On Sun, 02 Dec 2001 01:34:02 GMT, tnr wrote:
>In article <76si0u4fvunilebt6260llpsuplau083u4@4ax.com>, ask@me.net
>says...

>> What about Canon GL1? Now it costs around $3,200 (CAD). It is a decent
[....]
>> 3xCCD camcorder. Though many consider Sony TRV900 a better choice, I
>> am not convinced. Definitely the GL1 lens is superior to TRV900. The
>> TRV900 has a very weak lens, much worse than the rest of Sony 1 CCD
>> camcorders (they have Carl Zeiss lenses). GL1 has got the same CCD
>> like XL1, which is an excellent camcorder. Canon camcorders deliver
>> traditionally better colors than Sony. Just another option...

>Do you think so? I don't know enough about this but I did see a test
>between the MX3000, GL1 (iirc) and TRV900. The MX3000 gave the best
>color, followed by TRV900 and then the Canon.

The GL-1, TRV900, VX2000 and others are reviewed at:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm
At the end of this review is the Japanese-site URL
with frame-grabs and stills comparing these and others.
There is another site that compares the MX3000 with
the VX2000 (but I didn't think much of it - the writer's
comments did not take into account the picture controls
of the VX2000 and some [to me...] obvious aspects of the
sample images in coming to conclusions...). Of the
3-chip camcorders I tried, I liked the GL-1 least for its
excessive picture defects (lowest resolution of the bunch,
noticeable color-bias, high-contrast, presence of excessive
oversharpening artifacts, and rather more than usual
stair-stepping), and its sound defects (a very "colored"
mic sound mostly, but also its lack of manual level
control). This, at a price noticeably higher than the
TRV900 and not far from the even better VX2000.
As for the comment above on the lens on the GL-1, it
is difficult to say this since the imaging device is
integral with the lens - short obvious optical defects,
one cannot say the GL-1 or TRV900 lens is better/worse.
Also, the "Carl Zeiss" name on the lens is add-hype -
notice the recent VX2000 (with the very sharp image...)
and the sharp TRV900 both sport a "no-name" lens...;-)
And that comment about Canon color being "traditionally
better" than Sony has no basis in fact - some people
appear to prefer the red color bias, but neutral color
is preferable, I think... (and the color bias can be
modified with the VX2000, if one likes red in
everything...;-)
As for the MX300/3000, I have not tried it. From frame-grabs
I've seen, it appears to have a strong red bias, and also
noticeably lower resolution (especially at the frame
edges) compared with the Sony. I cannot see these as
advantages...

>ARRRGGHHH... it's so much easier with computers, I just build what I
>want.