On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 08:37:36 GMT, Chris Hurd
[DR wrote...]
>> 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?
>The DV500 is not in this class, David. Let's keep it fair, please.
>The JVC GY-DV500 is a professional camera using pro lenses,
>lens controllers, batteries, EVF's, etc. It's low out-of-box price
>still does not place it in the same category as prosumer gear
>(besides, it isn't even usable out-of-box; how would you power it).
People in the r.v NGs generally do place both the JVC
DV500 and the new Panasonic 200 in the same price class
(if not performance class...;-) as the XL-1, since the
XL-1 is closer to the weight and size and price (when
adequately "decked out") of the "real" low-end
shoulder-mount cameras. Which is the point: why buy
and "doll up" a camera with inferior image, manual
controls, and handling, when one can have a good
shoulder-mount camera for roughly the same price?
Or, viewing it another way, why buy a camera with inferior
image, auto controls, and handling when one can have
a good "handycam" style camera for a good bit less
money? These cameras ARE all in the same class in that
they are all Mini-DV (or variants), are used for
similar types of "pro" work, are *roughly* in the same
price class, and are *roughly* in the same performance
class. And they are rightly compared with each other,
as people commonly do in these NGs...
>I concede the XL1/XL1S color LCD EVF not as sharp as the
>color LCD EVF on the VX2000, which is not as sharp as the
>black and white LCD EVF on the PD150, which is not as sharp
>as the black and white CRT EVF on the DSR250.
>> The "good" XL-1 finder is upwards of $1200...
>A decent one is much less than $400. Clamp-on external 5.6" LCD.
Try to use this in daylight for other than rough framing...
>> 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.
>I don't "claim" it; I know it. Is it possible your tests were faulty?
>I have never heard of poor results from either of the Century
>Optics adapters, however from my own experience, my opinion
>is that the Optex adapter is far superior.
That could be (I did not try it), and one would hope
so - the color-fringing and edge/corner softness seen
on two samples of the Canon with the Century converters
did not inspire confidence... The point is also that
several far cheaper converters DO work well with
the Sony; the alternatives for the XL-1 are either
so-so (in my experience) and expensive, or good, but
much more expensive, and limiting in that the zoom
range is only 3:1 (and without stabilization).
>> 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...
>For those who shoot primarily via AC power, how is this an even
>an issue?
Who does this????????
Studio videographers, maybe, but not most others!
Once freed from having to find an AC outlet who
knows where, or lugging lead-acid batteries, well,
why would one accept the alternative???
>For those who change tapes every 60 to 90 minutes and
>are wise enough to change batteries at the same time, how is this
>even an issue?
Ever try a quick swap of the battery AND tape while
the action is going on??? Why try, if you don't need to?
>There are a wide variety of battery options; I don't
>understand why you choose to focus on the single most expensive
>one. A Bescor battery is no more expensive than the Sony and lasts
>just as long.
Good luck! It is fairly heavy and not always dependable,
and you need to deal with the wire. The cheap NPF-960 slips
in under the finder of the Sony with hardly a trace of
bulk or weight, with no wires, clamps, etc. needed, and
it will power the camera for a day of shooting. This
is a REAL advantage for location work! I would consider
this power solution THE reason for buying a camera, all
else being nearly equal...
>> 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...
>Again, how can this be an issue? Use an XLR adapter with balanced
>inputs. So what about the mini-plugs... that's a very short run of only
>a couple of inches and makes *no* measurable difference. As long as
>the adapter itself is balanced, you'll preserve balanced audio over a long
>cable run. That's from our very own Jay Rose, see
>http://www.dplay.com/dv/balance/balance.html#conn
It is not the "balance" issue that is important, but the
mini-plug connection, often a source of intermittent
noise. Also, for some, the phantom power availability
can be useful...
>"If you want to connect a balanced mic to a prosumer camera, use one
>of the small transformer adapters from BeachTek or Studio 1, or put a
>mixer (with balanced inputs, of course) near the camera. This is the only
>way to run long mic cables to a boom or wired lav without risking noise
>pickup."
I used to record large orchestras, with very long runs of
unbalanced lines, in a large radio-rich city, without
problems... Again, it is not the balance issue that is
important, but the connector type, and for some, the
availability of phantom power for the mics...
>In my book, this solution sure beats stringing spaghetti up and over the
>PD150 to its poorly placed top-forward XLR inputs. Cables belong
>low or in the back, and that's where they go on an XL1 and VX2000.
Ties and tape solve many problems...;-)
Though I agree, I would have placed the connectors
elsewhere...
>> 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...;-)
>I'm not sure that I have utmost confidence in your comparison images,
>David... that's why I'll investigate on my own.
Please do so...;-)
I did try to check the various cameras' images in the
same set of different lighting conditions, though, using
reasonable techniques, and the results from each lighting
situation are consistent with what other people report...
