On Sun, 7 Jul 2002 18:13:36 +0200, "Jonathan Gift" wrote:

>I've been asking around about teh JVC and got a lot of positive feedback,
>Thanks again to all the help.
>
>But, forgeting the additional features the JVC500 has over the XL1, and the
>1/2"CC and low light shooting... How does the picture quality compare to
>that of the Canon XL1 or Sony VX2000? Is that the same, or vastly different,
>especially when teh end result is to be transferred to film.
>
>I'm hearing the VX 200, so indirectly the XL1, is as good a picture as the
>JVC 500. True?
>
>Since my primary purpose isn't video production, but video to film, I don't
>need a complex camera. I just need what will give me the best finished
>picture. If both will look the same in transferring to film, that is an
>answer as well.

Best resolution: VX2000, DV500 (look at the
Panasonic 200, also...).
Best low-light range and low-light picture:
VX2000, DV500 (and possibly P...).
Best color: VX2000, DV500 (and P...?).
Greatest control over picture characteristics:
DV500 (and P...?).
Greatest freedom from negative picture
artifacting: probably VX2000.
All operate differently, with the VX2000
(look also at the similar PD150) having the
best auto controls, the big shoulder-mounts the
best manual controls. Picture characteristics
like contrast, subtle-color handling, etc.
vary, with some offering more useful controls
over picture characteristics than others...
For more on the non-shoulder-mount types, see:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/sony_dcr-vx2000.htm
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm
and for image references, see:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/vid_pict_characts.htm
(the "key" gives the cameras used for the examples,
though note that the XL-1 reviewed in the articles
is not the "s", which may have slightly different
picture characteristics...).