>"Neuman - Ruether" wrote in message
>news:3e08de44.2687592@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>> On 21 Dec 2002 10:40:50 -0800, mountainfrog@hotmail.com
>> (Julie Drummond) wrote:

>> >Heres the background:
>> >We purchased a Canon Gl-1 alomst 2 years ago. It is a great camera but
>> >we find that I dont use it much anymore. We originally bought it
>> >because we were doing a lot of video work for a few local companies.
>> >That work has dried up and we now use the camera for taking home
>> >videos. Pretty expensive camera for home videos. We find that we never
>> >use it for home videos, though. It is just too big to leave out on the
>> >counter for quick access and it is too cumbersome to take out of the
>> >case all the time. We were thinking of selling it on eBay (can get
>> >around $1200 for it) and using the money to purchase a smaller DV
>> >video camera.
>> >
>> >Now heres the question:
>> >How much quality, if any, will we lose if we purchase a new dv camera
>> >in the $1200 range? We dont have any of our own funds to contribute so
>> >$1200 would be our limit. I have not looked at any of the video
>> >cameras available, yet so I dont have any models in mind. Just need
>> >ageneral idea as to whether the technology has increased to the point
>> >where new cameras in the lower price range are comparable to our
>> >older, more expensive gl-1. Thanks for any help.
>> >
>> >-Julie

>> Since the GL-1 was one of the "lesser" 3-chip cameras
>> of its time in terms of image and sound quality, and
>> since its picture displayed many of the more annoying
>> qualities of the better one-chippers compared with
>> the better 3-chippers (excessive oversharpening and
>> stairstepping effects, lower resolution, problems
>> with highlight-rendering, etc.), you may not see much
>> difference in the picture using a good one-chipper
>> (except in low-light range, where the GL-1 would be
>> superior). There are several Sony models within your
>> price range that should satisfy, and some are very
>> small. I would look at the PC101-TRV25/27 (all have
>> similar pictures), unless low-light range is an issue...
>> David Ruether

On Sun, 22 Dec 2002 23:12:58 GMT, "Jim Harvey" wrote:

>Oh Please! You've got to be kidding! You must have gotten a real clunker
>GL-1 when you ran those tests Dave. All these "Horrible" defects that you
>attribute to the GL-1 simply don't exist on any of the cameras we've used. I
>know that you prefer the VX2000, and it is an excellent camera, but go find
>someone with a WORKING GL-1 and redo your tests. This is a bunch of
>"booshwah" and sounds like the whole GL-1/XL-1's suck thread.
>
>Jim Harvey
>JHV Digital

The GL-1 I checked was "normal"...
It is compared with other camcorders, at:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm,
and it is also used for showing several of the
"bad" picture characteristics, at:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/vid_pict_characts.htm
(wait for the page to load, then click on the
"key" to see what cameras shot what examples...).
The poor image characteristics noted by me have
been noted by other users, also - but some people
"love" Canon, and "choose" not to see the
problems...;-) And, so as not to rehash this
whole thing yet a g a i n . . . , here comes the
"disclaimer": "It is not that the GL1 and XL1 are
terrible or unusable, but noticeably better-performing
models exist (though they are not perfect) - and
comparing models and finding out how they perform
in a relative way is the point of a comparison
review...". And, conclusions *can* be drawn from
the comparisons. BTW, lest you claim again that I
somehow "hate" Canon and "love" Sony, I point out
that I have noted in several posts that the
VX2000/PD150 now does have valid competition from
several new "handycam"-style DV models, including
the Canon GL2 (with MUCH improved picture...), the
Panasonic DVX100, probably the JVC300, and even
Sony's own TRV950 (in good light only...).
I kinda expected your response to my post,
though - it was predictable...;-)