>"Neuman - Ruether"
>news:3d946a09.27917206@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>> On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 09:26:41 -0700, "Paul Tauger"
>>
>> >First, thanks to all for the input on my pending camcorder selection,
>> >particularly Mr. Neuman-Ruether.
>> >
>> >Based on what everyone has said, I'm leaning very strongly towards the
>> >VX2000. I'll be in NY next week, and I'll make a pilgrimage to B&H or
>J&R
>> >and get some hands-on time with it.
>> >
>> >Before I commit to this purchase (which is going to make my wife freak!!!
>> >when she finds out the cost), is there anyone out there with negative
>things
>> >to say about this camera?
>> >
>> >I've heard the positives and, aside from the size and weight (which, I
>hope,
>> >will be manageable for travel videography), it really seems like the best
>of
>> >the bunch.
>> Overall, yes - though if low-light reach is not critical,
>> the TRV950 still looks interesting...;-) Main complaints
>> I have about the VX2000 (in addition to the size/weight
>> compared with those alluringly smaller/lighter cameras):
>Do you think it is too heavy to drag around all day? When we travel, my
>camcorder is my constant companion, along with a light-weight knapsack
>holding a monopod, extra batteries and tapes, polarizing filter and umbrella
>(the umbrella is for me ;) ).
I carry the VX2000 during much of the time in
long events without problems. It can be carried
in a bag, by the top handle, or by the side handle
I often use (that one has a big, soft-shaped handle,
made by Stitz). BTW, I've never found a monopod useful...
>> it is difficult to hold steady with the lens zoomed long
>> (I have a grip method now that works reasonably well if
>> I remember to use it - and I would not give up the VX2000
>> stabilizer's freedom from "bouncing-ball" effects at WA
>> to get more liquid motion at tele);
>I use the monopod for tele shots. It's not the ideal solution, because
>there is still some movement, but it's lots better than just hand holding.
>The other good thing about the monopod is I can use it in locations that
>don't allow tripods -- I just smile and say, "but it's not a tripod --
>look!" I usually can get away with it. I use a nice one I got from Adorama
>with a miniature ball head on the top.
I used to use a Stitz monopod that had a small set of legs
at the bottom, but motion was less smooth than hand-holding
with a good side-grip handle or with a left-side bar resting
on my left arm while holding the "blob" under the lens...
>>adding mics is not
>> as straight-forward as it could be (though not difficult,
>> once you know the camera's requirements - and I would not
>> give up the VX2000's wonderful AGC for easier compatibility
>> with some external mics);
>I can't imagine any situation in which I'll need to use an external mike
>with the camera. The only video situation I do in which I ever use external
>mikes is a three-camera shoot of a show I once a year; the audio comes from
>PA mix, but the show is live-switched and both audio and switched video go
>directly to the master tape -- the audio never comes near the cameras.
In this case, good "ambient" recordings are nice, and
the VX2000 does this well with the built-in mic (use a
windscreen if outside - see my web site [under "I babble"
for sources]). I often use two short-shotgun mics mounted
at slightly converging/diverging angles for "stereo" at
events with people nearby...
>> finding reasonably-priced
>> top-quality lens converters for some magnifications is
>> difficult (.5X and full-frame fisheye particularly);
>Though a fisheye could be fun, I don't think I'll ever _need_ one. On the
>other hand, a decent WA converter is pretty much essential. Since I'm
>shooting travel video, there are times when I just can't step back any
>further --I need the wide angle to get the subject in. I also like to use
>shots that approximate the field-of-view of the human eye. It helps
>recreate the "feel" of the place for me.
See "On Seeing and Perspective" on my web site...;-)
The fisheye ***IS*** the field of view of the human
eye - and has the same perspective...;-) But most WA
converters have spherical perspective anyway, so...;-)
See www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/WA-converters.htm for
a comparison of WA converters I've used on the VX2000
(missing, but interesting: the Century $800 fisheye,
and the new Raynox $330 full-frame fisheye).
>I may just bite the bullet and buy Sony's WA. I think it lists for around
>$400, which, I assume, means I can find it for $250 or so. Maybe I'll raid
>the change jar so my wife doesn't find out. ;)
About $270 at B&H, as I recall - but the cheaper
Canon WD-58 works VERY well on the VX2000...
>> shooting waterfalls can result in odd "diagonally chopped"
>> image effects.
>Do you mean real waterfalls, like Niagara Falls? I'm not sure I understand
>this. I assume you're not talking about stairstep artifacts.
It looks like "chopping", where a fairly thin strand of
water that stands out from its surroundings appears
as a vertical stack of diagonal slices - not the same
as stairstepping, and it appears unique to the VX2000.
I shoot a lot of waterfalls footage (we have a LOT of
them around here), so this is annoying to me. It
happens even at 1/60th second...
>>But on the other side is a slew of nice
>> things to say about the VX2000, so...;-) For more, see
>> my review at:
>> www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/sony_dcr-vx2000.htm.
>Your review was the main influence in my decision to get the VX2000.
>Thanks!
Oh-oh! ;-)