Hi--

At 1143 PM 9/6/01 -0500, you wrote
Bob
So do you really like the VX-2000? Yes you do.

So, since they saw fit to take away a little More off the wide end of
the
already not wide enough VX-1000 lens... Which zoom-through wide
converter(say around .6x or even .7x if good enough to really use a lot)
do
you find stays sharpest and least messy-looking in the corners? Have you
used the Century ones - are they much better ---[BTW,This is reason
#1
why I resent the manufacturers of the prosumer cams. $2-3000+ with a
zoom
that starts around a Normal perspective, and they don't even offer a
decent
dedicated converter, as Canon did for it's super-8 film cameras of
decades
ago. O.k., I'm over it]

Why the Hell would they make the 2000's vf even smaller, lower in magni,
than the 1000's which I already thought to be at about the very edge of
acceptibility? (I know, to save costs and get us to buy the $7000 one)
Can
you at least See something in there under lower-light conditions, unlike
the
1000's crappy night-blind finder? Lord knows you can't really fine-
focus on
anything with it under Any illumination, so maybe is the 2000's auto-
focus
really enough Better to offset? [sorry, still had to get that off my
chest,
too]

I'm still reeling over all the (variety of) sound complaints I've read
w/the
2000. Did Sony change anything to improve this at some point in
production,
or was that just for pd-150? (which, perhaps like you, I reject because
b/w
finder not my idea of having fun) --What do you think is the best-
sounding
solution, for use with a better, appropriately matched{?} XLR hyper-
cardiod
mic? --And for the record, the high-pitched running whine of the 1000
in a
quiet room sounded to me like a mini video duplication suite, and I'd
Hope
that at least Tthat has been tamed in the new version. [I feel a
little
better now, sort of]

I do appreciate your time and well-considered opinions. --Nice photos of
yours on the state tourism site!

Thanks again,
Peter Peter Wallach


GRUMBLE, GRUMBLE, GRUMBLE! ;-)
T'ain't all thet bad...!
Unship the big eyecup from the box of both the 1000 and 2000, and,
voila, easy-viewing (I punch holes at the bottom edge of the 2000
cup to reduce fogging - it's a tighter eye-fit...). The AF on the 2000
is so good that I now NEVER use MF...! ;-) The side-panel finder is
VERY useful for framing for insifde work (only). The angle at the
"wide" end is about the same for both. The Canon WD-58 .7X is a perfect
match, with the Raynox HD6600-58 .66X even better at the short end,
but a bit less good at the long, and with the Sony VCL-ES06 providing
".5X" to 1X, but no zoom beyond - all with equal/better picture than
the 1000. The Centurys are overpriced, and I was not impressed...
I leave on either the Canon (GL1-dedicated...;-) or Raynox. The Sony
.7X (dedicated...;-) converter is reputed to be good, also, but
too expensive. The sound complaints are from people that either have
too-high expectations from the audio at this level (based on the
excellent picture), and/or have little understanding of how to
optimize sound quality with high-gain multi-stage audio devices.
The sound from the VX-2000 is EXCELLENT! (Here, again, trust AGC,
once you properly match mic sensitivity to it - you will get
better recordings than with manual gain.) If you want to go XLR,
with the best possible audio, consider an external preamp going
in at line level... (though an XLR adapter with level controls should
work fine at mic-level). The whine is from that little head drum
rotating
at VERY high speed - it is inaudible in the 2000 tracks.
Much as I liked the 1000, I would not go back willingly...
The B&W finder of the 150 is excellent (and the side-panel is color),
but I don't need the focus advantage, the XLRs, the mono bulky mic,
and the higher price of the 150 - though its sound in stock form is
excellent, and quieter/more-directional for interview-type stuff
(the 2000 is set up for good ambience-recording; the 150 for good
single-source recording...).