>news:3e0825b3.2632442@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>> >"Neuman - Ruether"
>> >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"
>>
>>
>> >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...;-)
>> David Ruether
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 00:13:04 GMT, "Jim Harvey"
>Glad I could oblige you Dave, I'd hate to think that you thought I'd gone
>away and wasn't keeping my eye on you.
Naw, not a chance o' that...! ;-)
>I just find it amusing/annoying, that you ALWAYS preface your GL-1 comments
>with the "lesser" or "worst of the bunch" remarks, when in reality, the
>camera delivers perfectly acceptable video images for anything you might
>care to task it to. That includes commercial broadcast as well as corporate
>in house productions.
Yuh, but among the 3-chippers *of the "handycam"-style*,
only an early Sharp 3-CCD misadventure comes out worse
than the GL1 - and of the cameras I've checked out
personally, or have seen good comparison frame-grabs
from, the GL1 come out the "worst of the bunch" for
picture quality, an aspect worth noting, I think, in
any discussion of the relative merits of various
camcorder options...;-) If I take your remarks above
seriously, though, let me recommend several compact
models of 1-chippers (mostly Sony, though...;-) that
can replace your big, bulky GL1 for "commercial broadcast
as well as corporate in house productions", since their
picture quality is roughly equal in all respects in
good light, and their audio quality and control
options are also at least equal...;-)
>The VX2000 is an excellent camera, but in terms of image and resolution, we
>found it to be the worst of the bunch when we compared it to our DSR500's
>
Uh-huh - but I generally confine the range to
"handycam"-style camcorders...;-) And, any 35mm movie
camera (even an old, little, cheap Bell and Howell)
can easily outshoot the biggest, most expensive
standard-resolution video camera with the fanciest
lens available...;-) Compare apples with apples,
oranges with oranges...;-)
>At least you write back.....
Oh, can I ever resist not responding to you...?! ;-)
>Hope you have a Merry Christmas and that the Sony Elves drop off a nice gift
>to you. (Careful, the Canon Elves may put coal in your stocking)
>
>Jim Harvey
>JHV Digital
Thanks - but it appears the Canon Elves have already put
"coal" in your stocking! ;-) Perhaps the Sony Elves can
offer something better for you...;-), ;-), ;-)