On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 23:12:40 -0500, "Dirk J. Bakker" wrote:

>Neuman - Ruether wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 21:38:20 GMT, Chris Hurd
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Howdy from Texas,
>>>
>
>
>
>>>Neuman - Ruether wrote:
>>>
>>>>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"...;-)

>Interesting how *conveniently* you quantify your piles... (of nits).
>
>Not having choices in lenses, the ability to customize your set-up,
>better audio, IOW multiple cameras in one, weighs LESS than what you
>already agree are:
>" far, far more in common than they do any difference"

As covered earlier (SIGH! ;-), the XL-1 "choices in lenses"
consists of longer FLs (essentially repeating the FL range
of the base lens, or longer) and a single 3x (only) zoom
(without stabilizer, any one of which raises the price (with
the desireable addition of a better finder) to the price
level of better cameras; the integrated (but excellent PD150
lens, with first-rate AF, and good manual controls, as such
go on "servo" lenses) can be supplimented with very high
quality, but relatively inexpensive lens converters (without
losing the stabilizer, and with maintaining a better picture
than it appeared possible to do when I tried two different
Century converters on two Canon zoom samples (frame-grabs of
the results are in the reviews, at:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm); the
picture setup can be customized on the Sony for color
warm/cold bias, exposure bias, color saturation, and
sharpening; few complain about the excellent PD150
sound...

>WHAT is it that you mean by "I agree, so far..." Or is your
>over-inclusion of long-nosed "winks" intented to mean what Pinochio's
>long nose traditionally does? As is your insistance in using the XL1 and
>the XL1s interchangeably in these discussions and your "comparison"
>article?
>
>If I were you, I'd update it, if you mean it to be 'fair' and the
>over-use of the emoticons, lest you not be understood or worse risk not
>being taken seriously.

"If you can't argue substance, argue style" may apply
here...? ;-) Heck, a couple of "Canon-loyalists" even
attacked my web designs in an earlier, similar
thread...! ;-) I think, soon, I will get a rubber stamp
for my responses, since the "points" raised in this
thread are so old, oft-repeated, and already well-answered...;-)