Hi--


Thanks for your kind and thoughtful reply about my decision to purchase
a Canon GL1 instead of a Sony VX2000.

I'm not sure how to proceed...;-)
In many fields I'm familiar with, there tend to be "splits", with
adherents of two differing approaches taking their separate ways.
In these, I generally appreciate the work/approach of the other side,
though it is not mine... When it comes to choice of tools in video,
though, I guess we will just need to accept disagreement - neither will
convince the other (or, apparently, understand the other...;-). In
video,
some of this, from what you said, stems from the desire to achieve
"film-look" for video, a concept I find absurd... (they are two quite
different media, each with its technical advantages/disadvantages, and
attempts to make one look like the other, for me, just result in
bastardization, with losses and no gains...). (One trusts that you are
not attracted to the Canon PS-mode for its look on a computer monitor,
since that non-interlaced viewing system is quite different from the
interlaced view on TV - and if you shoot for web-video, in the process
of conversion and compression, deinterlacing occurs anyway). Choosing
not only a lower-resolution camera, but then a mode that reduces spatial
resolution further, and temporal resolution further yet, seems odd...
Video is low enough in resolution already - I would not throw away ANY
resolution, unless I wanted a particular "look" - which can then be
achieved in post (50% transparency of a softened and saturated overlay
can look "spiffy", but I would not use it all the time...). I look for
the best technical performance in a video camera, not a "look" which
can be simulated in post...


Since this is a subject that you take seriously, let me tell you of a
few more things which influenced my decision.

Importantly, the GL1 was about $500 less than the VX2000. That is a
significant amount.

It is, but prices I've seen at B&H would indicate less difference.
But even if real, I would gladly pay it for the better picture...

The VX2000 had too many features that I had no interest in, like the
digital photography stuff.

Yes, there is a long list of "buttons" on it I don't use, but ones
I do want are there AE-A, AE-bias, color hue and saturation control,
sharpening that does not start from a "0" that is already far to
"sharpened" (with dark and light "halos" on contrasty edges), etc.

I do not record sound, so that did not factor. I am a pro editor
(nearly 20 years in the "biz") and I am renting the GL1 during edit
sessions to pick up shots that the producers decide they need.

But if you ever do need to pick up sound.....;-)


As I am primarily a film editor, the "film" mode of the Canon cameras is
very desirable. I am told that the technical specificatons that Canon
uses to make that "look" are only available from Canon. I have not seen
it in any other camera.


True, but see above...;-)

Very importantly, as I was able to use both cameras at a local retailer
for about a week, I really liked the design and placement of controls on
the GL1. I have shot a lot of film and I am used to film cameras. The
Canon engineers clearly tried to mimic a film camera. I really felt
comfortable using it. Everything was where I wanted it to be and did
what I wanted it to do easily.

I liked some of the controls on the Canons (and said so, in the reviews,
as I recall...), though the Canon auto controls (and some manual ones)
were insufferable, especially on the XL-1...


As for image qualty, I didn't think there was an important difference.
The Sony looked more "real" than the Canon. I prefer watching film, so
the Canon look is more preferable in an electronic camera. In case you
didn't know it, video editors spend an enormous amount of time trying to
make video look like film. Most people attribute the Canon cameras
"film" look to the lens. This is probably a factor.

I doubt it - I've had this "discussion" in the still world, and
(mostly),
it is hooey - or the preference was based on a technical deficiency
(yes, people sometimes do prefer the look of inferior gear...;-).

When you combine
the Canon lens with the "film" mode, you have a DV cam producing a very
beautiful film look. I just could not get that look with the VX2000.

Try manipulations in post... What happens with the Canon when you
want to show maximum sharpness, especially when combined with motion?
You can't do that in post - it must be shot that way...


Also considered were the excessive digital zoom capabilty of the
VX2000, which I find to be useless for my needs. And the longer body of
the VX2000, which I felt to be obtrusive. And the very "plastic" look
of the VX2000, which really bugged me.

