Ah, A.I., preferences do count, but so do objectively-evaluated characteristics...;-)

The differences between the VX2000 and GL-1 are
numerous and noticeable (though not "earthshaking"),
and the VX2000 is technically better in every one
of those characteristics. Yes, I do discount preferences
for strong red bias, oversharpened edges with "halos",
lower resolution, excessive contrast, etc. (would one
choose a car by a preference for a certain kind of hood
ornament or color, or by its real on-road performance?;-),
and I do acknowledge the (*very*) few advantages of the
GL-1/XL-1 when they are relevant (the difference between
12X and 20X zoom range on tape is not as great as the
numbers would seem to indicate, though - but for your use
needs, *any* additional lens length may be the deciding
factor over other, more generally important, aspects...).

So, once again in your Canon fanatacism you fly in the face
of direct experience and comparisons - something must be
wrong if people can't see the right and might of the great
(over-priced/under-performing) Canon GL-1/XL-1!!! ;-)
(I was pointing out in this thread that the specific
experience reported above is not shared by others with
the same gear, indicating a possible problem specific to
the gear in hand, not a design issue - and suggested a few
"work-arounds". Yet in your Canon fanaticism, you interpret
this as.......;-) Yes, the Canon picture can be adjusted,
but to what...? It is already oversharpened. Is the red
bias correctable? Is its inherent resolution improvable?
Is the excessive contrast correctable? Are the irritating
imaging artifacts of the GL-1 (inability to show near
vertical lines cleanly, excessive stair-stepping, white
and black outlines on contrasty edges, etc.) correctable?
Maybe these picture flaws can be dismissed, "'cuz the
camera is made by Canon, so it must be good", huh? ;-)

Look, I like your posts in general (they are often
thoughtful, insightful, and informative - and also
well-written), but when it comes to Canon camcorders,
I think it is you who's "got religion" and have lost
objectivity. It is your right to recommend here gear
that is, in my opinion, overpriced and underperforming
in most respects compared with other gear, and even
for you to question what I say even when you miss the
point, as in this thread (and even when you don't ;-),
but it is also my right to point out when you are
doing that...;-) I also appreciate your ability
to respond rationally, and without anger, to my
comments - with you, one can have a discussion,
even about "Canon-religion"...;-)

On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 07:18:50 GMT, "Alexander Ibrahim" wrote:

>Dave...preferences do count.
>
>The difference between the VX2000 and the GL-1 is minimal, even if the
>VX2000 is technically better. The VX2000 is NOT that much better. In
>some ways it is worse, though you always discount that as worthless
>and irrelevant. For some the 20x lens of the GL-1 is worth it alone
>without question.
>
>I mean if you want to talk about just technical details then there is
>no choice between Fuji's Superia 800 and Kodak's Portra 140VC right ?
>
>So, once again in your Sony fanatacism you fly in the face of these
>peoples DIRECT experience working with the camera in their own
>business...something must be wrong with them if they can't see the
>right and might of the great VX2000/PD150!!!
>
>BTW, in case you forgot the picture can be adjusted on the GL-1 too.
>
>To Mr. McNeill, I recommend selling that VX2000 and gettting an XL-1S
>to add to your kit.