On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 13:00:01 -0400, "Jim Harvey"
>But David, he didn't ask about a Sony! He has two cameras in mind, neither
>one was a Sony.
And, I quote the post I responded to:
"
>I'm having a similar debate, although I'm also considering the sony VX2000.
>A large jump in price I know, but I've been holding out on the spending, so
>now I can actually purchase one."
Gosh, kinda looks to me that it appears that the poster
I responded to may just have inquired about the VX2000
as an alternative to the other two...! ;-)
Canon owners are so "touchy" when anyone mentions
a superior camera as an alternative, it seems, though
it would also have been appropriate to offer the
superior VX2000 as an alternative to the original
poster in this thread as well, as I think some others
did...;-)
On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 13:00:01 -0400, "Jim Harvey"
>You keep saying that the GL-1 is the "bottom of the heap" in picture quality
>which is simply Horsepucky and you (deep down) know it.
>The spurious problems that you continually throw at the Gl-1 are simply not
>an issue. If you adjust the camera (as you should adjust ALL cameras) the
>picture quality is on a par with anything in its class.
>
>Face it Dave, you're really getting a reputation as a GL-1/Canon basher and
>with the limited and completely biased reviews that you continually refer
>to, your credibility is being seriously compromised.
Oh, come now... As you know, I have pointed out:
- A) I set the compared cameras to full auto mode
so as not to impose my own judgements for "best
manual adjustments", something you would no doubt
then claim I had not done well, or had intentionally
mis-set to bias the results...
- B) All camcorder's pictures can be improved over
the stock auto form, not just the GL-1's, so the
quality-relationship is unlikely to change...
- C) The GL-1 resolution is inherently lower than
that of some other camcorders, and is oversharpened
in stock auto form - where can one improve the
appearance of sharpness without further exaggerating
the "cartoon outline" effect of the oversharpening?
The comparisons are as valid as one can make them
practically, and the frame-grabs are there for others
to see - all at:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/vid_pict_characts.htm
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/sony_dcr-vx2000.htm
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm.
My conclusions about your favorite camera, the GL-1,
are not "drawn out of the air" or unfounded opinions,
but are solidly based on considerable comparison
experience, and experience with visual image quality
and with audio. Your claims above are unfounded, as
you must know (the alternative possibilities are not preferable or pretty...! ;-).
>Jim Harvey
>"Neuman - Ruether"
>news:3d333d2a.2379481@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>> On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 20:53:53 -0400, "Andrew P"
>>
>> >I'm having a similar debate, although I'm also considering the sony
>VX2000.
>> >A large jump in price I know, but I've been holding out on the spending,
>so
>> >now I can actually purchase one.
>> I would place the GL-1 at the bottom of the heap of the
>> current 3-CCD "handycam"-style Mini-DV camcorders for
>> both picture and sound quality (excessive contrast,
>> excessive stairstepping, oversharpening, and other
>> irritating artifacts, relatively low resolution, a poor
>> built-in mic, and an undefeatable AGC circuit in the
>> audio - but it is about to be replaced by the GL-2,
>> which, at least from the specs and features list,
>> appears likely to be a good step up from the GL-1),
>> the Panasonic about in the middle for picture (its
>> innards are actually the EZ30U/950 tiny camera, if
>> you can believe that "giantification" Pan. did with
>> it to make the DVC10/15...;-), the VX2000 at the
>> top for picture quality (highest resolution, normal
>> contrast, clean and accurate color with minimal
>> color bias, and relative freedom from negative
>> picture artifacts). For comparative reviews, with
>> frame grabs, see:
>> www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm
>> www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/sony_dcr-vx2000.htm,
>> for diffraction tests of the VX2000 lens, see:
>> www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/diffraction.htm,
>> for comparison of the VX2000 with other Sony imaging
>> types, see:
>> www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm,
>> for a comparison of various WA converters on the
>> VX2000, see:
>> www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/WA-converters.htm,
>> and for references on the various video imaging
>> characteristics and ills, see:
>> www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/vid_pict_characts.htm.
>> David Ruether