On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:40:02 GMT, Chris Hurd wrote:

>Howdy from Texas,

>Neuman - Ruether wrote:
>>
>> Read the threads on the rec.video NGs (check them out on
>> google.com) related to the XL-1 vs. others - many who have
>> used *only* the XL-1 like it; many of those who have also
>> tried the others do not like it.

>This is an excellent reason *not* to read the newsgroups. My site
>at www.dvinfo.net contains VX2000, DSR250, XL1 and XL1S
>reviews of which the broad majority were written by professional
>videographers with extensive camera experience.

Ah, I suppose I should not "wrangle" with the great CH,
webmaster of the large Canon "fan-site" that has expanded
beyond it's original "Canon-centric" limitations to include
other brands/models (including my reviews, in abbreviated
form...;-), but I will...;-)
Many who write here *are* pros, *with* extensive camera
experience; as I pointed out, though, many of those who
favor the XL-1 here in these NGs are those with no
experience with other cameras roughly in its class;
those who have often favor alternatives to it, and note
its many shortcomings relative to alternatives; this *is*
useful information - and the reader is free to sort out
the unsupported opinions from those that are supported
by specific observations. Thus, reading the "XL-1 vs. others"
threads can supply useful information - and information
often not supplied in reviews...

>> It is relatively higher-priced than its direct competition, with VERY
>> expensive accessories needed to bring it up near the functionality
>> level of its competitors "out of the box", or nearly so, with a
>> somewhat inferior picture and low-light shooting ability, and
>> very real functionality problems with focus, let alone its other
>> inferior auto and manual controls compared with others.

>First, the "very expensive accessories" bring it up to the functionality
>of professional cameras *above* its class, not its competition. Only
>an inexpensive $180 XLR adapter is required for most purposes, and
>anyone using professional XLR mics who understand the realities of
>the on-going process of cash outlay for equipment isn't going to bat
>an eye at that insignificant expense.

Do you claim that the XL-1 VF is up to the quality of the
one on the PD150 or DV500, let alone the VX2000? Few
others would... And few claim it is good enough for easy accurate
MF (or that the XL-1 AF is good enough to substitute for
MF - or that the lens MF control is good enough to use
easily at all...). The "good" XL-1 finder is upwards of
$1200...
Do you claim that the standard lens can be used for WA,
with added converters? The low-quality results I found with
two expensive Century converters would indicate not, yet
with the Sony, several under-$200 converters provide fine
optical performance. The Canon WA (without stabilizer...)
costs upward of $1200...
Do you claim that battery run-time is equivalent to the
Sony $125 light/small solution? The Anton-Bauer solution
for the XL-1 costs upward of $1200...
Do you claim that the XL-1 XLR adapter is direct-wired
in a balanced-configuration (bypassing mini-plugs), with
phantom-power supplied to the mic? The Sony and JVC
solutions can claim this...
Do you claim that the XL-1 picture equals that of the
Sony and JVC for resolution, color-depth, color accuracy,
contrast, freedom from oversharpening artifacts and noise?
In low light? In good light? Let me show you some
comparison images, if you do...;-)
Do you claim that the manual and auto controls are up to
what is offered on the best of the competition? Or that
the XL-1 is easy to hold and use for hours at a stretch?
I think no one would claim this...

>Second, you refer to the XL1 which isn't even made anymore. The
>topic should be focused on the current XL1S. Its new IS II lens is no
>worse than the free-wheeling vari-focal lens on the PD150, DSR250
>or a host of other camcorders not using broadcast professional lenses.

Many here in the NGs would not agree - the current XL-1
lens is still considered a difficult-to-control lens...
BTW, the lens on the PD150/VX2000 is not a "varifocal"
lens - most remain in focus when zoomed long-to-short,
unlike the Canon lens, which commonly doesn't (and even
can change focus with temperature!). And, I refer to the
"XL-1", though the "s" variant has replaced it, since that
is the one (2-samples, different...) that I checked out,
and most characteristics of the old and the new are similar...

>*All* Sony and Canon camcorders not using broadcast professional
>lenses, regardless of make or model, require a remote zoom controller
>for accurate zoom and focus control, so that extra expense is common
>across the board and not unique to any particular model.

????????????
You have never used the Sony AF and zoom rocker,
I take it...? ;-) Or the Sony MF focus ring?

