>"Neuman - Ruether" <d_ruether@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>news:3e8d3bc6.3749641@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...

>> The XL-1 would be my last choice among current 3-CCD

>> camcorders, unless there is a very specific need that

>> only it can satisfy. Otherwise, there are better cameras

>> for image-quality and handling-ease, with better

>> selections for excellent manual control or excellent

>> auto control. I have briefly tried the Panasonic

>> DVX100, and I'm quite familiar with the Sony VX2000,

>> and somewhat with the similar PD150. Both are excellent

>> choices. The VX2000 offers the most "bang for buck",

>> and still, by a slight margin, the best picture and

>> low-light range of the top "handycam"-style cameras,

>> but all of these are close enough to not worry:

>> Sony VX2000, PD150, TRV950 (good light only), and

>> PDX10 (good light only - but has some better provision

>> for 16:9 than the others); Canon GL2 (only!); Panasonic

>> DVX100 (wider lens without converter); and JVC DV300.

>> Among shoulder-mount cameras, look at the JVC500/5000

>> (and variants), Panasonic 200, and Sony models (300,

>> 500, etc.). (Surprisingly, a properly-equipped XL1

>> system will cost almost as much as the lower-cost

>> of the better shoulder-mount cameras, though its

>> base price appears low...) See for more:

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

>> (use the "key" to see what shot what - you may find

>> the XL1 less interesting after becoming more familiar

>> with its many picture failings...)

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

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

>> These sites also have useful information and comparisons:

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

>> www.bealecorner.com

>> DR ("N-R")

>> www.bealecorner.com/dvx100/index.html

>> www.adamwilt.com

On Sat, 05 Apr 2003 18:18:52 GMT, "nappy" <joseft@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>hmm... once again.. David.. before you go for the self-proclaimed-expert

>role you really oughta do some work first. A visit to your site shows a

>rather amateurish, hobbyist approach and no real clientel to speak of. I

>highly recommend that people discount your musings and look at the cameras

>themselves. I saw nothing on your site you couldn't do with cameras of

>lesser quality than the XL1.

>

>Give it a friggin break. you're full of it.

Uh, the posts that I responded to are below - I do believe

I responded to them in a much more useful way than you

did to mine...;-) You do seem to have a real emotional

problem attached to any criticism of your favorite

camcorder - and it does appear rather too often to cause

you to "lash out" in quite irrational ways in response to

those criticisms. I really think you ought to seek help

for this...;-)

>> On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:05:47 GMT, "Robert D. Winkler"

>> <hahalman@rogers.com> wrote:

>> >

>> >I'm sorry to say, but I have much the same problem (except Sony's PD-150

>is

>> >also being considered).

>> >

>> >Does ANYBODY know where one could get some information on these 3 cameras

>in

>> >relation to each other? A side-by-side comparison chart, or even personal

>> >opinions (however biased they might be) would be most welcome...

>> >

>> >Thanks,

>> >

>> >- Dingo

>> >"Dutch" <lewmiller5@insightbb.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message

>> >news:ByKY9.36056$4y2.1678@sccrnsc04...

>> >> Am looking to purchase a camera for a local tv production, which will

>be

>> >> shot mainly handheld in a "reality tv" kind of style, and these two

>seem

>> >to

>> >> be the top of the heap for my price range. If I'm completely off base

>> >even

>> >> thinking this, would like to know that. Between these two, though,

>which

>> >is

>> >> the best choice?

>> >>

>> >> From what I've read, the AG-DVX100 has overall better video quality,

>and

>> >> that is the most important thing to me.

>> >>

>> >> Then again, the XL1S seems to have many more accessories available for

>it,

>> >> with the lens attachments and whatnot. Don't know how much use I'll

>get

>> >out

>> >> of that, as the lenses themselves can cost several hundred dollars, but

>it

>> >> would be nice to have more options.

>> >>

>> >> Am also thinking that since the XL1S is older, maybe it will be easier

>to

>> >> find a good price on a used camera. Then again, since I do not know

>how

>> >to

>> >> go about actually buying a used camera, that could be a moot point. If

>> >the

>> >> XL1S is the best choice, considering price of a used camera, how would

>I

>> >go

>> >> about finding one?