On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 20:06:49 +0000, Moving Vision wrote:

>Just to throw my tuppence worth in. As a maker of broadcast programmes,
>we have used the XL1 and it has been a most awkward camera to use with a
>disappointing picture quality. Much of our use of compact DV's has been
>in the same programmes as SP, Digi Beta and even 16mm material. These
>days we use the PD150 for such programmes, but more importantly within
>the context of this debate, we'd rather use the venerable old VX1000
>than the XL1. The VX1000 has better ergonomics and control, better sound
>and a nicer picture, despite resolving only 460 lines compared to the
>XL1's 500. The PD150's achieve 540 (All specs. are for PAL models)
>
>The 150's lens is excellent and the addition of any good quality
>adapter, wide, telephoto or filter has no depreciable affect. With the
>anamorphic adapter from Century or Optex the 150 can mix (full frame
>images) seamlessly with the big boys.
>
>John Lubran

Thanks for your words of experience. Unfortunately,
many with "Canon-religion" will not hear them - some
would rather "believe" than accept as true the
observations of deficiencies that are contrary to what
they want to believe...;-) Very strange...;-) I compared
the XL-1 with the VX1000 and others (NTSC) quite a ways
back (www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm),
and included descriptions of the strengths and weakness of
the various camcorders. You can guess what model was owned
by most of those objecting to my observations...;-) I
attribute this to the excellence of Canon marketing; to do
otherwise raises too many unsettling questions...;-)