On Wed, 26 Jun 2002 16:40:48 -0400, "Jim Harvey" wrote:
>"Neuman - Ruether" wrote in message
>news:3d2019d0.27986826@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...

[most deleted]
>The only issue I take is when I hear someone saying that the GL-1 is the
>"worst" camera in the DV realm. Simply not true.

I never said it was...;-) (It is always interesting to
see people attributing to one statements that were never
made, then disputing them...) I have said, though, that the
GL-1 is the worst of the 3-CCD Mini-DV camcorders that I
have tried, and that *is* true...!;-) It is possible that
the Sharp 3-CCD Mini-DV camcorder was worse (and from its
reputation, that would be easy to believe...;-), but I never tried
it (I have tried most of the othercommonly-available Mini-DV
3-CCD "handycam"-style camcorders, though, and comparatively
reviewed them on my web page...).

>I would have liked Canon to have upgraded the chip to a 1/3" and bumped the
>specs accordingly. they didn't, so I can only assume that while it will most
>likely produce an even better picture than the GL-1 under many situations,
>it most likely will still be a boner in the low light situations that many
>people find themselves in. If that is the case, then I would stay with the
>JVC DV500 as its low light capability is excellent.

As is that of the VX2000/PD150...

>( I'd also like to know what Canon expects to charge for this little wonder)

Yes - if it winds up being priced similarly to the
VX2000, it will be a competitor, but one with a distinct
disadvantage if its low-light picture is not as good
(though other features do look good...).