On Sun, 31 Mar 2002 01:32:33 GMT, "Jim Harvey" wrote:

>I've read many of your posts with interest and some bemusement since I came
>upon this forum.
>
>It became very apparent from the outset that you were a dedicated Sony fan
>and that was just fine. Everyone has their own preferences.

Seems CH is bothered 'cuz I wanna include the JVC as preferable to the XL-1 (and in my comparison
reviews I have
rather good words for the Panasonic EZ30U) - but when I
say "bad" things about these, or about Sony cameras,
you and others don't jump in in their "defense", yet when
I point out Canon deficiencies (which is more often
than the others - but that issue arises more often on these
NGs...), you and others accuse me of being a Sony fan.
Well, I am, in so far as their products are better than the competition - but not when they aren't... But you
will
not notice this - you are too busy saying the above
to note the truth...;-) Read my reviews - few find them
either biased, or innacurate...
(www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm),
and the frame-grabs are there for you to see and
compare yourself...

>I found your dismissal of the Canon cameras (specifically the XL-1) to be
>kind of monomaniacal, but again, I figured that "oh well, he is a Sony
>Zealot".

I don't dismiss it - I point out that the competition
(not just Sony...) has more to offer...

>It seems that in the last few weeks, your insistance on not letting any post
>pertaining to the "What's better for me, or can I get some guidance here"
>without lambasting any and all cameras other than your beloved Sony have
>taken on a shrillness that is irksome.

This is absurd... I think few would call my posts "shrill"
who actually read them. Is reason and observation "irksome"
to you?

>I've visited your website and seen your comparisons, which in all honesty
>are just as subjective and any other out there, but for you to finally snap
>and claim that the image from an XL-1 and GL-1 are "The PITS" is just so
>silly as to be unbelievable that it came from your mouth errr.... fingers.
>If you truly believe this then your credibility has plummeted to a negative
>number.

You must learn to read more accurately...;-)
Partly jokingly (note those ";-)s"...), I did say the
***GL-1*** picture was "THE PITTS", but only half-jokingly,
since it did have the most faults of the bunch compared...
If CH considers the picture of the XL-1s and the GL-1
of similar quality, and if this is true, then the XL-1s
picture must therefore also be poor compared with the
others in the original set of cameras compared. This is
simple logic...;-) I was quite taken aback by CH's
assertion that the picture from these two cameras was
similar in quality, since the faults of the GL-1 picture
are so obvious and so well known (heck, even the writers
of a current PC Magazine comparison of some Mini-DV
camcorders spotted some of its faults, much to my
surprise - this is not usual in magazine reviews...! ;-).

>I can only suggest that you lay off the coffee, schedule an appointment at
>the nearest Opthamologist, and realize that people who are working for a
>living, rather than sitting in the den scanning the newsgroups for heresy,
>are making fine use of XL1's, GL-1's, XL1s's and other brands other than
>Sony.

As I pointed out to CH, this is irrelevant to the
discussion - unless you consider the Yugo a great car
since many were sold (etc...). This does not change
the validity of the assertion that better gear exists
for about the same price... Or, "Ansel Adams could
take great photos with a box Brownie" doesn't mean that
I would want to if I were trying to take technically-good
photos easily...

>Had I know that the GL-1 and Xl-1 were such crappy cameras, I NEVER would
>have sold any of that footage to the networks. My GOD! I'm So Ashamed!

Think how much better, and more easily produced
it would have been had it been shot with Sony gear! ;-)

>Get a Grip Dave.

Likewise. Do try to be objective...