On Mon, 19 Mar 2001 11:05:56 -0800, Bhaskar wrote:

>in article 3ab67f2f.2248177@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu, Neuman - Ruether at
>d_ruether@hotmail.com wrote on 3/17/01 7:17 AM:

>> BTW, I'm kinda gittin' tired of being 'bout th' only
>> one to tout this "great site" - if you or anyone
>> else would care to do it occasionally, when
>> appropriate......;-)

>Great site. But I couldn't help noticing that you don't really review the
>JVC camcorders (the 9800 in particular). Is there a specific reason for
>that? Do you think JVC products are not comparable to the Sony/Canon ones?
>Or is it just the way things turned out?

The only JVC of interest to me (I go for highest
quality, though I covered camcorders I've had contact
with that I didn't like since I was familiar with them)
is the JVC-GY500 - but it is too large/heavy for my use,
so I did not include it. Since I either own(ed) or
borrowed the camcorders covered, and most of the others
not covered in the reviews (or not similar to ones covered)
are one-chippers (generally not of interest to me, due
to inherent quality limitations), a slew of Sony,
Panasonic, Canon, JVC, Sharp, and others were not
covered and are unlikely to be added... (the only
one-chipper I am still interested in trying is the
Sony PC100/110/TRV20).