>I know this subject appears to be beaten to death (I've read most of the
>posts) but a video newbie needs help fast.
>
>I currently have a Sony TRV510 and a PC100. Both pretty much consumer
>cameras. I couldn't afford a pro-sumer when I bought the 510 2 years ago
>and I needed a small camera when I bought the 100 about 8 months ago.
>
>Now, I need a better camera to shoot travel trips, seminars, trade shows
>and various events for a client. The shooting ranges from beaches to
>flourescent lit convention halls to pitch black coliseums with bright
>stages. Most of their videos end up as streaming video (56k to 500K) but
>sometimes they want to dup it onto VHS and send out 3 or 400 copies.
>
>Two problems: 1. I don't look very professional running around their
>events with these cameras. 2. I'm looking for a little better image
>quality.
>
>We are a web dev. firm that handles video for our clients. (Everybody
>seems to want a video clip somewhere on their site now) So, we don't have
>10's of 1000's of dollars for hardware and expertise to go professional
>but we want to produce something better looking than our clients 12 year
>old sons with their newest dv cameras.
>
>I have read tons of posts on these cameras and only seem to be more
>confused now. I was originally headed straight for Sony because I've
>generally been happy with their stuff but I began reading about the Canon
>and know they make good equipment too.
All the 3-chip cameras you mention are reviewed at:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm
>My questions are:
>1. Are the VX2000 and XL1 REALLY pretty much the same for an intermediate
>user?
No. I prefer the image quality of the VX-2000 (sharper
image, better color, less "oversharpening" artifacts),
the sound of the XL-1 (more control, better "native" sound),
and the lens controls of the VX-2000 (AF and MF are
excellent, as is AE - the XL-1 is a nightmare to control
for focus and exposure [AF, MF, and AE are relatively poor]).
The XL-1 is about twice the weight, and awkward to hold
for long periods (though I prefer its stabilizer for some
purposes). The large battery on the VX-2000 completely
solves the power issue. It is hard to fit good, inexpensive
WA converters on the XL-1, and its prime WA is expensive,
short of zoom range, and without stabilization. The VF on
the VX-2000 is better - and its fold-out panel is sometimes
useful (missing on XL-1). The VX-2000 low-light ability is
very noticeably better.
>2. Why is there such a huge price difference on the VX2000? (list $3999 to
>best price of $2049) Is there a new model due out soon?
No. But a "realistic" price is closer to $2500 for the
VX-2000...
>3. If the two cameras are very similar what would justify a $1300 price
>difference? (XL1 lowest price = $3300)
Nothing, unless you MUST have interchangeable lenses
(then I would look at the JVC 500...).
>4. Is the GL1 a comparable camera? (Couldn't find many posts but those I
>did were very positive.)
No. I consider it the "bottom end" camera in this group.
It's picture is full of negative artifacts, it is the
least sharp of this group, its sound is very "colored",
and sound controls are VERY limited. Look at the TRV-900
as a better alternative for most (but not all) types of
shooting...
>5. Is there much image quality difference between my PC100 and the VX2000?
>(both have 1/3 CCD but the 100 has 1070k and the 2000 has 3x380) The way
>I understand CCD is that 3 CCDs render RGB separate on each chip and one
>chip must render them beside each other therefore a single CCD would
>render same image as 3 CCDs of 1/3 resolution.
In terms of resolution only, the PC100 (I just got one)
is surprisingly sharp - but the picture is very "busy",
the saturation and color quality is noticeably inferior
to the VX-2000 (or any of the 3-chippers mentioned here...),
and the tonal range is limited. In other words, you
can shoot good-quality video with any of the cameras
here, but it would be hardest with the PC100, and easiest
with the VX-2000 of all mentioned...
>We edit on Premier for PC and iMovie (don't laugh, it may be primitive but
>it's got a very shallow learning curve and puts it together fairly well)
>on a MAC and export to a streaming encoder or back to DV for duping to VHS.
>
>Thanks for taking the time to read this long post and I sincerely
>appreciate any response.
>
>(PS - Did I mention that I have to have this in hand by Tues. June 26 for
>a major event in FL :-)
This is unwise - ANY gear, new or used, should be tested
before use to check for defects, and one should acquaint
oneself with it somewhat before serious use. The VX-2000
has available "custom picture controls" that interact
and can get you into trouble, but they can also improve
the picture over the stock settings. The audio can drive
you nuts on this camera (but is quite good, when
understood). For somewhat more conventional audio, with
XLR connectors, you may want to look at the PD150 version...