On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 15:13:14 GMT, "Alexander Ibrahim" wrote:
>"Neuman - Ruether" wrote in message
>news:3c7cfb45.3371155@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>> On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 00:41:34 GMT, "robbie"
>> wrote:

>> >Which is better? Why?

>> With no further qualification, I would say, "PD150"
>> (better picture, greater low-light range, better lens
>> controls, much better auto-controls, more useable
>> picture controls, longer run-time on cheap/light
>> batteries, lighter/smaller/easier-to-pack, cheaper
>> [for basic camera-lens, with good WA solutions, and
>> also for "well-equipped"]). Sound quality/capability
>> is about the same on both. The XL-1 offers interchangeable
>> lenses, mostly an advantage when used with the EOS adapter,
>> for fitting effectively VERY long lenses...
>> For very specific uses, the XL-1 may be the answer; for
>> most uses, for most people, the PD-150 is...
>> BTW, you can find more, under the video section of
>> "I babble", at: www.David-Ruether-Photography.com.

>The material on your page is about the XL-1, and a rather old example
>at that.

But, even when the XL-1 was current, you insisted
my reviews and observations were skewed, and that the
XL-1 was a great camera in virtually respect, without
most of the flaws I noted... Odd, that many people
eventually noted the same flaws I did...;-)
Here we go, again, with the XL-1s...;-)

>The XL-1S definitely addresses a lot of the criticisms that some had
>about the XL-1. Especially in low light sensitivity.

It may be more sensitive with the increased gain,
but no one else claims its picture quality in general
is as good as the VX2000/PD150, or its low-light
reach as great (or its image quality in low light
anywhere near as good...). But, this is only part of
the story...;-)

>The XL-1 lens has always been better than the VX2000/PD150 lens.

This is patently nonsensical - NO ONE claims this...
And, it performs very badly with the expensive
Century WA converters made for it, unlike the Sony,
with Century or cheaper alternatives...
Then there are those impossible lens controls, both
auto and manual...;-)

>You can place other lenses than the EOS lenses on the camera. Like a
>WA lens, Arri primes 2/3" broadcast glass...there are even 2 XL series
>manual lenses and a special 3D lens... hardly just very long lenses...

But all others lose the stabilizer, the one WA is
only a 3X, and most of the others are generally
"special-use" lenses - briefly covered in my original
post...;-)
You do defend most adamantly this XL-1, even in the
face of obvious deficiencies relative to the Sony and
JVC (and soon, Panasonic) offerings...!;-)

>You can also mount night vision optics if you like.

Possibly quite useful at times...;-)

>So, back to Mike's question: What does the poster want it for ? How
>will it be employed ?
>
>The answer may end up being some entirely different camera.
>Til' we
>know the Canon vs. Sony war is pointless.

"For very specific uses, the XL-1 may be the answer; for
most uses, for most people, the PD-150 is..." (from my
earlier post, which would seem to have already covered
all this...;-). It is you who make "Canon vs. Sony war";
I simply relate observations on the gear - of both the
shortcomings and advantages of both - but this always
seems to bother you, though (this noting of the XL-1
shortcomings, though I also note the shortcomings of
all else I review, without your objections...;-)
For more, see:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm and
the other URLs referenced there...