On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 21:38:20 GMT, Chris Hurd
>Howdy from Texas,
>Neuman - Ruether wrote:
>>
>> 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...
>Sorry, but this is absolutely and patently incorrect.
[...lots of irrelevant things deleted for space reasons...]
>And it's how the *industry* classifies this gear,
>David, not how you classify it, that people need
>to know about. Your skewed version of classifying
>gear based on tape format, what it's used for or
>even pricing does not jive at all with the excepted
>real-world industry standards used throughout
>the world.
[...more irrelevancies deleted...]
>Finally, look hard at the feature sets of the JVC GY-DV500.
>Does the camera compare more closely to the Sony DSR300
>or to the PD150? Be honest with yourself and you will
>*clearly* see how the DV500 is indeed a professional
>camera. I'm sure many DV500 owners would urge you
>to face this reality as well.
But, it is YOU who have missed the point!
If a production-house/freelancer/etc. is
selecting a camera for general shooting
and production work, the choices
*******ARE******* the XL-1, the GL-1, the
DSR 250, the PD150, the VX2000, the TRV900,
the JVC 500, and now the Panasonic 200, since
they are all D25, are used for a certain level
of work (with all that that implies for shooting,
editing, copying, etc.). This is ***the***
important division: what the camera will be
used for, in addition to its general price
and capability level, not control-function
types, modularity-types, etc. For higher-end
work, we go to a more expensive category of
camera, D50, etc. Splitting it arbitrarily
otherwise (so as, I presume, to exclude
obviously more able cameras than the XL-1
in its price class..;-), is silly - these are
the cameras on the list to consider in the
lowest-end-to-$6-to-$7-thousand area, where
most production houses operate. Generally,
though, the lowest-end GL-1 and TRV900
options are not considered, leaving the
others. THESE are the cameras people ask
to be compared in these NGs for real-world
use! Denying this is silly...
>>> (LCD monitors) 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...
>No problem whatsoever... you've never heard of a monitor
>hood? If you don't feel like buying one, you can cobble
>one up for free out of common household materials...
>a little cardboard and tape is all you need.
Yes, Hoodman just sent me a bunch of them to
review - they do not work very well. You are
not trying to tell me that the "ghost of an
image" seen on an LCD in daylight, no matter
how well "hooded", is the equal of an eye-piece
type 500-line finder for focus, composition,
and exposure evaluation, I trust...! ;-)
>>> 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...
>I can shoot all day with a BP945 battery on a Canon GL1.
We were talking about the XL-1 and PD150 - no one
takes the GL-1 very seriously if they care at all
about picture and sound quality - it is the "bottom
of the heap", so its battery run-time is irrelevant...;-)
>What's really important, however, is that your standards
>for camera selection revolve around a only a particular
>type of shooting environment. Not everybody considers
>all-day battery power as ultimately paramount.
Nor do I - but it is one of several important aspects
of camcorder choice. As I said, "I would consider this
power solution THE reason for buying a camera, ***all
else being nearly equal***", as I would also consider
the superior picture, the superior auto controls, the
superior VFs, etc. of the PD150 "THE reason for buying
a camera, ***all else being nearly equal***", or the
superior manual controls, VF, picture-adjusts, etc.
of the JVC "THE reason for buying a camera, ***all else
being nearly equal***"...;-)
But, for those who do location work, not having to
connect to AC or to carry heavy batteries for extended
shooting sessions ***IS*** important (as are all the
other advantages of the PD150, JVC 500, etc. over the
XL-1...;-).
>Besides,
>I can walk around comfortably all day long with an XL1
>and not change batteries, either; so as far as I'm
>concerned, and for many other people, this is a
>somewhat trivial issue not of overriding importance.
OK...;-)
But do you actually turn the camera on...? ;-)
(Sorry, I just couldn't resist...;-)
>>> 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... 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...;-)
>I could not possibly disagree with you more earnestly
>or stringently. The reality of the situation is that the Sony
>and Canon prosumer 3-chip DV camcorders have far,
>far more in common than they do any differences, and
>you're now picking at nits.
I agree, so far...;-)
But if most of the "nits" favor one solution over the other,
that big pile of nits on one side vs. that puny pile of
nits on the other side *does* "add up" to "something"...;-)
>So what if the shift registers of frame-interline transfer
>CCD's are two microns wider. So what if camera X
>has 25 more pixels per chip than camera Y. So what
>if there's 8 more lines of resolution... I could not in
>good conscience ever suggest to someone that they
>make a purchase decision based on numbers and
>tech specs.
