On Sun, 25 Nov 2001 09:19:09 GMT, "Alexander Ibrahim" wrote:

>David,
>
>You are a nut on this matter.

Oh, heck, can I resist responding to this...?
'Course not...! ;-)
Methinks you are the nut on this - you defend the
XL-1 choice based not on overal performance capability,
but on relatively obscure functional capabilities...;-)

>Some of the "weak" arguments you refer to are just things that do not
>matter to you.
>
>It seems to me like you'd never ever use the flexibility of an XL-1
>and so never seriously consider it.
>
>You'd never want to mount EF lenses for tele work like birdwatching or
>surveillance...fine. others find it compelling.

A small minority of users, yes - but for these, these
features may be important...;-) There is no one choice
for ALL work, though for MOST work (using a Mini-DV
camcorder, hand-held type), there *is* a "best" camera
(the VX-2000/PD150...;-).

>You'd never want to use a fully manual lens on your video camera. Fine
>others are anxious to do so, and find it compelling.

On an XL-1, you need to - the auto controls are so poor. ;-)
And the VF is so poor, you then need to spend a noticeable
percentage of the basic camera price to add a good
finder...;-) Then there is that basic zoom, with those
miserable manual controls... Add an optional lens with
good manual controls, and the overall price raises things
into "good camera" territory...;-)

>You are happy with VX2000 audio, fine others are not and prefer the
>XL-1.

The XL-1 audio is good (and versatile), as I point out in my
reviews; the VX-2000 audio is also good, but less versatile;
the PD150 audio is as good and more versatile (and it has
XLRs and phantom power, without the need to add adapters).

>The XL-1 is heavier. Believe it or not, that is an advantage in some
>cases. I'll agree that having a lighter unit is often an advantage
>too, but people have to weigh this for themselves. (pun intended sad
>as that may be...)

If the weight were properly placed on the shoulder, instead
of awkwardly out front, I would agree that the 2X weight
difference could be an advantage, rather than a "drag"...;-)
But.......;-) Also, I often use multiple cameras on
location, and doubling (or more, with the accessories
needed for the XL-1) the size/weight/packing-awkwardness
would be a serious "drag" for me...;-)

>The VX2000 has modestly better low light than the XL-1. Some people
>don't care, we use these crazy "light" thingies...

"Modestly" is not the term I would use...! ;-)
It can handle low light a LOT better than the XL-1,
with a smoother, better-coloed image to boot! ;-)
One can shoot in good quality, without the disturbance
of lights, things XL-1 users can only dream of...! ;-)
I shot a dark green car at night in the rain recently
(illuminated only by a distant porch light) that looked
great on screen (good blacks, good color, no "bouncing
golfball" grain). Can't be done with an XL-1, sorry...!;-)
This use (low-light shooting) is far more common, BTW,
than wanting to use Canon teles on a video camera...;-)

>Some people like the longer Canon optics. I for one NEVER use digital
>zoom on a real production. The best DV cam for this is the Canon GL-1
>20x, followed by the XL-1 at 16x. Some people are happy with digital
>zoom, and I for one think that the Sony's digital zoom is better.

I agree with the above. ***Specifically*** for
long-lens use, the Canon options are better...;-)
I also recommend them (in spite of my reservations
about their overall image quality) to people who have
that *specific* need...;-). 12X vs 16X isn't much in
practice, but 20X vs 12X is, as is the (expensive/awkward)
ability to mount Canon still optics on the XL-1. I have
never needed optics this long (and air quality limits
when/where you can use them), but some people may need them,
and consider having this ability more important than having
the best image quality or better low-light ability...;-)

>You don't like the way XL-1 video looks, its warmness and other
>features. You do like the cool blue Sony look. Fine that is
>aesthetics, but realize that some find the Canon look just as
>compelling.

The Sony "look" can be modified. I choose not to have
all footage "look" redish...;-) With the Sony, you
can adjust the cool/warm axis (and also have a "red"
picture, or shoot it neutral in balance - your choice),
and also the edge-sharpening (in the neutral position,
this sharpening is subtle, unlike the Canon in which it
is already too high in the neutral position [giving
"halos" on contrasty edges] - and picture resolution
is inherently higher in the Sony before any adjustment),
the saturation, the AE-bias - and the color of the
Sony with which subtle tints are demonstrably better-
rendered than with the XL-1. You choose to have a tinted,
color-poor image with excess "haloing" in preference
to better resolution and color-neutrality and the ability
to show both saturated and subtle colors well...??? ;-)
A mystery, why you continually defend this more expensive,
less able performer...;-)

>For some the VX2000's somewhat sharper CCD's are a critical
>consideration. It is not like the VX2000 is Digibeta and the XL-1 is
>Pixelvision...the difference is subtle in most circumstances. In fact
>for many users there is NO practical difference because their TV's
>can't display all the resolution of the cameras, or...they recieve VHS
>end products. I am doing broadcast work, and the cable/satellite
>systems in my area limit resolution more than the XL-1.