BTW, I recommend the following (with all controls centered
and with auto WB, F, and E used when possible - unless
manual adjustments are made for best-match [and noted]):
-- A street scene (old houses, grey day) for fine
distant detail, and for subtle-but-recognizeable
color variations.
-- A street scene (same as above, but in the same
hard, bright sunlight - should include some greenery),
for contrast differences, highlight and shadow detail
rendering.
-- A face, close up, outdoors on a grey day.
-- A face, close up, outdoors on a sunny day, with
cross-lighting.
-- A face, close up, indoors, tungsten, and fluorescent
lighting.
-- Bookshelves and picture frames (preferably dark thin
frames against a near-white wall), all shot just off
level, in motion (to see oversharpening effects, and
near vertical line problems).
-- Two levels of interior low-light (reproduceable), with
one beyond the reach of all the cameras (for judging
low-light picture characteristics and range).
-- A bright, clear red flower (with detail), close up
outdoors in sunshine, for "blooming" (with overall
brightness of the original images matched carefully).
If most of these seem familiar, it may be because I used
them for my comparisons, at:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm
They were chosen to show up the differences among video
images in common situations.
>In terms of color depth and
>accuracy, Sony/JVC tends to be cooler, sharper and more towards the
>blue while Panasonic/Canon tends to be warmer, softer and more towards
>the red. These are different flavors of video. Within the same class of
>cameras, it's a preference, not a hierarchical stratification.
Untrue.
There are objective standards recognized for picture
quality, just as there are for sound. While there
are many picture characteristics to judge, and no
one camera will be best in all the characteristics
(and some can be modified in-camera or in post - and
there is room among the varying results for
differences in preferences among the balances of
characteristics optimizations), throwing out standards
of quality for images is absurd. One may *prefer* the
inferior/superior-overall picture (for whatever reason),
but this does not remove the "hierarchical stratification"
of qualties, without which we might as well all shoot on VHS, since we "like" it...;-)
>Is butter brickle superior to almond pistachio? Can you prove it?
This is not the same, unless we want to compare
Ben and Jerry's Almond Pistachio to Hood's
butter brickle...;-)
>> Do you claim that the manual and auto controls are up to what is
>> offered on the best of the competition?
>Within its class... wholeheartedly! Next question?
You've GOT to be joshing! ;-)
The XL-1 manual and auto controls are widely considered
"troublesome", at best - the shoulder-mount cameras
offer far better manual controls; the Sonys offer far better auto controls.
>> Or that the XL-1 is easy to hold and use for hours at a stretch?
>With the proper shoulder mount, absolutely. You haven't been reading my site.
Turning a very front-heavy 6-pound (base-weight, before
"accessories") "camcorder" into a "rig" is, well, odd...;-)
I prefer either a camera half the weight, or one that
was designed to sit properly-balanced on a shoulder.
Sorry - rigging an XL-1 to try to offset a basically
wrong design layout doesn't "cut it"...
>> the current XL-1 lens is still considered a difficult-to-control lens...
>...by a comparitively small handful of users. The vast majority are too
>content to bother posting to usenet. The new IS II lens is no more or
>less difficult to control than any other prosumer DV camcorder lens,
>and I've tried just about all of them.
I guess we will have to take your word for this, though
most people on these r.v NGs who have used the XL-1 lens
and have also used others tend to disagree...;-)
Guess we just don't have the words of the "silent
majority" either way on this issue...? ;-)
So, are you telling us the "erratic-focus moments" are
gone? That the backfocus issue is no more? That the
AF actually does kinda work? Good, if true...! ;-)
>> BTW, the lens on the PD150/VX2000 is not a "varifocal" lens
>BTW the lens on the PD150/VX2000 is indeed a varifocal lens.
>
>*All* free-wheeling, unmarked, servo-controlled lenses on prosumer
>DV camcorders where the focus and zoom rings are not mechanically
>connected to the compensator/focus lens group, regardless of manufacture.
By the usual definitions, "varifocal" refers to a
zoom lens that changes focus as it is zoomed...
In practice, regardless of the hidden details, that
is what one experiences with zooming the Sony from
long to short (MF or AF), though not with the
(at least early...) XL-1 lens, with its common
backfocus-error problem...
>It may interest you to know that all Sony consumer and prosumer
>camcorder lenses are OEM'ed by Canon, except in the case of the
>much-hyped "Carl Zeiss" lens, in which case it's a Minolta. But it still
>works the same way, with a rear-focus servo lens design which is fairly
>common and not remarkably different between makes. Anytime you see
>optical image stabilization or "super steady shot," that's a patented Canon
>technology licensed to Sony.
Now, if only Canon actually made better imaging
devices (instead of buying ones from Panasonic...;-),
we would have the best of all worlds in the Canon...;-)
Unfortunately good glass needs good imaging devices to
make the best-quality images... So, Minolta is owned by
Kyocera, the maker of the "Zeiss" glass? BTW, Sony uses
without qualification "super steady shot" to refer to both
its optical stabilization systems (which, BTW, do not
operate in the same "user-seen" way as those on Canons...),
and its excellent EIS stabilizers, used on one-chippers.
