On Sat, 11 Aug 2001 21:17:43 -0700, Gordon Moat wrote:

>You have made the choice of the PD-150, over others. However, my work needed the
>ability of lens choices. I am not happy with add on glass at the end of a fixed
>lens. It would be nice if the PD-150 had an interchangeable lens. I will agree
>with you in that I think it is the best choice in fixed lens camcorders.

It would be interesting to compare image-quality between the
VX2000/PD150 with suitable WA converters used, and the XL-1
with its 3X WA zoom... My **guess** is that sharpnes would be
comparable, the 3X Canon would go a bit wider, and the
linear distortion would be somewhat lower - but at the
price of very limited zoom range, loss of the stabilizer,
considerably higher price (especially if the XL-1 is
equipped with similarly-good VF, XLR-adapter, and power
solution in addition to the extra lens) - and the result
would be more awkward to carry and use...

>The lowest priced camcorder from Sony with an interchangeable lens is quite a
>bit more expensive than an XL-1. Also, 1/2" lens are more expensive than those
>that fit the XL-1. Yes, they are nicer, and I would enjoy that option, but that
>is not yet within budget.
>
>Perhaps you could suggest, or comment on, other interchangeable lens camcorders,
>like the JVC or Panasonic. Maybe even comparing them to the PD-150, or an
>interchangeable lens Sony.

That would also be interesting - but my main interest
has been in the compact 3-chip camcorders with good
automatic controls, and the highest-quality image...
(the XL-1 on several counts is outside this "envelope",
but I checked it out since it was handy when I wrote
the reviews...;-). For my use, even if the picture and
sound were "73.564% better" in a big, shoulder-mount
camera than in the light and small affordable and
maneuverable VX2000/PD150, my interest would be only
slight. I leave it to others to compare the big, more
"pro"-oriented-format gear... When HDTV-format comes
to an under-5-pound, under $5k camcorder, I'd be
VERY interested in checking it out! ;-) But until then,
the relatively minor improvements possibly provided by
some much larger cameras are not of much interest to me...

>As for the lens controls on the XL-1 being poor, I will agree, but only on the
>16x. I actually tape up the zoom ring to keep it from moving, then the focus
>ring is not a problem. Anyway, I found the 14x manual lens to be fantastic. I
>would love to try the 3x, since I have heard a few favourable comments about
>that.
>
>At first, the XL1 was only available with the 16x lens. In the last year,
>several vendors have offered it without lens, or even custom configured. Is
>there another lens option for the PD-150, or would I need to step up to a
>DSR300? What is the average lens cost for that? Would the Panasonic be a better,
>or worse, choice? JVC?

I have found two excellent WA converters for the
VX2000/PD150: the, uh, Canon WD-58 .7X (12X zoom-through,
virtually no loss of the high image-quality of the
fixed lens throughout the zoom range, but with noticeable
barrel-distortion at the zoom short end [I like barrel
distortion for WA, for reasons given in a couple of
articles on my web page {under "I babble"...;-}]); and
the Raynox HD6600-58Pro .66X (about 8X zoom-through
with excellent performance, and very low linear
distortion). These are more convenient to use, with wider
zoom ranges, and, I suspect at least as good picture
quality (limited by the imaging devices) compared
with the XL-1 3X solution - but I could be wrong...;-)

>Just trying to be objective. I like to see issues from as many points as
>possible.

Good plan! Thanks for your comments.

>Ciao!
>Gordon Moat
>Alliance Graphique Studio
>

>> >"Neuman - Ruether" wrote in message
>> >news:3b767b8d.2076365@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>> > > Most people prefer the PD150 picture compared with either
>> >> the XL-1 or PD100; the PD150 has XLRs, almost "infinitely"
>> >> better lens-controls/finder(s)/power-solutions/AF/MF/AE/ME
>> >> compared with the XL-1 - so, why the interest in it?
>> >> (I suspect that Canon's superb advertising/image-building
>> >> efforts, not the reality of what the camera is/provides,
>> >> may be the cause...?;-)