On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 15:14:44 -0500, "John S. Dyson"
>"be1"
>> I shouldn't post this, but my will power is weak...
>>
>> Ruether, there is no way that a joke could "devalue" the worth of your
>> "work."
>Well, he seems to be better than those who just state an opinion like
>'it has a more artistic image' or somesuch. Frankly, it is rather silly
>to choose a technically inferior device (in one way or another) unless
>there is a consious reason. For example, if the issue of interchangeable
>lenses is a major issue, then there are camcorders of similar quality
>to the VX2000, yet have interchangeable lenses (e.g. the JVC 500). If
>there are issues of looking 'cool', then there is the Canon. If you want
>a reasonably small camera, with essentially professional quality (akin
>to the Sony 300 or the JVC 500, but maybe a little more consumerish),
>then the VX2000 is a really good choice. If you want a VERY small
>camera, then there are often other choices, with quality tradeoffs.
>
>I am not politically involved in this, because I have a damned good camera
>and don't use DV (but use DV50). However, DV25 is a format that
>can give VERY GOOD results when the sensor/encoder combination
>is well designed. The VX2000 designers seem to have made an
>artful tradeoff of DV artifacts and ease of use. I certainly wouldn't
>want to choose an inferior combination without fully understanding
>anything about the tradeoffs. That doesn't mean that a technically
>inferior choice might not be the right choice for a given situation!!!
>
>John
Well put. With the various camcorder comparison
articles I have written, and with the video
characteristics article I wrote for reference
for those unfamiliar with judging image quality,
I tried to provide the bases for making informed
choices among the camcorders I have tried,
something apparently "be1" doesn't appreciate
the value of...