On Sat, 10 Feb 2001 14:12:22 -0600, Chris Hurd wrote:

>Howdy from Texas,

>Neuman - Ruether wrote...
>> 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.

>That's because these Canon owners are getting beautiful
>video from their camcorders. You're asking them to admit
>to shortcomings they have never seen and as far as they're
>concerned, don't even exist. What kind of reaction did
>you expect? ;-)

A sudden epiphany when the truth is revealed...!!!
;-), ;-), ;-) Most people are quite uncritical of
the finer points of any area - but those whose work
is intimately connected with the image-quality of
their tools I would think would be more discerning
than the average user, yet this is often not true.
(Thus, my wine comments...;-)
For those who do care about some of the finer points,
the information is available...;-)
(I found in photography, too, that pros are
often totally unaware of some of the basics of
image-making - not that that knowledge is always
necessary for good work to be done... [how's that
for a mind-tongue-twister sentence?;-])

>> 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.

>I don't "defend" hardware. I don't give a damn about
>hardware, really. If I'm defending anything, it's the
>people who use this hardware. The point I'm making
>is that there are professional shooters out there with
>just as much or more experience as you who love the
>images these cameras produce. For you to ask for an
>"acceptance of obvious faults" is to ask these people
>to see things only your way. That ain't going to happen.

It is easy to ignore these picture faults - but if
one is choosing "the best camera for X dollars",
then these things may be worth knowing...
As the saying goes, "An artist can use a box-Brownie,
but an amateur needs the best equipment available". ;-)

>David, your so-called "obvious faults" haven't stopped
>these cameras from becoming very popular and selling
>very well. If they were as poor as you're making them
>out to be, then no amount of corporate marketing could
>save their sales. Yet plenty of people buy these things
>and use them to make beautiful pictures. The GL1 in
>particular has quite a loyal user base of very happy
>customers who really love the video it puts out. A
>*lot* of these folks are pro shooters and I think
>they know what is and isn't a good looking image.

Yes - but see my comments above...
It isn't a matter of "terrible" vs. "perfect, but
of, say 65% good vs. 75% good - given the choice
between these levels, for about the same price,
why not go for the 10% better...? ;-)

>I'm not coming down on you; I'm just saying that
>there's a large number of people who know what
>they're doing who strongly disagree with you.

Or may mnot have considered the issues (which
in the end may not be very important...;-).
Most people are satisfied with less than the best,
and once owned, become used-to/loyal-to it.
Some of us are more critical - as it appears you
are with wine...;-)

>> 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. ;-)

>Perhaps it's because your review was remarkably
>unlike their own experiences with the same product?

But what I pointed out as faults are easily observed
by anyone willing to look... Some people are not
willing to look, especially if they are invested in
something financially and/or mentally...;-)

>> But I also pointed out the shortcomings of Sony products,
>> with hardly a wimper of protest from the Sony owners...;-)

>I don't know... perhaps your writing and critical analysis
>skills have improved, and your findings are more in line
>with the experience of others?

Yuh, "Sony good; Canon bad"..??? ;-), ;-), ;-)

>> I recognize that some people may actually prefer an orange
>> tint added to everything

>There is a subtle yet distinct difference between Sony and Canon
>images, but it's nothing as extreme as what you're describing.

??? I think it is...
Again, these things are easily observed...
I used to be involved in audio (talk about perceptions
and beliefs vs. reality!!! ;-), and found in designing and
building gear how perceptually important VERY minor errors
in frequency-response were (whole tomes are written about
the supposed qualities of this or that piece of audio gear,
when most of the differences boil down to minor
frequency-response differences - I call audio-mania "the
art of applying 1/10th-decibel changes to 10-decibel
errors"...;-).

>> ... 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...;-)

>It is.
>
>One thing I really like about you is that we can have a
>debate of this nature without having it fall into a typical
>usenet flame-fest. I enjoy healthy debate; I like a good
>argument, but only with someone who is well-mannered
>and civil about everything and willing to make intelligent
>points and counter-points.

Likewise - a good arguement can work to move toward truth,
if handled well (always keeping in mind its overall minor
importance in the "big picture"...;-).

>Far too often on usenet, it's
>at the level of "Brand X sucks! Brand Y rules!" and
>I avoid dealing with that mentality at all costs.

I left the videouniversity VX-1000 discussion board
due to the obnoxiousness of one frequenter there - he
had no concept of how to conduct an arguement, and
always made it personal.
You are fun to have exchanges with, even if neither
of us convinces the other...

>I still
>think you're a candidate for a bottle of fine Merlot;
>just hope we have the opportunity for it sometime.

Thanks, but it really would be wasted on me...;-)
(Really! I'm into still and motion imaging [and
the high-quality gear needed to do it], and audio
[I like to just see, and listen], so for me, I would
not be able to note the fine differences [uh-huh! ;-]
between a good Meranon and a good Zinfanony. ;-)
Thanks, though!