"nappy"
<no_spam_@sorry.com> wrote in message
news:wDOvc.78680$lN2.70529@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
>
"David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote in message
>
news:0iNvc.25210$LS6.17410@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
>
> "Poet Fury" <devnull@genjerdan.com> wrote in message
>
> news:zyz4hjfauz77$.et773o0ov6g9$.dlg@40tude.net...
[...]
>
> > So. Balancing least amount of
headaches against most satisfying
>
results,
>
> > what order should the following list be in? (currently in
alphabetical
>
> > order).
>
> >
>
> > 1. Canon XL1S (although I've
seen a lot of GL2s for sale lately.
Good
>
> > enough?)
>
> > 2. JVC GR-HD1 (are the pro features of the JY-HD10 worth the bump in
>
cost?)
>
> > 3. Panasonic AG-DVX100A
>
> > 4. Sony VX2000 or 2100
>
> The HD1/10 is a "different animal", being HDTV, and far from a
great
>
> one. For SD use, rate them 1) SonyVX2000/PanDVX100A,
>
> 2) JVC300, 3)CanonGL2, 4) CanonXL1s, 5) JVC-HD1/10. Throw
>
> the SonyTRV900 and VX1000 in there around 3.5) or so...
>
> (But, now beware the "howls" from the Canon-partisans...! ;-)
>
> Any in the 1->"3.5" group should be both good enough and also
easy
>
> enough to use for your purposes...
>
> --
>
> David Ruether
>
yes. I would concur. . and I would tend towards the DVX from what I have
>
seen so far..
Let all
the bells in all the land ring through the night! ;-)
What,
me and "nappy" in agreement on Mini-DV camcorders?!?! ;-)
The
"end time" has arrived...!!! ;-), ;-), ;-).
As for
choice, I tilt slightly toward the VX2000 for ease of use and
minor
picture quality differences, but if you swap out the VX2100
for the
VX2000 in the choice, I may well swing toward the DVX100a
(a very
good choice in any case, and it does offer some *possibly*
useful
unique features and some slight technical advantages over the
Sony...).
Panasonic jumped far ahead of its earlier compact Mini-DV
offerings
with the DVX100a - and it is a great little camera!
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com