On Sun, 03 Mar 2002 07:27:27 GMT, "Alexander Ibrahim" wrote:

[....]
>It isn't only about total cost, but about financing and budgeting.
>
>I can buy an XL-1 (Well today an XL-1S) That is only $3500. I have a
>ready to use camera, with some drawbacks, but ready to go. No $8000
>camera offers that.
>
>Each piece I add on comes when I can pay for it, or when I free up
>some financing for it.
>
>How much of this stuff can I add to the VX2000/PD-150 ? Almost all of
>it. I am not sure about the Rotating bellows matte, but I know I can
>get all the rest...except the lenses. I have to use the built in lens.
>I need the manual lens, that is HOW I work. I can't stand these "spin
>randomly forever" things that you are forever stuck with on the
>PD-150.

For this one reason (along with cost), the XL-1 is
obviously the right choice for you (you also noted
elsewhere a need for unusually long lenses, and that
you often reduce what little sharpness is there by
using diffusion filters and dialing back the sharpening
in the camera). These special needs can be accommodated
most cheaply with the XL-1 - but they do not represent
the beeds of most users of this level of camera...

>I do use my standard lens for events and other simple work, especially
>if there will be enough lighting available for F3.2 or higher so focus
>isn't as critical. I mean I could shoot those with the manual, but
>damn if I am shooting an event for too close to $free I want the
>option to be lazy. (Autofocus...)

The AF ability of the VX2000-PD150 is rather noticeably
better than that of the XL-1 with the 16X zoom - and
I just shot a concert (cheap...;-), AF all the way at
f2.8 with minimal (and I mean only once or twice, briefly,
and slightly, during the entire concert) loss of best-focus.

>Going back to the main argument PD150 vs XL-1.
>
>DoF has only been brought up casually. These little bitty 1/3" cameras
>have a terrible DoF...well I suppose that is a matter of perspective,
>a deep field is great if you are just trying to stay in focus, but I
>happen to like very shallow fields. You know the longer the focal
>length the shallower the field.
>
>So, if you can use the tele end of your lens for a shot you get a
>shallower field. The XL-1 has a longer lens going to 16x5.5mm (88mm)
>the Sony is shorter 12x6mm (72mm)

This difference is minimal - and the larger VX2000 chips
vs. the XL-1 is also minimal in terms of DOF (but the slight
difference is there...).

>Also, the standard XL-1 lens is wider than the Sony, surely an
>important consideration.

?????????????
This really is minimal, if it is true at all - but the
fact that several different WA converters can be fitted
to the Sony with sharp results, even at wide stops, and
none I have seen so far can be added to the Canon and
produce sharp results ***is*** an important consideration.
With the Canon you are forced to buy the rather expensive
(for this price-level) Canon 3X WA (the only WA option),
with its very limited zoom range and lack of stabilizer
(less important in short lenses, but still usefull...)
if you want to shoot wide with an acceptable-quality
image at wide stops.

>Anyway, the PD-150, or ANY camera with a fixed lens, is not an option.

For a few, at this price level...

>The XL-1 is the cheapest camera that can deal with my full
>requirements. I am not a high end prosumer purchaser, I am a VERY low
>end d-cinema/broadcast purchaser. If I don't have tons of options,
>then I get limited.

I would feel more limited by the somewhat inferior imaging
characteristics of the Canon vs. the Sony (subtle as they
are in the "great scheme of things", but of value none the
less to those who value image-quality...).

[...]