On Fri, 04 Aug 2000 04:03:56 GMT, "Matthew Loel T. Hepworth" wrote:

>I was all set to get a Canon XL1. It does have the "ooh...ahh" factor, and
>I thought that would be really important. I imagine it's a rush to pull out
>a groovy-looking camera and have the client gush over how cool it looks.
>
>I'd also seen some work done with an XL1, and I was impressed by it's
>quality of capture.
>
>But then I saw a friend's work he'd done with a Sony TRV900. I was amazed.
>The quality was every bit as good as the XL1, and perhaps a bit better. But
>I also realized something else; My friend with the TRV900 knows how to
>shoot, and edit.
>
>It's sometimes difficult for people to forget about gear, and concentrate on
>ability instead. So I purchased a TRV900 and have since immersed myself in
>learning how to become a better videographer.
>
>So if a potential client asks me, "Why do shoot with that little piece of
>crap", I'll tell him, "Because it's the camera will produce the best
>results." And then I'll hand him a demo video of my work to prove it.

Good if it works! ;-)
I just finished editing a video shot with the one-chip
Sony TRV-9 (last in picture-quality in my camcorder
comparison article, at:
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm),
and the 3-chip Panasonic AG-EZ30U. With some work in post,
you cannot tell in the edited video what shot what footage,
even in poor light... Even so, each camcorder has particular
strengths and weaknesses in picture characteristics, and
it is easy to prefer one blend of characteristics over
another. BTW (from later in this thread...), if you want
camcorders with minimal red-bloom compared with the
TRV-900 (and even the VX-2000, if you are not careful), try the
VX-1000 or EZ30U - or just be careful to avoid overexposure
(both the TRV-900 and VX-2000 tend to overexpose in
auto mode unless considerable AE bias is applied).