I agree...;-)
I never said otherwise. I don't quote specs.
I look at the picture, and listen to the sound.
I have experience doing this, and can offer
observations on characteristics that others might
miss (but which they can check, by looking and
listening for themselves).
>They're perfectly meaningless compared
>to two and only two primary criteria: a.) how does it
>feel in your hands, and b.) do you like the look of the
>video. Within the range of 3-chip DV camcorders,
>that's *all* that matters. A person who buys a large
>shoulder-mount camera and isn't comfortable holding
>it is never going to use it, and that's what's sad.
That's what I have been saying. There are differences in
how the cameras are best operated. These will influence the
choices made. Those who prefer "pro" true-manual control
and the highest possible image quality for the format and
money spent will likely choose the shoulder-mount over the
XL-1 (with its so-so finder and so-so manual controls);
those who prefer to work with lighter/cheaper gear than
the shoulder-mount cameras and/or prefer to use
highest-capability auto controls will likely choose the
PD150/VX2000 over the XL-1 (with its so-so AF and AE);
and the picture-quality of either alternative camera type
is noticeably better than that of the XL-1, which is
the "real" bottom line...
>You're trying to establish that because in your opinion
>camera Y is "poorly designed," or broken, or whatever,
>that camera X is better. The fault of that argument is that
>you haven't yet proved anything is "broken" on camera Y.
>You can produce a certain number of people who don't
>like it for whatever reason but that won't change the fact
>that there is a far greater proportion that do like it and
>indeed use it on a daily basis... and are doing amazing
>things with it.
Good for them! Think how much more pleasurable/easy their
work would be with a better camera, though, were they to
try one...;-) Heck, we are back in the "lotsa people use
it, so it must be good" argument, which is easily
shown to be logically erroneous...
>We're lucky at all to even have these cameras at
>these prices. A decade ago it was just a pipe dream.
>The manufacturers all across the board are providing
>an amazing value right now and it's a great time to
>get into DV.
I agree, and even the least of the Mini-DV cameras
would have been a wonder, and wonderful to use, a
decade ago. But this is not the point. Among
the choices we have *now*, some are better than others
(and some are cheaper than some that are inferior).
This is not "rocket science", and this could easily
have been predicted to occur with the proliferation
of models/brands. It is the function of the reviewer to
point out the relative strenghts/weakness of various
similar/similar-level pieces of gear. Pointing out that
the gear is more alike than different is useful, but not
as useful as pointing out the ways some gear is
better/worse than other gear, and in what ways. When
one piece of gear stands out in several respects
compared with other gear, why get all upset when
this is pointed out???
>Once again, the XL1S and PD150 have much more in
>common than they do any substantial difference. The only
>clear delineation is the flavor of video they produce, and
>that's a *subjective* evaluation; a preference.
This is denying that there are objective standards for
picture quality, which is a disservice. While videographer
"A" may prefer his gear to always give him a warm,
soft-focus "look" (and doesn't notice various detracting
picture artifacts present in the images produced by his
gear), and videographer "B" may prefer his gear to give
him the sharpest, most color-accurate, most artifact-free
image possible so that he may choose to shoot "straight",
or choose to alter the "look" of his images (in-camera or
later in post) to satisfy his vision for various specific
applications, "A" is obviously more limited by his gear
than is "B". If "A" is "OK" with this, fine - but "A's"
gear should not be recommended for general use, for a
wide range of purpose, for a wide range of users; "B's" should
be... Neutral-characteristic gear is simply more generally
desire able than gear that imposes a constant shift from
neutral. While no perfect gear exists (and most gear is
usable), some gear is a bit closer to perfection than
other gear, and that is worth noting (especially when it
is cheaper and easier to use...;-).
>Surely
>you will not dare to argue the fact that both are in broad
>use worldwide in a variety of applications... look on the
>cable channels and both of them and many other makes
>and models are everywhere. Their video is used for
>broadcast *all the time.*
But, what is the point...?
There are Yugos still in use all over the world...;-)
Your point is not logically interesting...
>> 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.
