<!-- Rating:</B> 4<img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><BR> --><BR>I like it when I can read prdoduct comparisons of cameras of similar price, quality and features. It helps hasten my conclusion to a product that suits me best - especially when the review is offered by someone with experience of various products and is knowlegable within the subject matter at hand. Compare at will!

<!-- Rating:</B> 4.5<img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/half_star.gif" width=12 height=18><BR> --><BR>Robins review is probably the worst written piece of crap ive ever read. We\'re all now dumber for having read it. have you even seen a GL2 or just a picture of it. Much of your information is incorrect. I will say though that the GL2 is a wonderful upgrade from the GL1 and well worth it. Anyone who wants a review by someone who has actually used a GL2 (or a camcorder for that matter) check out this site: http://www.dvinfo.net/canongl2/index.php

Thanks for the waste of time.

<!-- Rating:</B> 1<img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><BR> --><BR>a 24fps camcorder will not yield a better cinema-look unless you plan to transfer it to film (provided you have the thousands of dollars per second to fund it) because you probably are going to be watching it on a 30fps display. Many people may base their buying decision on this article so just provide the facts, not your feeble opinions.

<!-- Rating:</B> 1<img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><BR> --><BR>YoR all wanktards, the all of ya, stop comparing
apples with diapers and realize the GL2 is the,
yes y e retards, BEST CAMERA for the Money on the planet, ye retards, that ye live on, ARRRRRHRRh,
u know we love ye

<!-- Rating:</B> 1<img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><BR> --><BR>I like grapes.

<!-- Rating:</B> 1<img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><BR> --><BR>is the low light performance of the GL2 really visibly inferior to the vx2000? I want to buy one of these cameras in order to record jazz concerts in jazz clubs where light conditions are poor.

thanks for your help:-)))

<!-- Rating:</B> 4<img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><BR> --><BR>Where is the mention of the PD150? I know the VX2000 is close to a PD150, but the GL and PD150 are aimed at the same market. 950 and VX200 are prosumer not professional. I am deciding between a PD150 and GL2. Is everyone scared to compare the two? Plus, aren\'t Canons notorios for problems? Why doesn\'t anyone mention that? Reply with help, not flames. Thanks in advance, Mark

<!-- Rating:</B> 5<img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><BR> --><BR>I have looked at a lot of reviews and think this one is quite accurate. All i need now is a one on one comparison review with the gl2 and xl1s. p.s. I would like to use the camera I purches for creating films exclusivaly.

<!-- Rating:</B> 4<img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><BR> --><BR>Regarding the post by "Among other things\'" who said "a 24fps camcorder will not yield a better cinema-look unless you plan to transfer it to film."

This is not accurate. You can buy a VHS video of a movie and notice the difference between 24fps film vs. 30fps video. The final medium won\'t change the look by the original source (or master copy used before changing medium) - at least when you end up back on video or DVD. Besides, the film look is a combination of 1) frame rate (24 vs 30 fps) 2) color curves and 3) film grain. For those wishing to get the film look, you may want to check out the software product called "CineLook" which will take well shot video (e.g., 3 chip DV) and make it look like it was shot on 24mm film. They claim some network sitcoms which have a film look were shot video and run through their software. If you visit their site, you can learn A LOT about video look vs. film look. Check out www.digieffects.com.

<!-- Rating:</B> 4.5<img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/half_star.gif" width=12 height=18><BR> --><BR>Just got my Canon GL2 today. Big improvement in the color over my Sony TRV9! But, I was shocked to discover that the IEEE 1394 download software on the Sony VIO does not recognize the Canon GL2!! Buyer beware!

Robin, I enjoyed your review and found much useful info. My only plea is that videographers should always preface any opinions regarding the audio quality, with a disclaimer stating, "I am a videographer. I don't really understand audio." Another way to be technically accurate when reviewing any camera below full broadcast level is to say. "The audio on this camera is not acceptable for any kind of film or serious broadcast work." This is accurate because there isn't a single consumer or prosumer camera with audio as good as a $250 minidisk recorder! This is why the manufacturers never publish audio specs with the kind of detail they give to the video portion. Being clueless about audio is something videographers should be neither proud or ashamed to admit. However you must admit it in order to avoid serious pitfalls that cannot be fixed in post. The other beef is people's continued quest to make video look good in low light. No camera, repeat, no camera makes great video in low light. Without light, you have nothing to shoot. Poorly lit subject matter will always look crappy, so why mention low light conditions when reviewing a camera that sells for over a grand? Low light capability is another marketing ploy that unfortunately gives people the impression that you can get useable footage without lighting. It will not happen. So, again, great review, all sub broadcast cameras have unacceptable audio quality, and you need to light your subject, just as you have to have sound in order to record audio. All the best!

I've just found your GL2 report Robin, and used the scroll bar to see how long it was. Even at that speed I saw your announcement that the TRV950 doesn't have optical stabilisation. Hope you've corrected this mistake now.

tom.

I've read a bit more. You say the GL2 has manual zoom (it doesn't) and that the TRV950 has a 10x zoom (it doesn't). Please send further reviews to me for proof reading. :-)

tom.

Well, I don't precisely own both cameras reviewed. I have the TRV-950 and the Canon XL1S. The TRV-950 is simply unuseable as a professional quality camera. The image stabilization is jumpy, the zoom is impossible to handle smoothy without an outboard zoom control and the Sony chips are still unable to distinguish between fine lines of high contrast. Take a 950 and shoot open window blinds from the outside on a sunny day or shoot a shingle roof with the sun on it. You will see the lines of differentiation jumping all over the place. These are just two of the zillions of situations where this problem shows up. That is unacceptable on a pro level. The Canon handles those situations smoothly. We do travel videos and hoped the TRV-950 would be useful in those situations where you don't want to look like a pro. Sneaky stuff. It's for sale. But at the bottom line, the Canon results look better - far more movie-like due to slightly smoother (not sharper) resolution (less video-like without artifacts) and the ability to move the lens and body in a smooth professional way. I suspect the really nasty responses to this review are from Sony owners angry at hearing their beloved dissed. Grow up. We need this kind of information to avoid the kind of mistake I made buying the TRV-950.

As a film student on a budget, I couldn't be happier than with this camera. I can take it around easier than an XL1s and have similar video quality (just without the interchangable lenses). All I need now is a good matte box.