On Fri, 04 Apr 2003 21:57:31 GMT, Chris Hurd <chris@dvinfo.net> wrote:

>Neuman - Ruether wrote...

[Pursuing this is probably pretty silly, since

"Canon partisans" will see no ills in their favorite

camcorders, no matter what evidence is presented

(and no other brand seems to engender this absurd

level of defensiveness), but, mebbe for the last

time, some countering of some absurdities here...;-]

>> I want to see the frame-grabs, shot

> > properly, under conditions that are

> > honest and revealing...

>Ah, yes,... the single *worst* way to evaluate

>the video image of a DV camcorder, via frame-grab

>on the internet. Sorry, but frame grabs on the web

>are neither accurate nor honestly representative

>of a DV camcorder's video image. The gamma

>differences in computer display monitors vs.

>pro video monitors alone, not to mention how

>the frames are encoded for the web, rule out

>this amateurish notion completely.

Ah, but the important word here is "comparative".

Yes, the color, gamma, stills-compression, etc. of

the frame-grabs as presented on the web and viewed

on computer monitors (not to mention the lack of

motion...;-) do introduce errors - BUT, the same

errors are introduced for all camcorders equally,

leaving valid comparisons for resolution,

oversharpening effects, color-biases, excessive

contrast, lack of color depth, presence of

artifacting like vertical-line discontinuities,

etc. (see for more: www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/vid_pict_characts.htm)

still quite valid... But these show the

deficiencies of the GL-1/XL-1 all too readily,

so you dismiss them...;-)

>> Could it be that color-bias and contrast

> > problems are not just "preferences" or

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

>No, it couldn't!

Uh, yes, it could! There *are* standards for video,

and a camcorder that consistently has noticeably

non-standard color, contrast, etc. DOES diverge

from these. To use an extreme example, according

to you, if a camcorder's images were monochrome

green, this would be "OK", since you happen to

prefer monochrome green video images - but most

would agree that this is a color error, and far

from recognized standards for a high-quality video

image...

>Were there "problems" or "errors," these

>camcorders wouldn't sell; they wouldn't be

>in professional use all over the world. Surely

>you're not going to claim that some form of

>voodoo marketing compels rational purchases

>on a global basis? Isn't it more likely that

>your fault-finding is itself in error? That's

>a far more likely reason.

We've been around this too many times to do

this again. Suffice it to say that the questions

we often get here are, "I'm thinking of buying

the XL-1...", or, "Which Canon should I buy...",

or, "I saw this nifty picture of the G4 with

the XL-1 and I thought I'd share it with you. I

want this. What do you think...?", or similar.

Not, "Among the many choices available, what

camcorder for XYC purposes would people recommend,

with a budget of $ABC available? "Canon

advertising *is* powerful, and part of education

is seeing through ad-generated desire that is

independent of needs/usefulness/budget/performance...

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

>Ah, but it's an LCD, inferior in all respects to

>a cathode ray tube EVF, the real choice of pro's.

Ah, yes, but it is still very sharp, and one

can learn to view it at a constant angle so

that exposure can also be usefully evaluated.

And it sure beats trying to focus with a soft

finder, or spending $1200 more for the

"correction"...

>> This does not make the camera truly balanced for

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

>Use the right tool for the job, such as a VariZoom

>VZ-LSP (http://www.varizoom.com/pages/lsp.htm), and

>you can shoot all day with no fatgue, whether it's

>with an XL1S or VX2000.

Uh-huh... Aside from that, try packing a VX2000

ready-to-shoot, and an XL-1 ready-to-shoot. The

former is MUCH easier - and more pleasant to

carry/stow, let alone hand-hold for a day...

Or, sure, I could mount a 400 pound camera, with

another 700 pounds of gear chosen to make it "work",

on a neat 1000 pound motorized cart, but, isn't it

more fun to grab a 3 pound camera that is "ready

to roll" pretty much as-is, at a fraction of the

price.....?;-) Especially if its picture is better?

>> 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...

>Incorrect. As I've explained to you before, the JVC DV5000

>(the replacement for the DV500) is an entirely different

>class of camcorder (it's a true professional rig). The DV5000

>itself must be upgraded right out of the box at considerable

>expense with a better EVF, lens, microphone, zoom and focus

>controls, batteries and battery charger... there's no direct

>comparison except for the Mini DV cassette they both use;

>even this has changed as the DV5000 takes full-size tapes.

But straight out of the box, with added batteries, the

500 is still a much better camera than a "decked-out"

XL-1, which costs almost as much. THAT was my point.

>I'm reminded of a question I posed to you months ago,

>which you carefully avoided: is the JVC DV500 more

>similar the the Sony DSR300, which shares the same

>CCD block, or to the XL1? The Canon camcorders are

>often used by professionals, but come from their

>consumer video division; the JVC is an entirely

>different animal involving its own set of expenses

>and can't be lumped into the same category as

>prosumer/consumer gear. I always recommend buying

>pro gear such as the DV5000 if one has the budget

>for it, but it is an entirely different world

>from the XL1S. However, a nicely appointed XL1S

>will be substantially less expensive than an

>equally equipped DV500 or DV5000.

