GL2 plunge...size problem

September 14th, 2002, 12:47 AM

>For some things size matters, but that 20x lens sure does too!

Absolutely. The GL2's lens has more both at the wide and tele ends of the lens to work with, which is it's greatest strength. I wish that range (or at least wider) were in the 950.

But the smaller camera traditionally makes you work within it's smaller focal range, in trade for being able to have the camera with you more often. To drag out the Leica M analogy, the rangefinder user typically only takes a lens or two (3 fixed focal lengths, tops), in contrast to the numerous zooms and super-long lenses of his SLR counterpart. What he loses in versatility, he gains in accessibility to subjects with his quiet and less-threatening-looking camera.
It's not the comparison of dimensional mm specs on paper that matters, - sure, 5" is not a lot in the grand scheme of things, but it's the subjective impression of camera size by others; (for example) how a subject reacts when the thing is pointed at her. It certainly matters for doumentary shooting, and it can matter for drama shot in many locations.

But again, as far as picture quality goes, you lose nothing from GL2 to 950 in decent light, from what I've seen in my personally-shot tests. In the link above, yes, a lot of diffs between the camera's shots can be attributed to slight diffs in angle of light, but you can glean out the basics, --and also that these best current DV cameras are pretty close. Aside from low-light threshold, I think it's the factors other than ultimate picture quality that should really decide between them.
--Unless you're talking about how each would fare blown-up to 35mm and projected widescreen, in which case it's a moot point, in shades of awful. (Fwiw, for blow-up, I'd wager the VX2000 would probably still have the least offensive result in it's overall mushy compromise; the TRV950 would show the most fine detail, w/a little less in the way of the monstrous artifacts now enlarged from all to shocking proportions; and the GL2 would have the chosen shots whenever the long tele was called for, regardless of looking like 1950's telecine. -And you'd wished you would've shot the whole thing on a bigger medium than DV to begin with, for what that blow-up's going to cost...)

We all would like to think we've just spent a couple grand wisely, but rest assured, without some intensive A-B'ing, No one is going to peg your (X-brand current 3CCD cam's)-picture as overall markedly inferior to (Y-brand)'s. Each score their points in different ways.

September 14th, 2002, 12:47 AM	#16
psurfer1 Posts: n/a	>For some things size matters, but that 20x lens sure does too! Absolutely. The GL2's lens has more both at the wide and tele ends of the lens to work with, which is it's greatest strength. I wish that range (or at least wider) were in the 950. But the smaller camera traditionally makes you work within it's smaller focal range, in trade for being able to have the camera with you more often. To drag out the Leica M analogy, the rangefinder user typically only takes a lens or two (3 fixed focal lengths, tops), in contrast to the numerous zooms and super-long lenses of his SLR counterpart. What he loses in versatility, he gains in accessibility to subjects with his quiet and less-threatening-looking camera. It's not the comparison of dimensional mm specs on paper that matters, - sure, 5" is not a lot in the grand scheme of things, but it's the subjective impression of camera size by others; (for example) how a subject reacts when the thing is pointed at her. It certainly matters for doumentary shooting, and it can matter for drama shot in many locations. But again, as far as picture quality goes, you lose nothing from GL2 to 950 in decent light, from what I've seen in my personally-shot tests. In the link above, yes, a lot of diffs between the camera's shots can be attributed to slight diffs in angle of light, but you can glean out the basics, --and also that these best current DV cameras are pretty close. Aside from low-light threshold, I think it's the factors other than ultimate picture quality that should really decide between them. --Unless you're talking about how each would fare blown-up to 35mm and projected widescreen, in which case it's a moot point, in shades of awful. (Fwiw, for blow-up, I'd wager the VX2000 would probably still have the least offensive result in it's overall mushy compromise; the TRV950 would show the most fine detail, w/a little less in the way of the monstrous artifacts now enlarged from all to shocking proportions; and the GL2 would have the chosen shots whenever the long tele was called for, regardless of looking like 1950's telecine. -And you'd wished you would've shot the whole thing on a bigger medium than DV to begin with, for what that blow-up's going to cost...) We all would like to think we've just spent a couple grand wisely, but rest assured, without some intensive A-B'ing, No one is going to peg your (X-brand current 3CCD cam's)-picture as overall markedly inferior to (Y-brand)'s. Each score their points in different ways.