>On USENET ?
>
>Dave, go out and take a breath of fresh air, it is getting to you.

You may have a point, there...;-)

>Seriously...I know I have acused of you of bias. I think you are in
>fact very biased towards Sony. That in itself is not a bad thing so
>long as you have sound reasons.
>
>I don't think your reasons are sound, unless you are very specific.

??????
What is reasoning but a collection of small "made" points???
Do you mean, "when I gets specific, I'm right?" I make it a
point when I make a recommendation to tell people why I make
a recommendation, what it is based on, and give them URLs
where they can go to see support material (both mine, and the
material gathered by others, BTW...). What more could
one want? Personal demonstration??? Whenever I engage you
or one of the other "Canon-lovers" in these NGs, you folks
offer generalities about "differences appropriate for
specific uses" - but this is so self-evidently true in such
a generalized way that it is meaningless as advice! (A box
Brownie in the hands of a master photographer, etc. - but
most people would not enjoy overcoming the limitations
of inferior gear, I suspect... And, yes, Canon camcorders do
have particular advantages for ***particular*** types of
work, and I ***DO*** point these out, when appropriate!)
By comparatively evaluating camcorders, one finds that among
the many *specific* characteristics, some do have a greater
preponderance of positive characteristics compared with the
negative, and statements like "camera 'X' is a better choice
for the money than camera 'Y' for general use" can be made,
are valid, and can be supported with observation/evidence
(but are often called "bias" by the "Canon folks" ;-).
I note that it is funny that no other brand-owners ever
raise similar blanket, unsupported objections... (heck, not
one Panasonic, JVC, Sharp, Hitachi, etc. owner ever calls
me "biased" - and I have had many negative things to say
about Panasonic cameras, too...;-). I also make it a point
to avoid, for the most part, giving advice using
"second-hand" sources - I speak from direct experience
(or tell the readers when I do not, and upon what material
I base what I say). Others are less careful about this...

>Your reviews utilize the auto features of the cameras primarily, and
>hence don't indicate what the cameras are capable of, only what the
>automatic controls can manage with the camera.

This is odd. Do you mean that by using manual focus, the
image would somehow always be sharper? (I select the best
frames for the frame-grabs, negating this effect, if it
exists - and negative picture characteristics like
color-problems, oversharpened edges, excess contrast, excess
stairstepping, are not affected either way by the method of
focus.) Do you mean that by using manual exposure, the
samples will somehow have better color-bias, color-purity,
color depth - or that *most* other picture characteristics
will be adversely affected? (This is nonsense.) Do you mean
that by using AWB (though I don't always...) that
characteristics other than color-bias are affected???
But, since this format of camera is primarily and most
often used in auto modes (the manual modes on these
"handicam-format" camcorders are universally awkward to
use, indirect in operation, and generally inappropriate to
use unless the auto features on particular models are
poor - and if that is true, the efficacy of the auto
controls is important to test!).
I never claim that my reviews/tests are thorough, only
that they do reveal basic operating and performance
characteristics that may be of interest to people here.
To then call the results, and conclusions based on what
I *observed* (and show, when possible) "biased" (indicating
an attempt to skew the results...) is offensive. And,
attempts to undermine the value of my findings by claiming
they are due to using "auto" instead of "manual" modes of
operation more than borders on silly! In all the claims
of "bias" in what I say, I have yet to see anyone raise a
***SPECIFIC*** issue of error in what I found and
reported...
Odd, huh...? ;-)
(An old arguments technique: if you can't argue the
facts, then attack the opponents on style, approach,
whatever - but this is dishonest...)

>I read your reviews, and I find them to be a great example of just how
>much better Sony's automatic controls are. In that context I think
>they are great reviews. To any shooter who needs to rely on auto
>controls, hands down Sony is the all around winner. Others may sport
>an auto feature that can edge out Sony's, but overall Sony cameras
>automatic implementation of every feature is very good.

In what way(s) would my results be different using manual
operation? Be specific, please...

>You see something different, you see Sony cameras as much better.