Depends on what you call "substantially", after

putting a "real" lens on the XL-1, plus "real" VF,

plus "real" battery pack plus shoulder-brace - and

you are still left with that XL-1 image-quality

that any of the current top "prosumer" alternatives

(including Canon's own GL2) can beat, at a far lower

price, with much less complication, size, and weight...

I just don't see why you (and a very few others)

keep adoring this "white elephant" of the video

world, and defending it so vociferously. Must

be a case of "XL-1 religion", brought about by too

much poring over the Canon sales lit., I guess...;-)

Or, once stung, perhaps you want to avoid having

the rest of the world discovering your mistake

by loudly proclaiming that the XL-1 really is a

good camera...? ;-) But, too many of us "have seen

the light", and it is not the XL-1...;-)

>> 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...

>I have never heard of any serious, high-quality WA

>adapter in the 72mm size costing less than $500.

>Among the best bang-for-buck will be any of the

>Century Optics adapters will full zoom-through.

As I pointed out earlier, I tried two of the

Century WAs made specifically for the XL-1, and

on two different lenses the results were poor

(frame-grabs in the XL-1 review at www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm).

For the other top camcorder contenders in the

"prosumer" field, there are several excellent WA

converters available for under $200 each (including

the excellent Canon WD-58 - see comparisons on a

VX2000 at: www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/WA-converters.htm).

With these, there is not only little or no sharpness

loss, but the stabilizer is retained, as is a wide

zooming range - with relatively little cost in money,

size, or weight...

>> (3x wide angle lens) But a lot compared with smaller

> > /lighter add-on converters...

>Well, duh... that's the difference between a full

>lens and an adapter... the advantage of the lens is

>the lighter weight and better balance. The advantage

>of a zoom-through WA adapter is the focal length.

>Each has their pro's and con's... as always, choose

>the right tool for the right job.

Well, yes...;-)

>> And those who have never set these things up under

>> controlled conditions for comparison, but who happen

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

>An authority is someone who uses the gear professionally,

>who knows it inside and out, is aware of its real limitations

>as well as its strengths... a group of authorities regularly

>contribute to www.dvinfo.net about a variety of DV camcorders,

>not just the XL1S. A writer for a major video magazine is there.

>A Steadicam operator for NBC is there. People using this

>equipment on a daily basis are there. I would say they

>carry more clout than a confused backyard comparison, yes.

"Confused"? ;-) "Comparison", yes - this *is* kinda

basic to "comparisons"....;-) Sorry, but you cannot

compare cameras without making comparisons - this is,

uh, rather, well..., basic...;-) I could know every

aspect of "X" brand of baseball VERY well, but does

this make this particular baseball "the best"? Or

does this knowledge make me an authority on baseballs

in general?

Obviously not...

>> 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,

>Those who read your results are better advised to try

>for themselves, "always try before you buy." They are

>more likely to come to entirely different conclusions.

>I'll be around to constantly recommend that option.

I never recommend that people believe only what I say

(and show...) - but if someone asks, "Which of X,

Y, or Z has the better picture {etc.)?", I can, and will,

point out the differences, and based on those and what

I consider important, will give an answer - which is

what the questioner has asked for! ;-) The questioner

rarely says, "I know camcorder 'Y' has an inferior picture

compared with others in its class in 'ABC' respects, but

I want you to ignore this in your answer." ;-)

This discussion is basically silly - you want me to say

the XL-1 is up there with others currently sold, and in

my experience, this is not true, and I would need to

lie when responding to a questioner if I were to say it

was. The point of asking someone is to get an answer,

and one that is to the best of the answerer's ability

truthful and complete. I believe I do this fairly

well, and better than those who cannot see beyond their

XL-1s...;-)

> > 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...;-)

>Well, the reason is very simple. It's because your fault-finding

>is so distintively opposite the experience of everyone else

>who actually owns these things. There's either a problem with

>your methods and "evaluations," that is, there's a problem

>with your problems, or there's a problem with thousands of

>other people who own and operate this gear on a daily basis.

>The most likely of these two possibilities should be painfully

>obvious.

Yes, if it weren't for the many other posters who

agree with me on the XL-1 and others - and many of

these are quite familiar with a wide range of gear...

As I said, it is only the Canon folk who get upset

when faults are pointed out - and this does make

one wonder about some interesting human quirks...;-)

Anyway, enough of this. If anyone wants to judge

for themselves my objectivity in all of this, I

invite you to read my reviews (with an open mind,

mind you - with no "axes to grind" in advance! ;-)

and see what *you* think. Otherwise, believe

what you will, without any real evidence to

back it up... The reviews can be found at:

www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/articles.html.