>> You are looking at an example of superb marketing...;-)

>Incorrect. Were that true, you'd see hundreds of them for sale,
>slightly used. That is simply not the case. There are only a couple
>of DV camcorders riding on a market wave with inferior feature
>sets; among them the Panasonic AG-DVC10 and 15. The rest of
>the limited number of 3-chip prosumer DV camcorders pretty much
>deserve whatever sales they're getting. Overall it is an extremely
>limited, (albeit steadily growing) market anyway.

When someone new comes to these NGs and asks the
question, "What 3-CCD Mini-DV camera should I buy?"
The other part of the post most often is, "The
GL-1/XL-1?" Canon has done its marketing homework...
Generally in answering this type of post, it is
evident in the poster's subsequent resistance to the
answers and comments that follow that the poster has
already been sold on Canon, and wants reassurance
that it was the correct choice. Once the purchase
has been made, the defense of the Canon choice
consists most often of unsubstantiated belief in
the product, without real, logical, "real-experience"
support being offered ("AI" is the one of the few
"sometimes-exception"...). It is fun to watch the
extremes to which the "sold" will support their
product (sometimes with just name-calling and
insults, but these add nothing to the discussion,
and are easily ignored...). Canon has done its
marketing homework very well...

>> The camera is decent, but inferior to most of its direct
>> competition in most ways for general use.

>Again, incorrect. Were this true, it could not be sold,
>yet thousands are in daily use by satisfied owners,
>a large portion of whom are professional shooters.

Who often complain here about its shortcomings relative
to other cameras they have access to... And, the power
of salesmanship over substance has been shown MANY
times. Look how well Bose speakers sell, for instance, yet
few who know much about audio would claim that they
are either good, or if not good, at least a good value
for the money. They are neither, yet sell very well,
and sell much better than many better and cheaper
alternatives. Marketplace success is based on the
quality of the salesmanship, not the product.

Which is why these NG discussions can be useful - we
hear, in an immediate, interactive, and uncensored
way, on a forum not reserved by, or sponsored by, or
in any way connected to a particular brand or a
brand's "loyalists", the comments of real users of
gear, and their various opinions. We can judge for
ourselves the quality of the comments, arguments,
and supporting references made, and come to our
own conclusions...

>In your *opinion* it is inferior. The opinions of many
>others contradict yours. They're not posting on usenet,
>either, but expressing their opinions in the form of sales.

My "opinion" is backed up by observations made
when trying out several models side-by-side, under
the same conditions, with frame-grabs offered so
that others could see at least part of what I observed.
The results have been on my web site for quite a while,
now, with few arguing with my observations or conclusions
(at: www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm).
Often, though, when I state the "bottom line" from my
comparisons here on the NGs (necessarily without all
the supporting observations, for space and repetition
reasons - I refer people to the site for the background
material, though...), people do object, as they should
to unsupported opinions, but with discussion and the
reading of the material behind my "bottom line" comments,
people often do come to agree (the reasonable ones,
anyway...;-), especially those who actually try the
various models, and not just one. As I said at the
beginning, many of those who do not judge the XL-1 in
a vacuum, but compare it with others (and who are not
so "sold" by Canon that they cannot be objective...;-)
often come to the same conclusions I have. If you
never drove anything but a Chevrolet, the Chevrolet
may well be, in your opinion, "the best damn car in
the world" - but that doesn't make it true for most
others...;-)

>> Dig deeper for info before falling for it, or you
>> may regret it....

>Excellent advice; one area in which to dig deeper is my
>website resources at www.dvinfo.net for *real world*
>info covering the good, the bad and the ugly of the
>PD150 and XL1S, plus my Community message boards
>at www.dvinfo.net/conf where the discussions are of a
>technical, not passionate nature.
>
>Coming soon to dvinfo.net after NAB: 3-chip camera
>comparisons with full-size, un-altered native frame grabs
>in a variety of cameras including the JVC GY-500, Sony
>DSR250, Canon XL1S and others. Empirical data, not
>opinions... objectivity without hidden agendas.

Do you claim I have hidden agendas? If so, why did you
publish on your site my reviews? Apparently you thought
the VX2000 review objective enough, and useful enough,
to include...? You did not reproduce my comparison
frame-grabs, though, which have been up for some time
now on my site, at:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm
(with other articles of possible video interest at:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/perspective-correction.htm
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/original_vs_10th-gen.htm
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/premiere.htm
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/multi-camera.htm
plus others...).

>Thanks to Dirk and others who have recommended my site.
>
>Chris Hurd
>San Marcos, TX
>www.dvinfo.net

It is a useful site...