|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
November 21st, 2006, 08:07 PM | #1 |
Trustee
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Pembroke Pines, Florida
Posts: 1,418
|
Camcorderinfo XH A1 Review
|
November 22nd, 2006, 07:19 AM | #2 |
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Simsbury, CT
Posts: 247
|
That review isn't nearly long enough. War and Peace has it beat by at least a dozen pages.
I wish they had compared it to the FX1/Z1 a little. |
November 22nd, 2006, 09:03 AM | #3 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 1,945
|
Quote:
|
|
November 22nd, 2006, 09:05 AM | #4 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Posts: 157
|
Quote:
The one thing I have trouble with in these lengthy reviews is no one thinks Audio is a concept relative to a camera. |
|
November 22nd, 2006, 10:03 AM | #5 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Simsbury, CT
Posts: 247
|
Quote:
Someone can tell me that the lowlight response is great, but unless they are comparing it to a camera of which I am familiar, I find it hard to quantify their remarks. |
|
November 22nd, 2006, 10:14 AM | #6 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: May 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 195
|
Quote:
totaly agreed with you. The audio bars alone without "db numbering" is not acceptable. I know there are the db numbering on the dial but it is not lighted nor in a strategic place for constant monitoring |
|
November 22nd, 2006, 10:15 AM | #7 |
Major Player
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Snellville, Georgia
Posts: 614
|
I thought that was a pretty decent description of the cam. The resolution charts at different light/shutter/gain levels should give event videographers an idea of what this cam can do. I think if someone were considering this cam, that would be a good read (and probably push them towards the purchase).
|
November 22nd, 2006, 10:44 AM | #8 |
Obstreperous Rex
|
It certainly is a lengthy description of the camera, but it contains too many factual errors for my taste (I'll take accurate brevity over inaccurate verbosity any day). To cite just a handful of examples:
"a focal distance of f/1.6-3.5" "the cavity door must remain open when the DC power is plugged in." "both rockers can be adjusted for variable, touch-sensitive zoom speeds" "this camcorder is not compatible with Canon’s BP-930 or BP-945 batteries." It's not my intention to pick it apart, but mistakes such as these make me reluctant to recommend that particular link to a prospective buyer. |
November 22nd, 2006, 10:49 AM | #9 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Wilmington, NC
Posts: 117
|
How on earth does that rating system work?? FWIW, the A1 has the highest rating on the site.
|
November 22nd, 2006, 11:00 AM | #10 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Snellville, Georgia
Posts: 614
|
Quote:
For that matter, they should probably kill the whole "ratings" thing too. Just show us some screen caps and let the reader decide if it looks good. Oh well, on another note, has anyone actually written a negative review or posted any extensive criticism on this cam? I mean, the HVX, XL H1, HD100 and Z1 all had their critics for various reasons (qualified or not), but the XH A1 just seems bullet proof. Even people that dislike the HDV format don't have much to say when you factor in the actual image quality and sub $4K price point. |
|
November 22nd, 2006, 11:17 AM | #11 |
Major Player
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 917
|
So it is compatible with the BP 945's!
Phew |
November 22nd, 2006, 11:54 AM | #12 |
Obstreperous Rex
|
Any of the BP-9xx series batteries are fully compatible with the XH A1 and G1, including not only the BP-945, but also the BP-915, 927, 930, 941, 950G and 970G. Hope this helps,
|
November 22nd, 2006, 01:18 PM | #13 |
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Seattle WA
Posts: 209
|
Personally, I have never been impressed by any of the reviews at camcorder info. From all that I have read, each reviewer allready tends to have made up their mind about either liking the camera or not before the testing is done. There are always numerous errors in reviews and it seems that they prefere to be first with the review rather than have good factual information. I take whatever I read on that site with a grain of salt and would never base a purchase on information gathered from them.
__________________
Stefan Scherperel SSE Productions http://www.stefweb.net |
November 22nd, 2006, 01:46 PM | #14 |
Contributor
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 4,449
|
Their reviews remind me of the big corporate franchise restaurants where they go for huge portions over smaller quantities of tastier food. I've seen dumb factual errors in their other reviews too. Maybe their reviewer is like the old newspaper free lancers who got paid by the column inch, or the pulp fiction writers who got a penny a word.
|
November 22nd, 2006, 01:57 PM | #15 |
Obstreperous Rex
|
I don't know what their inner workings are like, but I really don't want this to turn into a "bash the other site" discussion, so it's time to put a lock on it. They've always been listed on my Top Ten Resources page and probably always will be. Meanwhile we should probably make sure that our own act is squared away and try our best to make sure that the info we're putting out is completely accurate. That's enough to worry about, believe me.
|
| ||||||
|
|