I consider buying XM2. Please, could you confirm my way of thinking.

OK, XM2 is about 2.5-3 f-stops less sensitive than VX2000. And this is somewhat critical issue to me.

BUT. Since I make almost only multimedia films, my target media are avi/mpeg files. So, natural way for me would be FRAME mode in XM2.

Now. Filming in frame mode allows me to set the time to 1/25 sec, in opposite to normal 1/50 sec that I set on VX2000. This is 1 f-stop in advance.

In addition, frame mode - due to it's teqnique of rendering the image - is about 6dB more sensitive than normal interlace. 6dB is about 2 f-stops, correct me if I'm wrong.

Now. 2+1 is 3 f-stops, so it's exactly the difference between vx2000 and xm2.

So, my question is: isn't filming at frame mode making the sensitivity of XM2 virtually the same as vx2000?

I've no idea if your "calculations" are correct. I've never seen the data you use as constants cited anywhere.

But, since you're clearly enamored with the VX2000 why not just buy one?

Well. I like Canon frame mode which vx2000 lacks.

It would make me happier finding out that using the frame mode would utilize all-discussed canon low-light issue.


>>
I've never seen the data you use as constants cited anywhere.
<<

Haven't seen? Here you go: http://videosystems.com/ar/video_progressive_need_know/

regards

6 dB gain is about one f-stop.

The XM2 is exactly one stop less sensitive than the VX2k Milosz, not the 2.5 to 3 stops you quote. I had both cams on a dance festival, and comparing the tapes in 'display' replay mode showed this to be true.

In frame mode the Canon loses some resolution, so beware. The VX2k only shoots at 12.5fps in progressive scan, so although full resolution, it's useless for movies.

You'd be happy with either camera I'm sure. Both have their pros and cons, but the extra cost of the Sony is easily demonstrated.

tom.