On Mon, 30 Jul 2001 03:33:29 GMT, "Frank_Rizzo"
>"Neuman - Ruether"
>news:3b655fe2.3363992@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>> On 29 Jul 2001 17:27:16 GMT, rlamm4@aol.com (RLamm4) wrote:
>> >looking to buy one or the other, just basic small time doc/eng work. I
>have
>> >wireless, lights etc already now i have to decide. I have xl1 myself,
>but have
>> >used pd150s,100s out of my work both have some great things but does
>anyone
>> >think the low light capabilities of the new xl1 will be comparable to
>sony. I
>> >wish i could have both but I need to choose one or the other. Primary
>uses
>> >will be broll, interviews, and elements for stories. Advice and thoughts
>would
>> >be appreciated.....(one thing I might add my local shop will be selling
>the
>> >xl1s for 3850 so price difference isnt to bad)
>> Both (well, the original XL-1, and the VX-2000 form of the
>> PD150...) are critically reviewed at:
>> www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm
>> Gosh, on one side we have a camcorder with a great picture,
>> excellent low-light ability, very good sound, XLRs built-in,
>> excellent B&W finder (plus very good color fold-out panel),
>> superior power solution (long run-time with camera-mount
>> compact, light, and cheap high-capacity batteries),
>> excellent AF/AE and zoom controls, and relatively low
>> size/weight/price, at a moderate price fully-equipped. On
>> the other side we have a camcorder that costs considerably
>> more fully-equipped, with an OK picture (though one that
>> shows less detail, and more artifacts like oversharpened
>> edges, too-warm color, etc.), adequate-but-not-outstanding
>> low-light ability, excellent sound (but no XLRs), relatively
>> poor VF (and no panel - and the alternative B&W finder is
>> VERY expensive), inadequate battery solution (and the
>> alternative is VERY expensive, heavy, and awkward), poor AF
>> and AE, so-so zoom and MF controls, and awkward weight and
>> handling characteristics. The interchangeable lens
>> capability would appear to offer an advantage, but with all
>> you lose the stabilizer, and add considerably (again) to the
>> price. Adding WA converters to the standard zoom produces
>> very compromised results (unlike with the PD150, which fits
>> several converters that virtually maintain the high quality
>> of the fitted lens). The "s" version adds higher gain
>> availability to the XL-1 - with, one assumes, the attendent
>> coarsening of the picture quality... The XL-1 also offers
>> a "frame" mode, if one should want to simulate the poor
>> motion-handling of film...
>> Gosh, I think I would take the better and cheaper (FAR
>> cheaper, if one tries to correct the VF, power, and lens
>> problems of the XL-1...) and easier-to-handle/control
>> PD150...
>David, without actually testing the new XL1s you are really coming off like
>a fool.
No, I was mostly describing the differeces between the XL-1
and PD150... (read the beginning of my post) - but the XL-1s
appears to be VERY similar to the XL-1 in most respects,
so...
>I quote a review:
>"Image quality is indeed much improved over the XL1. The image is much more
>crisp in appearance.
If the CCDs are the same, this means either increased
contrast and/or increased oversharpening (already set
too high in the XL-1...).
>In addition, the rep
Ah, he believes a "rep"...;-)
>told me that the camera now gives
>the operator complete control over black level, control over color level,
>and control over picture sharpness. I did not have an opportunity to really
>try any of this out, but it sounds promising."
>Does the PD150 give us those options? Gosh.. No? Golly.
Yes, the PD150 does offer control over these, and more...
But with an oversharpened picture in "base" mode, where is
there to go with the XL-1 but toward lower sharpening for a
better picture...?
>If image quality is improved that much then it's not even the same camera as
>the XL1.
>http://www.dvinfo.net/xl1.htm
What improvements? By what means did Canon improve the
image from an already "overstretched" imaging device?
More specifics would be in order (as would actual
reporting of use, and side-by-side comparisons,
not "rep" talk passed on as a review...). BTW, quoting
from the "review" above, "The XL1 or the XL1s does not
handle high contrast lighting as well as other camcorders
such as the Sony DSR-PD150 or the DSR-250 for example.",
which is an interesting comment...;-)
Anyway, time (and experience) with these will tell,
but it is interesting what wonders are attributed to the
newest Canon update without much real experience with it...;-)