On Sat, 10 Feb 2001 01:04:49 -0600, Chris Hurd wrote:

>Howdy from Texas,
>
>Neuman - Ruether wrote:
>>
>> The wine would be wasted...;-)
>> As the Sony picture is on you...;-), ;-), ;-)

>Now, now, David... you know better than that! If I didn't
>like the VX2000's picture, I wouldn't have built a website
>around it!
>
>I am in awe of the VX2000. No question. I just had to
>jibe you because your opinion of the GL1 is so low,
>which is contrary to the viewpoints of so many other
>professional shooters I've talked to. Believe me, a
>lot of pro's love the GL1, love its video. I don't
>think their viewpoints are any less significant
>than yours!
>
>They just don't post on usenet like you do.
>Hmm, time for another glass of Zinfandel...
>
>Chris Hurd
>San Marcos, TX

Hmmm...., "mebbe" to all the above...;-)
I find Canon owners on the 'net generally less
honestly critical of the shortcomings of Canon
Mini-DV camcorders, and more eager to "jibe"
(or worse) those who point out their faults
than Sony owners. Curious that there is a need
to defend the virtuousness of a camcorder model,
when all that is needed is an acceptance of the
existence of obvious faults. No camcorder is
perfect, but some "Canon-people" got downright
uppity when I first posted the reviews at
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm
and pointed out the Canon flaws - and accused
me of all sorts of evil doings. ;-) But I also
pointed out the shortcomings of Sony products,
with hardly a wimper of protest from the Sony
owners...;-)
Curious.
Back in my photo days, and now in my video days,
I find the usual "reviews" annoyingly replete
with gushy descriptions of appearance and
features (easily obtainable from the mfgrs.
ad literature), but with little coverage of
performance and use issues, both positive AND
negative. Since I have no advertising revenue
to protect on my web page, I'm free to offer
what ought to be an appreciated service: one
person's (possibly objective...;-) view of a
range of Mini-DV camcorder models. I did the
same with a large number of Nikkor lenses
I've had experience with - and rarely do I get
complaints from a lens owner that I didn't rate
high enough a particular lens he owned (that
I didn't like). As you have rightly pointed out,
much of this is subjective - but as I point out,
much of it is not; I recognize that some people
may actually prefer an orange tint added to
everything (and white halos, lower resolution,
more than average stairstepping, and a mic
sound balance that is offensive to this audio
nut), but these characteristics are, in
objective terms (if the ideal is a neutral-color,
sharp, smooth image and good sound), faults - and
a reviewer should point them out (and find it
curious when objections are raised when that
is done...). People are free to buy and use
whatever they want, whether I happen to like
it or not, but I feel free to point out my
findings in these NGs when I disagree with
what is posted (as others are free to disagree
with me... - but I hope that that disagreement
is in a form that is as reasonable, and based
on first-hand experience, as I try for in
my posts...;-)