On Tue, 05 Mar 2002 21:41:41 GMT, "Alexander Ibrahim" wrote:
>"Neuman - Ruether" wrote in message
>news:3c833499.2315318@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>> On Sun, 03 Mar 2002 07:27:27 GMT, "Alexander Ibrahim"
>> wrote:

>> 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.
>
>That my friend is once or twice too many times, hence why I need f3.2
>or higher, or a manual lens.
>This is just my opinion and professional standards speaking though...

"And I mean ***only once or twice***, ***briefly***,
and ***slightly***, during the ***entire*** concert". If you
can better that manually at f2.8 (or even smaller...), my
hat is off to you! ;-) The focus errors were so slight
most people would not notice - not bad for a 1.25-hr
tape, I think...;-)

>One final note...the AF of the XL-1S is vastly improved. I would trust
>that camera at f2.8, and I believe that it will focus accurately over
>99% of the time at f1.6

That would be a *******BIG******** improvement over
the old....!!! ;-)

>If you use the auto features of your XL-1 a lot, then trading it in
>for an XL-1S is a REAL good deal. Especially if you just sell the
>body.

A difficult sale, I would think...

[...]
>> >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...).

>The VX-2000 chips are THE SAME STANDARD SIZE as those in the XL-1.
>
>The VX-2000 has more CCD elements, but it is the same size.

You are right! Both are 1/3rd inch...

>That by the way is one of the best technical acheivements Sony managed
>on this camera...higher pixel density AND increasing light
>sensitivity. These are usually considered mutually exclusive goals.
>Kudos to Sony.

The color also appears better than with standard chip types,
but it is not all "gravy" - the VX2000 chip type tends to
propagate bright areas more than usual...

>To compare, Canon managed to increase resolution very slightly and
>light sensitivity to near VX-2000 levels...this a almost year after
>the VX2000 came out.

How about relative picture smoothness at max. gain...?

>> >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 -

>The XL-1 wide angle is ~39mm in 35mm photography equivalents. The
>PD-150 is ~43mm at its wide angle.
>
>(XL-1 is 5.5-88mm, PD-150 is 6-72mm, both sets of focal lengths are
>multiplied by 7.2 to give 35mm equivalents, sinec the CCD's are the
>same size...)
>
>So, yes it is true. It is a bit more than minimal.

Well, I would find it hard to call this minor difference
"more than minimal", but you are right, the XL-1 is
*slightly* wider...

>> 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

>You are going to have to back that up. I have used the Century optics
>WA converters and they have been splendid.

I have.
Go to www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm
and check out the frame-grabs with two different Century
WA converters on the better of two 16X XL-1 lenses tried.
The edge/corner softness and noticeable color-fringing sure
wouldn't satisfy me... Contrast this with the results shot
with the VX2000 in its review and the Canon WD-58 (less
than 1/2 the price of either Century...). Other converters, like
the HG Sony, the Raynox .66X, and others also produce fine
results, even at wide stops, on the VX2000/PD150.

>I know you have a fondness for auto modes...did you try the manual ? I
>believe that is what Century recommends. See the Sony AF uses an IR
>beam and image analysis, the Canon XL-1 uses just the IR beam AFAIK.
>One of these cameras is at a significant disadvantage when you put
>stuff on its lens in auto mode. I believe the XL-1S adds image
>analysis to its AF routines.

The centers were sharp - refocusing might improve
edges/corners if there were field curvature, but
only at the expense of the center...

>Also the converter should only be used with the wide end (<54mm) of
>the lens. Finally mimimum focus distance is increased.
>
>IOW, did you use it right ?

Yes.

>If not your point is moot at best. Plain old wrong is what I'd call
>it.

You can call it what you want (and often do...;-), but
it is a "good" reporting of what the better of two
samples of the XL-1 did...

>It also invalidates your points following

>> ***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.

>If a fixed price is your goal, then a camera that can be extended is
>of no value is it ?

?????
The VX2000/PD150 come ***standard*** with good finders
(including a useable panel) and excellent lenses (which can
be extended easily and with high-quality results with
relatively inexpensive converters) - and a cheap, light,
and long-running battery solution is available...
As others have pointed out, most who "buy" the flexibility
of the XL-1 may really need it just to bring the camera up
to basic usability (not cheaply...), but few use that
flexibility to really extend the camera's capability
beyond what the VX2000/PD150 can do "out of the box"...

>You do still photography right ? Do you have a still camera with a
>fixed or interchangeable lens ?

Quite a different matter. In stills, one can either
choose to use a wide-range zoom (exteriors, generally...),
or to use non-zooms for their speed, quality, or
special-features advantages. But unlike with video, stills
are by definition intermittently taken (giving opportunity
to easily change lenses), and taken mostly during very short
time intervals. Also, the zooms available for stills are FAR
less wide-range, slower, and less sharp relative to the best
non-zooms. Lens options for the two very different media
are not entirely comparable...

>> >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.

It is obvious that for you and your particular needs,
the XL-1 is a good choice; but for the majority, at
its price point, for most uses, I think it is not the
best option...

>> 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...).

>Yep...where does your work end up ?
>
>VHS ? SVHS ? TV ? Most of these things can't display more than ~350
>lines.
>
>You can only see the difference in a well calibrated studio set up,
>and my tests show the XL-1 at over 500 lines. I can't say precisely
>how high, just over 500. The VX2000 looks the same to my monitors
>resolution wise.

Then your results are not typical - no one else reports
similar findings (but I remember when you claimed that 30
[?] XL-1s you tried had no backfocus problem, when everyone
else was reporting it...;-).

>As I said before, I can't use this marginal difference in resolution.
>Neither can you.

Actually, I can...;-) While the advantage is slight
(and most of the advantage comes when the pictures are
equalized for oversharpening effects, when the XL-1
sharpness is noticeably lower than the VX2000's), it
does show in direct viewing of tapes on a good TV, and it
can show in "resolution systems". (People often think in
terms of "limitations", like 240 lines for VHS, 340 lines
for TV broadcast, etc., but this is incorrect. The figures
are limits, but most closely **approached** by the sharper
originals; different originals result in different final
resolutions, not the 240 or 340 lines of resolution,
but always less, by different amounts depending on the
resolutions of the originals....). A sharper original
results in a sharper transfer onto another medium.

>We are not comparing a VHS and DV camcorder here pal, but rather two
>*very* closely matched DV camcorders.

Yes, "pal", we are - but one that is generally a little
better overall, and cheaper, and more "user-friendly"
than the other - a worthwhile differentiation, I think, for
many...;-)

>The flexibility is vastly more useful over the long haul. Especially
>if you are struggling to make this your LAST standard definition
>camera purchase.

Maybe, but in my experience, a particular camcorder
is a "short-term-buddy" - I've gone through a bunch...;-)
I would not invest a LOT in any one, since its service life
is so short - in a *very* few years, something is always
out that is better and cheaper...