I think, if you actually have read the reviews, that I state
the positive and negative aspects of all the camcorders I
shot in the same set of lighting conditions - and all have
both. In my conclusions, I do not say that one camcorder (or
brand) is "much" better than any other, but overall, some
do rise above others, for general use... You are
misinterpreting (or misreading) what I said, if you come to
the conclusion above...

>I don't think your data set supports that conclusion.

People can look at what is offered for themselves, at:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm

>You need to add evaluations of the cameras under fixed conditions
>using full manual settings before drawing this far more general
>conclusion.

This is covered, above. Tell me *specifically* what finding is
likely to be different as a result of my changing the
procedures...

>What do I think you'll find ? Most often, based on your preferences, I
>think you'll still find the Sony to be better. Hopefully you'll see
>that it is a marginal improvement, not an earthshattering or value
>busting one

I never claimed otherwise. But a set of marginal
improvements in one camcorder over another (particularly
if the prices are close), can make one camcorder *for most
purposes* the better purchase/use choice...

>I just happen to think that in rec.video.production most users are
>professionals or aspire to be, and hence they need to use the manual
>features of their camera for best results, even on the Sony's with
>great auto features.

This group has a WIDE variety of people in it, from the
very experienced, very knowledgeable pro to the beginner.
The appropriate camcorder choices for this range of
interests also varies WIDELY. The beginner is likely to
go for a one-chipper; the serius-amateur/small-production-
house level may go for the 3-chip Mini-DV; the top-end pros
will regard the above as nearly useless for their work.
Within the middle group, the users are likely to make
intelligent use of the best auto controls to enable them
to shoot in ways impossible with full manual control without
better equipment and very high skill-levels (shooting-styles
also vary, with the gear requirements appropriate for
scripted studio work being quite different from those best
for fast location work). In other words, nowhere do I claim
that a particular camera is THE choice for ALL types of
work (or shooters), but within the category of "best for
general use, among 3-chip Mini-DV camcorders" (with all that
implies regarding type of work, and type of operator...),
I can make a statement that is true (and not challenged on
the *specifics*...) regarding "best choice for the money
for most uses", based on reasonable testing approach and
the findings from those tests...

>By restricting the data gathered to auto controls only you have a set
>of reviews that don't meet the needs of professionals, in my opinion.
>Again, while we have a lot of newbies here, I think many of them are
>here because they are interested in doing this professionally. That is
>why I often disagree with you, and even decry your recommendations.

In what way is a camera with more limitations in terms of
image and sound quality produced, and with considerable
operating problems often a better choice? Also, if one is
opening up the field of available camcorders without
qualification, we would all select HDTV cameras (and a
crew). And, nothing about any Canon model would lead me
to recommend it over other models specifically for an aspiring professional...;-)

>In my opinion the GL-1, VX2000, PD-150 and the stock XL-1/XL-1S are
>suited only for second camera, or entry level freelance work. You need
>the flexibility of the XL-1 cameras fairly quickly as a professional.
>The JVC DV500 is a better choice than the XL-1 for many shooters.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, a properly-equipped
Canon XL-1 approaches the price of the JVC, making
this picture-superior camera most likely the better choice,
especially for those who favor the shoulder-mount format
and manual controls (which are FAR better on the JVC...).
For a much lower price, a well-equipped PD150 can produce
image and sound quality roughly on a par with the JVC,
in a much smaller package, and with superior auto controls.
Ya plunks down' yer money, an' ya takes yer cherce...;-)

>Looking at camera choices for a new production company, I would pick
>two units...an XL-1S with an MA-200 and some mics used as a safety
>camera and for primary audio, and a JVC DV500, JVC DV700 or Panasonic
>DVC200 for most video and secondary audio. To me that is the most
>flexible combination. It is also pricey.
>
>Two VX2000's can serve VERY well for the budget minded event
>videographer, I'd like to stick a PD-150 in there.

Yes. And for a new production company (or even an old and
successful film/video one I know of, which did just about
that...;-), I would recommend a pair of PD150s (useful for
2-camera shooting, or *duplicate* backup), or a PD150 and
a JVC (or, two JVCs, etc.) - but nowhere can I find a place,
*for most purposes* for the XL-1, much as you like this
overblown, over-priced, under-performing image-maker...;-)
Jes' call me "biased", I guess...;-)