I would think Canon would have a problem with this...;-)
BTW, I never mention these silly product names in reviews,
since they are all just market-hype - I prefer to look at
actual performance characteristics (I also tend to ignore
the "this button does that" type of reporting, since
it also tells little about performance...).
As for the VX2000/PD150 lens, I have just been shooting
diffraction-effect tests with this excellent "Canon"
lens, and it does seem to perform better than the two
Canon lenses I tried on the XL-1...;-) Maybe Canon
reserves its best glass for use by the competition? ;-)
>> 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...
>You are sadly mistaken, David... There is a world of difference between
>the XL1 and XL1S. With the exception of external appearance, they are
>not similar at all.
So, the CCDs have been changed? The finder? The layout?
The XLRs have been added? The power options (and use-rate)
have been improved? The MF and AF and AE now work well?
The camera is now lighter and easier to hold? If so,
good!
BTW, the two XL-1s tried were noticeably different from
each other(!). Is there now also better sample consistency?
>> You have never used the Sony AF and zoom rocker,
>> I take it...? ;-) Or the Sony MF focus ring?
>On the contrary, I have used them quite often. The zoom rocker is limited
>to only five steps of zoom speed as opposed to eight on the Canon. That
>limitation might allow a shooter being very careful with fingertip pressure
>in a controlled environment to pull off a decent zoom, but it's academic
>that the Canon has the highly preferable, much slower creep for
>imperceptible crawling pull-outs or push-ins. The Sony can't move
>that slow where it really counts (and neither can the new Canon
>16x manual lens).
The Sony is easy to control, using the rocker, but what I
would like to see on all these is better smoothness in
shifts between all zooming speeds (including "0"),
and having more speeds does better approximate this
ideal - but not as well as better electronic control, or
having a good, truly manual zoom ring...
>Like the Canon focus ring, the Sony focus ring isn't marked either. A rack
>focus move poses just as much difficulty with either camera.
Actually, there may be a way around this with the Sony.
A possibility "dawned" on me yesterday for focus-pulling
with the Sony. I will check it out later today...
With the Sony, though, the smooth, non-hunting AF can
be used for successful rack focus with careful choice of
framing changes.
>Proper use of
>a zoom and focus controller eliminates these problems anyway, so it becomes
>a moot issue regardless. It's only too bad that the JVC and Panasonic
>prosumer camcorders lack the ultimately valuable remote lens controller
>interface.
Among these cameras is a variety of manual and auto control
capabilities. The JVC is the easiest and most successfully
used manually; the Sony is easiest and most successfully
used with its excellent automatic controls (with biases
applicable) - and their electronic nature lends itself to
remote operation... I would not want to turn one type into
the other - each has its place and preferred uses. The Canon
is left with less able auto controls than the Sony, and less
able manual controls than the JVC, but it, like the Sony can
(must?) be operated remotely for best results(?)...;-)
>> Do you claim I have hidden agendas?
>Re-read my post, David. Did I make that statement targeting you
>specifically? Perhaps your conscience is bothering you, or perhaps
>I was referring to usenet in general?
Hard t' tell....;-)
>> If so, why did you publish on your site my reviews?
>First, because you granted permission, and second, because there
>were no others of sufficient depth to be found. They're still a rare
>commodity, as are XL1S reviews. I can only assume that in both
>cases it's because their owners are too busy happily shooting.
Could be....;-)
Anyway, a comment: exchanges with you are pleasurable
in that you offer reasonable (if inadequate...;-) rebuttal,
and refrain from the common practice here of substituting
invective for logic when your arguments fail. I regard
you as an honest adversary, if still a bit "sold" on Canon
conceptually (more than reality might support ;-), but a
good candidate for "redemption", once you learn to see
objectively...;-) If you carry out the comparison tests you
have proposed objectively (I think you will...), and maybe
if you are willing to learn a bit about image
characteristics, (and what separates the good from the
less good...), you will "see the light"...;-)
And, as usual (though not always stated), is the usual
disclaimer: the XL-1 is not a terrible or unuseable camera,
and its competition is not perfect, but overall, for general
purposes I prefer alternatives for both image quality
and control capability. The XL-1 is, however, best suited
for some *very* specific uses, and I do recommend it for
those, though not in general... I do understand that some
people prefer the lesser product, even at a higher price,
and I do not always consider them total idiots for making
the choices they made, though the marketing prowess of
the product manufacturer obviously had more to do with
the choice than specific knowledge about the product and
its quality of performance...;-)
(Keep in mind that much of this is in "fun" - these
are "recreational" NGs, afterall, even if they can also
serve as a place to learn, and exchange ideas...)