On Sun, 17 Feb 2002 08:03:40 GMT, doug lauber wrote:
>Neuman - Ruether wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 18:45:03 GMT, doug lauber
>> wrote:

>> >I was looking at and through these camcorders at my
>> >local store, and I noticed that the GL-1, a cheaper unit
>> >with fewer features, has a much more usable lens, in
>> >terms of how wide it can go. This is important if you are
>> >shooting drama. This rules out the VX-2000 for me.

>> ?????????????????
>> They both have nearly identical angles of view at the
>> "wide" end, and both can be made wider with high-quality
>> lens converters...

>I can't afford converters, and I need an all purpose lens
>for shooting actors at close range, in tight rooms, etc.
>If the XL-1s is as wide or wider than the GL-1, I'll probably
>go that route. I'm just saying that FOR ME, the difference
>between the VX-2000 lens and the GL-1 angle of view,
>favors the GL-1. Yes, the VX-2000 is a bit sharper
>and has less stair-stepping problems. I wish it's
>angle was as wide as the GL-1. I'll check out the XL-1s.

??????????? ;-)
A good (and, I mean **GOOD** WA converter for the VX2000),
is, Ta-DAH!, the Canon WD-58, $165 at bhphotovideo.com...
The WA difference between the GL-1 and VX2000 "bare"
exists, but is very minimal (the picture quality differences
aren't, though, especially in very low light - but also
in bright light). The XL-1 (especially if well equipped
with a good finder, big battery pack, and 3X zoom (only,
and it's without stabilizer - and the WA converters for the
16X zoom are expensive and marginal in image-quality) can
easily cost double or more the price of a well-equipped
VX2000 (and you would not apperciate using the XL-1 auto
and manual controls...;-). Step back three steps, and
enjoy using the VX2000...;-) Add a cheap-but-good
snap-on/off Sony VCL-ES06 (not zoom-through...) and
a 58->52mm step-down ring and have good wide-angle, too...