Never use digital zoom; the VX-2000 is hardly obtrusive (have you SEEN
an XL-1...? ;-); close your eyes when viewing the exterior of the
VX-2000...;-)


These are all practical matters which NOBODY pointed out a few months
ago when I asked for opinions as to which camera was superior in the
forum. That is why I used the term "ergonomics" to make my point. The
layout of controls and size of the GL1 beat the pants off the VX2000 in
terms of ease of use and portability. When I held the VX2000 I felt
like I was holding any other camcorder I have ever operated. When I
held the GL1 I felt like I was holding my favorite Braun-Nizo Super 8mm
film camera. Fit like a glove.

Then it is "your" camera...


So why shoud I spend $500 more for a VX2000? I think Sony missed the
boat on this one.

To me, choosing a GL-1 is like someone into driving paying $40,000 for
a Ford Contour when for $50,000 a Corvette can be had (comfy, and
pleasant
to drive, but....;-) - and buying an XL-1 is like paying $70,000 just
for the tractor part of a Mack truck (lotsa expensive parts are needed
to
complete it, and even then it is not better than the Corvette for
driving...;-). For $2400 the VX-2000 gives you the best picture under
$10,000, plenty of control over that picture, decent sound, and a
portable
package. Though a few characteristics are not optimum, the basics
are, at a bargain price... Hardly "missing the boat" (one wonders why
the BBC and other large organization uses so many of them to shoot
broadcast material...;-).

I very much prefer their PD150 over the Canon cameras
for pro location video shooting, but I was not looking for a pro camera
in this case. I wanted a prosumer camera for home and basic
work-related pickup shots, and I narrowed it down to the GL1 and the
VX2000.

The VX-2000 and PD-150 are virtually identical...;-)
I hear the BBC uses a self-contained XLR mic preamp, fed
into the line-level input of the VX-2000, giving some advantages...

For those wanting realistic looking images for wedding
videography under low light, the VX2000 is the choice. For those who
want a more "ethereal" look, like me, I gotta go with the GL1.

So, I hope you can understand why the film community has embraced these
cameras. It has little to do with advertising and a lot to do with
lenses and the "feel" of the image.

I discount lenses, and the other is still a mystery... In PAL, one
could understand the usefulness of PS-mode (even with its disadvantages)
for direct film transfer - but I gather that for NTSC, film transfer
is better done from interlaced material...


By the way, I received quite a few international responses from
cinematographers who actually prefer the look of the GL1 image over the
XL1. And also from pros who use both the GL/XL1 and VX2000 in their
work, relegating the VX2000 to studio tabletop work or copy stand work
due to its more "real" look, and using the Canons in the field.

If you look critically at the GL-1 (and XL-1) image, the oversharpened
edges look hardly "film-like" and are poor for video also. The off-color
of both can be corrected in post. The heavy stairstepping and Moire
patterning of the GL-1 cannot, as cannot the lower inherent resolution
of the GL-1 and XL-1 compared with the VX-2000/PD-150. I choose to start
with the best, most neutral image - after that, I can make it anything I
want...


Well David, I hope you can understand my choice. It really seems that
you have a lot of negativity toward Canon. They make a couple of
beautiful looking cameras that have revolutionized the film/video
production industry. Can't we give them a little credit?
MNWagner@webtv.net (Mark and Nancy Wagner)

Not really...;-)
They are over-priced under-performers relative to their reputations...;-
)
But that doesn't stop people from buying less than the best at high
prices
in any field...;-) And I find annoying extraneous things, like the
"looks"
(guess that's why I don't like overpriced, under-performing, rigid-
format,
plastic-goo-covered, difficult-to-expand-internally Macs
"attractive"...;-).
If you have an attachment to the GL-1 and feel most comfortable with it,
by all means buy it - you do not need my approval (or even
understanding)
to do this (heck, I like using the Sony TRV11 - it is VERY comfortable,
easy to use, and has a pleasant image [but I rarely use it
professionally,
and when I do, it is for a reason, and I feel no need to justify it to
a client, you, or anyone else...! ;-]). Buy and use what *you* like -
and
ignore what anyone else says/uses (you are the one who must be
satisfied!).