zoom (frame-grabs included in the reviews at:

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

I mean, *GOOD* WA coverters, where you don't need

to make excuses for corner/edge softness and

color-fringing - and which are generally WELL under

$400...

>and it should be

>pointed out that the 3x Canon lens is neither expensive (it's

>less than $1200, a pittance compared to other camcorder lenses),

But a lot compared with smaller/lighter add-on

converters...

>nor does it need stabilization which would have been superfluous

>on a wide angle lens and added unneccessary expense.

Hmmmm....., well, errrrrr....., ah........;-)

Talk about "'scuses" for not having something

that everyone else has...;-) Let's go for a car ride

sometime, shooting out the window as we go, or...;-)

Heck, even on a tripod, the stabilizer can be useful

on a wide-angle!

>See dvinfo.net/canon/articles/article38.php

>David, your questions make it clearly evident that you are

>woefully unfamiliar with these camcorders; you should consider

>doing your readers a favor and refrain from making such

>innaccurate and ill-advised comments if you're to pass

>yourself off as some kind of authority on the matter.

Uh-huh.....;-)

And those who have never set these things up under

controlled conditions for comparison, but who happen

to like their XL-1s, *are* authorities...? Methinks

I will continue to advise people, as I see fit, from

experience I *do* have - and let those who read the

results come to their own conclusions about the

validity of what I say, instead of taking the "smears"

of the "Canon folk". Funny - it's never the "Panasonic

folk", the "JVC folk", or "Sony folk" who complain

when I point out problems with their favorite camcorders.

I wonder why that is...;-)