>Incorrect. They are considered troublesome by a few
>at most, and these are the people who need a different
>camera.
Not from what we hear here, but we are running in circles...;-)
>As we have previously established, comparing a prosumer
>piece of equipment to truly professional gear is neither fair,
>nor accurate, nor would I say even intelligent.
As I have "established" above, this point is silly...;-)
Many pros use "prosumer" gear (and lower); many
"amateurs" use "pro" gear. So what? As I said earlier,
regardless of how you want to categorize things, people
buying gear at a certain level for various purposes
ask for comparisons of everything from (UGH!) GL-1s
to DSR300/500s, all in the same breath - but most ask
about PD150/VX2000 vs. XL-1s vs. DV500, a reasonable
selection (and some own all these, and more, intended
for the same general functions...). Among these, the
XL-1 is the "odd man out" for many reasons, covered at
length earlier...
>> 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"...
>Doesn't cut it for *you,* which does not invalidate
>hundreds if not thousands of current users for whom
>it does cut it. The design layout is what it is... were it
>"wrong" it wouldn't sell, it wouldn't exist... that is only
>your subjective opinion. It is not true for all.
You repeat this, but that does not make it true.
Shall we go into the "Bose" and "Chevrolet" examples,
again...? Or the Yugo...? ;-)
>Last night I visited another very popular online
>community regularly discussing prosumer and professional
>DV camcorders, and there was a new thread asking "Canon
>or Sony?" Just about every single response came from
>experienced shooters who rightfully advised that there
>is so little significant difference that all that matters is to
>try before you buy and choose the one you like best.
I often give this advice, too...
But one can also give a bit more information along
with it...;-) Otherwise, the answer to any "BMW or
Pontiac?", "Apogee or Bose?", "steak or Spam?" question
is the uselessly-simplistic, "go try them yourself,
don't bother to ask for any insights or observations
we may be able to provide...!".
>It was a most refreshing breath of superb clear-headed
>intelligence, after reading the ridiculous brand-loyalty
>threads that tend to infect this particular newsgroup.
>> 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...! ;-)
>For the umpteenth time, the new IS II lens has been
>completely re-engineered and does not have these
>problems.
So, I should suggest that the next several people who
report them here also contact and inform you, personally,
of their problems...? ;-)
[a good, but long description of "varifocal" deleted for
space reasons...]
>> So, Minolta is owned by Kyocera, the maker of the "Zeiss" glass?
>No; Minolta has the license to produce glass using that name.
Ah - I used to have fun with the folks on the photo NGs who
were impressed with the "Zeiss" name on a lens, independent
of knowing how it actually performed - as in, "it's German,
it must be good", a result of marketing hype...;-) As I
said, I never mention these silly lens "brand" names in
reviews; they are meaningless...
>> So, the CCDs have been changed?
>Yes. It's a brand new CCD block. I thought you knew that.
No - this is the first time I have heard this - and we have
heard from MANY here on the "superiority" of the XL-1, who
failed to mention this...;-) Interesting...;-)
> The finder?
>No.
>> The layout?
>There was nothing ever "wrong" with the layout except the
>clunky menu access system, which is now vastly improved.
I agree - I liked the various switch-controls of both
Canon 3-chippers... Sony's are a pain to find/use - but
fortunately, one doesn't usually need to...;-)
>> The XLRs have been added?
>Huh? As you well know, XLRs have always been available.
>The fact that the XLR adapter is an optional accessory
>is a non-issue; I thought we firmly established that.
Not quite "firmly"...;-)
It is still an "add-on", and still doesn't provide
phantom power (though most do not find this a limitation...).
>> The power options (and use-rate) have been improved?
>Yes, from 9.5 down to 8.7 watts, while recording with AF on.
Getting there... Suitable battery, like the
NPF960 yet?
>> The MF and AF and AE now work well?
>AE has always worked well; the new IS II lens
>greatly improves MF and AF, I thought you knew
>that as well.
Sorry - the AF on the older lens was not very good...
(on two samples I tried, at least...).
>> The camera is now lighter and easier to hold?
>This is also a non-issue as it's never been a problem
>in the first place. If you want a camera that's lighter
>and easier to hold than the XL1, just get a GL1 (and
>enjoy the same image quality).
YOW!!! The GL-1 image quality is THE PITS!
