On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:06:45 -0500, "Dirk J. Bakker" wrote:

>Like it or not David it was designers at CANON that had anything to do
>with its looks. If you re-read the numerous silly threads and are honest
>to yourself, you will see a number of reasons that are attributed by the
>detractors, as being held by us, when in fact they have NO WAY of
>knowing what infact is suitable, much less have stated them. It is this
>that I refer to, but folk are famous for only seeing what is convenient
>to their cause.

???????????
I find that paragraph unreadable...

>Matter of fact I got a chuckle reading the review that one of you guys
>pointed us to in defense of the Sony's 8% improvement in resolution.

Perhaps stating it that way was not a good idea - but an
*on tape* difference between 460 lines and 500 lines is
quite obvious...

>The reviewer spoke of the nearly useless flip-out LCD, of the
>viewfinder, which by pointing straight back limits the handling of your
>camera. I have not had a PD-150 in my hands, so I can only rely on the
>merit (and accuracy) of the reviewer's word and observations. Yet not
>one of you speak of these issues.

Mebbe 'cuz the reviewer wuz wrong, perhaps? ;-)
The LCD screen points up, down, backwards, whatever...
Hardly important, though, compared with the basic
image differences (the viewer of the footage doesn't
care about anything but the image quality, which
is different...).

>Not that I care one way or another, as
>I realistically believe nothing made by man is perfect. I've read
>elsewhere about some Hiss issues. So to feign all-out disclosure is
>humorous at best.

Obviously you have not read my reviews at:
www.ferrario.com/camcorder-comparison.htm. I cover the
faults of all the cameras, as well as their virtues; to do
otherwise would make comparison and conclusions impossible. Also try:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm, if you
want to see how hard I am on some Sony cameras...;-)

>But explain why one "should" come to the defense of a camera one is NOT
>familiar with? I miss that point entirely. Can only folk that have had
>several cameras qualify to state their experience? Maybe I should have
>read this in the FAQ? Or is just part of the "welcome wagon's" modus
>operandi?

??????????????????
Ah, reading the below, I "get" it...;-)
That's the point - Canon folks holler that "Canon is
better!" at the drop of a "non-glowing word" ***WITHOUT***
comparisons, which makes that conclusion rather silly...
You rarely get this from Sony, Panasonic, JVC, etc.
owners - just the Canon owners appear bereft of reason
and logic at times when defending their marque...;-)

>Neuman - Ruether wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:58:06 -0500, "Dirk J. Bakker"
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Nappy,
>>>
>>>It's nice to hear that there is a positive side to XL1 ownership. I
>>>have a feeling that these fowl once they've made up their mind are not
>>>about to have anyone knock them off their perch. Much less get confused
>>>by the facts.
>>>
>>>I notice one salient point that seems to get caught in their craw is the
>>>"look" of the camera. And somehow, because of this prejudice anyone
>>>having acquired one can not possibly be serious about their
>>>hobby/craft/job. This skewed "logic" seems to take the turn that since
>>>there IS another camera (more sensible, after all, it was what they
>>>chose once) then anything they see no need for in their work is
>>>superfluous and therefore suspect. Their feathers do get ruffled with
>>>the slightest amount of wind.
>>>
>>>Funny them birds.
>>>
>>
>>[Ah, I know better, but the temptation is just too
>>great...;-]
>>It appears to me that it is ***ALWAYS*** the "Canon-lovers"
>>who bring up the looks issue, as a "positive" attribute of
>>the XL-1. The supposed detractors could care less what the
>>camera looks like, but it is often the "sold" who mention it
>>as at least part of the buying decision... Funny, too, when
>>solid issues of performance and control are raised, the
>>arguments is always turned toward XL-1 "versatility",
>>though few ever take advantage of it... And it is the
>>"Canon-lovers" who spring immediately to the defense of
>>the "poor, maligned" XL-1, though they rarely, if ever,
>>spring to the defense of any other camcorder when its
>>shortcomings are noted - while the owners of other models
>>generally simply acknowledge the shortcomings of their
>>cameras instead of offering preposterous arguments...;-)
>>This behavior on the part of "Canon-lovers" is readily
>>and often observable on these video NGs, yet what you
>>report is not...;-)
>>
>>Funny, them thar "Canon-birds"...;-)