He isn't "raving" - he is simply listing the
known shortcomings of this camera, mostly from
personal experience with this camera and with
others. What he says is in agreement with the
reportings of other people who have owned or
used the XL-1 and other similarly-priced cameras.
You can dismiss what he (or anyone else) says
and hide your head in the sand, but for what
purpose? Truth is truth, and hiding from it is
silly...;-) It isn't that the XL-1 is unusable
(though it can be difficult to use...;-), or
terrible, or that it may not be the best
choice for some very specific purposes, but
for general use, there are better choices
in its price range... Arguing against this,
or dismissing it, is as useless as arguing
that the day should be sunny when it is
cloudy, or saying that it is sunny when it
is cloudy - it is pointless...;-). Better to
spend your efforts hollering at Canon to
improve its products and pricing...

On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 17:32:56 GMT, "nappy" wrote:
>
>rave on my man.. rave on!

>"Dan" wrote in message
>news:36ce83b5.0203190847.75e19905@posting.google.com...
>> "> Others will fill in the blanks:
>> >
>> > The Canon XL1 would be a perfect camera if:
>>
>> 1. It came with XLR inputs
>>
>> 2. It had a B&W viewfinder
>>
>> 3. It had a usable zoom control
>>
>> 4. It didn't have focus problems
>>
>> 5. It didn't have LESS actual playback resolution than a TRV900
>> (see chart at the bottom of
>> http://www.dv.com/magazine/2001/0301/kato0301.html)
>>
>> 6. It wasn't an akward and unbalanced camera once you add XLR inputs
>> and an extra battery pack to it.
>>
>> 7. The tape-loading process didn't take an annoyingly long amount of
>> time.
>>
>> 8. The picture actually looked as good as comparibly priced (or
>> cheaper) cameras. (Opinion)
>>
>> 9. The 'Spotlight' mode worked worth a darn. Everytime I've used it
>> on a spotlighted figure on a dark stage it has been a disaster.
>>
>> 10. It's accessories weren't all severly over-priced.
>>
>> If all these problems were fixed you'd have a great camera. I doubt
>> it would be able to stand up to the quality of $15000-$25000 cameras,
>> but it would definitely be worth the $3500 people ask for it.
>>
>> Picture is a matter of taste, but I have never run into anyone (and
>> I've worked as a videographer for a while) who perfered the XL-1
>> picture to the VX2000/PD150/DSR250 picture. Never. We're often shot
>> with the two cameras side by side and later cut the footage together.
>> You can ALWAYS spot the XL1 footage because it just doesn't look as
>> good. Especially when you're taping something like a choral concert
>> and you have the XL-1 on 'wide'. It just kills the picture.
>>
>> Other people have obviously had a different experience with the XL1
>> and XL1s. I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has achieved a
>> better picture on the XL1 or XL1(s) than they could with the
>> comparable Sony models. TELL ME THE SECRET! I'd love to turn the
>> $6000 (several additions on it) junky XL1 in our shop into a
>> high-quality camcorder that delivered an excellent picture.
>>
>> -Dan