I like the VX-2000, too - I bought two of them to
replace my two VX-1000s. But I don't shy away from
pointing out that "new, improved" models are not
always improved in every respect... The observations
made below are from my experience with both, and
I simply cannot get smooth, vibration-free footage
hand-held from my VX-2000s zoomed long; I could with
my VX-1000s. Your experience (for whatever reasons)
may be different, and we would like to hear that - but
it is unneccessary to impune the motives of others
who may differ from you in reporting these observations...
Take them for what they are - one person's observations.
(And, if you read what I said carefully, I think you
will find there is little in what I said that disagrees
with your observations - so your comments on this
reporter seem all the more unnecessary...;-)

On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 08:35:15 -0500, "Steve Sakellarios" wrote:

>This all sounds knowledgeable, but all I can say is I've been shooting for
>11 years, and recently I shot 5 hours of hand-held, in-the-round meetings
>working the periphery of a circle of people with the VX-2000. I had
>redundant audio from two mics running into a separate deck. I was maybe
>10-12 feet from the person(s) I was taping much of the time (they made the
>circle larger than I had wanted), and I zoomed in very tight on many of
>these shots from that distance. In all respects the VX-2000 performed every
>bit as well as my old VX-1000 which I've been working with for years (I have
>a tutorial on that camera posted at digitalproducer.com). I didn't
>experience any problems with the viewfinder, audio (both controlling it and
>the end-results), or image stability. The VX-2000 has the added benefit that
>you can monitor the audio in the viewfinder.
>
>I think sometimes people like to report problems and get technical because
>it makes them sound impressive. But the "proof is in the puffing", and this
>camera puffed just fine for me. The image quality and low-light capacity is
>observably improved over the VX-1000.
>Steve S.

>Neuman - Ruether wrote in message
>news:3a7ce896.6878929@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>> On 30 Jan 2001 02:39:14 GMT, kingjim69@aol.com (KINGJIM69)
>> wrote:
>> [some of this was covered in an earlier direct email...]
>>
>> >I will probably get the vx2k for a backup to my dsr300.I tried the 150
>out ,but
>> >can live without the xtras and save 1000.00.
>>
>> The difference may be considerably less, now...
>>
>> >is the audio ok on it.
>>
>> Yes - but it is not without quirks. The audio on the VX-1000
>> was easier to deal with and had more typical AGC levels.
>> The AGC on the VX-2000 is more like average-level manual
>> with a bit of peak-limiting, giving more sense of dynamics,
>> but with a resulting lower average level than usual. Also,
>> the common mini-plug mics "plaster" the AGC, since their
>> output is so much higher than the built-in mic, making a
>> "pad" pretty necessary. In addition, hum with external mics
>> is common on the VX-2000.
>>
>> >And on the color viewfinder, how crisp is it.i wont be using the
>flipout.but im
>> >so used to b/w vf,that a color one seems consumerish.
>>
>> Yes, and its only adjustment is between fixed "normal" and
>> "brighter" settings - I prefer the latter for its better
>> prediction of exposure. Both of mine are slightly more
>> red than the final image, also. I preferred the larger
>> VX-1000 finder, and its color could be dialed out, leaving
>> a slightly sharper B&W image...
>>
>> >is it a true read of what youre shooting?
>>
>> Not bad, once you have gotten used to it...
>>
>> >I know when i tried out the 150 flipout,the actual picture was darker
>than what
>> >the flipout screen showed,which it appeared brigher.
>>
>> Yes - this also has only two brightness settings, unlike
>> with earlier Sony camcorders (common, Sony, why the backward
>>
>> steps?!) - and since these are so hard to see in all but low
>> light, the two settings were set brighter than "normal", I
>> guess...
>>
>> >can i color out the color like i can on the vx1000 and have b/w in the
>vf?
>>
>> Nope! Another "improvement"....!
>> Then there is that VX-2000 stabilizer - better at the short
>> end, with less "bouncing-ball" effect, but worse at the long
>>
>> end on the VX-2000, where the stabilizer is most needed...
>> The VX-1000 is MUCH easier to hold steady with the
>> stabilizer on and the lens zoomed long than the VX-2000 is.
>> BTW, there are reviews of several Mini-DV camcorders
>> on my web site, at:
>> www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm