On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 06:43:06 GMT, Chris Hurd wrote:
>ActiveMind wrote...

>> How does the Sony DCRVX2000 compared to the Canon XL1S?
>> Personally, I like Sony product and I tend to lean towards the Sony
>> VX2000.

>You should trust your gut and buy the way you're leaning. How these
>two cameras "compare" with each other really depends on what's
>important to you. Despite any other replies you may receive, the
>most important realization you can reach is that these two cameras
>have far, far more in common than they do any differences. This
>holds true for just about all 3-chip prosumer DV camcorders.
>
>The obvious difference is form factor: the VX2000 is a compact,
>all-in-one camcorder with a flip-out LCD screen; the XL1S is a
>larger, modular camera system with many interchangeable
>components. If you don't foresee a need for interchangeability
>(of lenses, microphones, etc.) then you should eliminate that
>choice.
>
>Perhaps more comparable to the Sony VX2000 in terms of size
>and form factor is the Canon GL2. Don't be misled by some claims
>that the GL2's 1/4" chips knock it out of the same class as the VX2000
>(with 1/3" chips). This is not the case. There is very little physical
>difference
>in size between 1/4" and 1/3" and the two camcorders are very close
>performers. The VX2000 has a manual zoom ring which the GL2
>does not; the GL2 provides much better audio control than the
>VX2000.
>
>A note about low-light performance... each of these camcorders are
>excellent in low light. The VX2000 may be just slightly better than
>either Canon, but it's a serious mistake to forego all other considerations
>for the sake of a very slight difference in one single feature. The fact of
>the matter is, the right camera for you is the one which feels best in
>your hands, and whose image looks best to you on a pro video
>monitor. Nothing else matters... tech specs, who's using it, etc.,
>all of that is of very little account compared to how it feels in
>your hands, how the controls are laid out, how the video looks.
>
>Canon and Sony have different color signatures. Sony video tends
>to be cool, sharp, more towards the blue while Canon is warm,
>soft, more towards the red. It's a very subtle difference. Some
>folks can't even notice it. Plus, you can change the look of the
>image using the internal menu in each camera.
>
>Sony and Canon are also rather incestously inbred. They share
>technologies, hardware components, and more. The "Super
>Steady Shot" on some Sony camcorders is actually Canon's
>optical image stabilization. All Canon camcorders have a
>LANC jack for remote lens control, which is a Sony protocol.
>Some Canon tape transports are made by Sony. Some Sony
>lenses are made by Canon. You get the picture.
>
>If you feel Sony, by all means buy Sony. But do yourself
>a favor and always try before you buy. Hope this helps,
>
>Chris Hurd
>San Marcos, TX
>www.dvinfo.net

The above is generally good advice, though I hasten to point
out that "You should trust your gut and buy the way you're
leaning" encourages those "presold" by marketing (as opposed
to an objective examination of the "+'s and -'s") to jump
without really looking - and Canon marketing is FAR better
than Sony's...;-) Also, I think the low-light differences
are more than moderate, and quite important for some types
of shooting (and not important for others). If you do event
shooting, especially with those candle-lit receptions, or
weddings where no additional lighting is permitted in those
sometimes-quite-dark interiors, the very best low-light
performance is essential, and makes a very noticeable
difference in the quality of the video...