On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 08:35:25 -0600, "Richard Smedley" wrote:
[...]
>Now as for the Sony and Canon. My contention is not that the Sony VX2000 is
>better than the Canon XL1 or GL1, just that some people (whom I won't
>name -- you know who you are) simply can't look at the comparison
>objectively. Maybe the VX2000 is ultimately better. I really don't know.
>All I know is I get fantastic video out of my XL1 and GL1s (I have 2) and
>that's a fact, not an opinion. If the Sony VX2000 is really _that_ much
>better, then maybe a couple of years from now I'll take a second look. But
>until then, get off your high horse and just admit that they're both great
>cams and have a _real_ ice cream wine float!

????
The above makes no logical sense...;-)
From the above, I take it you are satisfied with the
XL-1/GL-1, have not compared them with the VX-2000,
but are annoyed that I have (as have others) done so
and report that, in various quite specific ways, the
VX-2000 picture is better... I (and others) did not say
the Canon picture was bad; I (and others) did not say
the VX-2000 picture is perfect - what we did say was
that, in several specific characteristics important
to some of us (resolution, color-neutrality, relative
freedom from negative picture aspects like stairstepping
and contrasty-edge white "halos", good low-light ability),
the VX-2000 is superior. Given that the GL-1 is close to
the same price (and the XL-1 is more expensive, larger,
heavier, and has some real lens-control issues), how
can you fault us for coming to certain logical
conclusions about preferences (noting that if
considerations like 20:1 zooming range and PS-mode
are of paramount importance to you, then your
conclusions are skewed by this and would logically
be different. No problem...;-)
Don't blame the messenger, though, for simply reporting
observations (and drawing conclusions based on them)
that you don't like...;-)