In resolution ***systems***, it is not that the lower
resolution "link" determines the resultant resolution,
it is an interaction that determines it - increasing
the resolution of any part will (subtly...) increase
the final resolution. Higher resolution *is* better...! ;-)
Look at broadcast TV on a good TV - you can easily see
the difference in sharpness of various camera types,
even though the broadcast resolution limit is a relatively
low 340 lines (NTSC), well below the capabilities of either
the XL-1 or VX2000/PD150, let alone the 'spensive stuff
often used...;-) But, yes, on VHS the resolution advantage
of the VX2000 picture relative to the XL-1 picture may
be subtle (but other picture characteristics may be less
so - and even if not, all else being equal, I prefer
having the sharper image available...). Why shoot all
your footage with a camera of lower resolution capability,
if you have the choice? I often use various Sony
one-chippers, with all their picture defects relative
to the VX2000 (or even the TRV900), but when I'm going
for best picture quality.....;-)

>I don't think any of these things are wrong on your behalf, not at
>all. In fact, knowing this about you I would recommend a VX2000...your
>favorite MiniDV cam.
>
>Would you recommend a VX2000 to ME knowing that all of the above are
>important factors to me ? Do you think the VX2000 pictuer is so grand
>that I should ignore all my other requirements and desires and by
>what, for me, is an inferior camera ?

It is inferior in only one respect, for you - its tele
range. As I said, I have and do recommend the Canon
products to those who have a specific, over-riding need
for long glass - but for most uses, I recommend the
otherwise superior VX2000/PD150... This is basic:
I would not recommend more expensive, lower-performance
gear to people for uses other than the specific ones
for which accepting general-use limitations is appropriate.
(BTW, for those who have not seen them, my reviews are at:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm - I think
if you read them, you will find them reasonably unbiased,
and you may wonder [as I do...;-] why Canon owners are so
defensive about their choices...;-)

>So, David, where are the weak arguments ? Where are the statements
>that do not matter to any camcorder users ?

(Covered, above...;-)

>The whole point is that the XL-1 is DIFFERENT from the VX2000. Not
>better or worse, just different.

Overall, it is the inferior performer, at a higher cost in
size/weight/price, but with specific capabilities that make
it a good choice for a few...;-)

>So, rather than dogmatically pointing to camera X when people ask, I
>ask them some questions first. Different users have different needs.
>You aren't making commission on these things so...take the time and
>ask questions.

If someone asks, without qualification, which overall is the
best camera, the answer is easy; if someone asks which is
the best for specific purposes, I then answer that to the
best of my ability. Given that the picture is in several
ways better on the VX2000/PD150, as is the useability
(better manual lens controls, better auto controls, more
[useable] control over picture characteristics, better
packaging [smaller size/weight, easier packing], better
viewfinder, longer battery run-time with cheap/compact
solutions, easier/cheaper wide-angle solutions, etc.),
I would not generally recommend the XL-1 (or the GL-1)
over the VX2000/PD150 (or even the TRV900, whose picture
I consider about equal to the XL-1, at a FAR lower cost
in size/price/weight...).

>AAMOF, I'd recommend to every old timer on the group to ask people to
>be very specific about their intended use of the camera. The Xl-1 is
>better for some, the VX2000 for others, the JVC DV500 is another
>option...there are more choices than these.

I agree with this, in terms of the person asking...
But for 90% of uses, the Sony solution is the better one,
so I tend not to dig for the specifics that would make
the Canon solution the better one in spite of the better
overall performance of the Sony solution...;-) Again,
for specific uses, or for different preferences in
shooting style, there are solutions more appropriate,
but for those asking for something like, "the best
Mini-DV camcorder, budget around $2500-$3500 max.", it
is not often that the answer can be other than "the
VX2000/PD150/TRV900" - these just plain offer better
value than the Canon solutions for most uses...
(this is an opinion, based on observations - but what
else is anyone asking for but a knowledgeable opinion
based on actual experience and comparisons...?;-).

BTW, I was content to let this recurrent "discussion"
lie dormant (I'm mystified by "Canon religion"...;-),
but it was *you* who raised it again...;-) I enjoy your
posts - most are quite thoughtful, insightful, and
relevant - but I think you tend to go a bit astray when
trying to defend the indefensible...;-), ;-). ;-)
I consider you honest, and even with a bit of the
"Canon religion", unlike some, you can engage in a
reasonable discussion...
Thanks.