If the XL-1s image quality is the same, YIKES!!! ;-)
I guess you like a myriad of horrid edge effects,
poor sharpness, odd color, excess contrast?
If so, then we have nothing further to discuss
in terms of image quality...!;-)
>Of far greater importance is that the XL1S retains the
>same size and form factor as the XL1 so that the broad
>range of third-part accessories remains completely
>interchangeable between both cameras. Continuing
>the modular design was a much more significant
>priority than turning the XL1S into a GL1, which
>already exists for that "compact 3-chip" purpose.
The *old* XL-1 was so much better than the GL-1 for
picture and sound quality that the above statements
may have just ended my faith in the value of our
"conversations"... If you have not the ability to discern
near-gross levels of difference in picture and sound
quality, it is no wonder that we appear to get nowhere.
Discussions of differences depend on the ability
on both sides to discern differences; without that,
all this is pointless, by logical definition! ;-)
>> (must?) be operated remotely for best results(?)...;-)
>Now we're getting somewhere! The best way to operate any
>camera is without touching it... no fingers bumping lenses,
>no extraneous bumps working their way onto the audio, smooth,
>slow and consistent zooms without worry of how much pressure
>to apply to the rocker, focus without touching the lens... no more
>reaching over the lens and under the mic for the zoom rocker...
>trigger record start/pause without touching the camera... this is
>the way to go. It's an obvious foregone conclusion for tripod
>work but also becoming more popular for handheld as well,
>with the proper shoulder brace/controller configuration.
Hmmmm... This does appear to ignore common practice and
my experience (a good tripod obviates the problems
from touching the camera, unless you are a "klutz"...;-)
As for using a controller while *hand-holding*, wow!
What a concept! ;-) Lessee, a "necessity" gets called
an "advantage", or, "it's not a bug, it's a
*feature*!";-).
>> 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.
>Except my arguments haven't failed yet. ;-)
I think they have..., especially after some of the late
comments,...;-)
>> I regard you as an honest adversary, if still a bit "sold"
>> on Canon conceptually (more than reality might support ;-),
>Were that true I would not have devoted time, energy
>and resources into the ever-growing Sony info on my
>site or other sites, nor would I have guided who knows
>how many people towards Sony gear where appropriate
>at numerous trade shows all over the country. My
>reputation speaks for itself. And, I'm not your
>"adversary."
Yes, you are, for the purposes of this exchange,
since we disagree (by definition...), if not
otherwise...;-) As for the other, a "bigger pond"
is often more desireable than a smaller, though
one's heart may not be in the new waters...;-)
>> but a good candidate for "redemption", once you learn
>> to see objectively...;-)
>Ha, ha, you really mean to see things "only your way,"
>sorry but not likely... I prefer to remain firmly grounded
>in objective reality, thank you. I'm always open to learning
>more and my mentors to name a few for example are Adam Wilt,
>Bruce Johnson, Perry Mitchell and John Jackman from DV-L
>while from this newsgroup I eagerly absorb anything from
>Jay Rose, David McCall, David Mullen, and Bill Davis.
>You may notice that they seldom if ever fall into
>brand loyalty wars but that's by far not the only
>reason I follow them.
Our functions are different...
I suppose you would disagree with the functions of a movie
critic, an audio-gear critic, etc...;-) BTW, some of the
names above are familiar to me, and they are good
people - but they *do* sometimes recommend specific
gear, presumably as better than alternative gear, though
they are unlikely to engage the "Canon loyalists",
which do amuse some of us with their "religious beliefs",
held strong in the face of any and all evidence presented,
a characteristic unlikely to be seen in JVC, Panasonic,
or Sony owners, BTW...;-) And, as been pointed out by
others, it is the "C-Ls" who respond vociferously to
negative comments about "their brand" - which can be,
well, as someone so aptly described it, "bizarre"...;-)
>Anyway it's all right David, as I tend to view you as
>just as equally misguided so perhaps we're even, except
>that I have no desire to "convert" anybody. However if
>you really want to work on me, you'll have a tough row
>to hoe as there are a stack of experts from whom I've
>taken my cues that you'll have to knock down first.
>Good luck with that,
"I've got more authorities than you do" sounds like
the Middle Ages, before reason, experiment, observation,
and logic brought us into the modern age of thought...;-)
I hereby give up the effort - it falls on deaf ears...;-)