"Five" <Niko@fiveminutesof_blank.com> wrote in message

news:uSnec.118535$w54.835798@attbi_s01...

[lots deleted...]

> Dave also thinks, the trv900 outperforms cameras that

> are clearly superior. The 900 is a dull lifeless,

> grainy camera on a good day. Perhaps dave is

> colorblind, i don't know how else to explain his bias.

Perhaps your monitors have no color...;-)

In video work, there is FAR more often a need

to *desaturate* color a bit with these small digital

cameras than there is a need to do the reverse. Getting

good skin tone in available light, and fairly neutral

surrounding colors (and good VHS transfers) often

requires that the color levels of footage from cameras

you consider "dull" be *reduced*. I guess you like

"posterization", huh...? ;-)

> Using the sony vx2000 for something I need to sell

> always makes me nervous. It simply has a dull look.

> Sure the MX3000 would be compromising due to its lack

> of english writing, but once you figure out the text,

> it is a non issue. If you are buying a camera in this

> segment, then I say it is the winner hands down.

I suspect that you would not like the Panasonic DVX100,

then, since its color is a tad more accurate than that of

the VX2000 (and it is also more "muted"). I suspect that

you like garish, overly-saturated color and high picture

contrast. Many do, but not those into color accuracy, or

at least a semblence of it.

> This camera can easily be found for under grand now

> days. I am not trying to change Daves mind, just

> offering a voice from other that what we already know

> dave will say. No point in asking his opinion,

> because he only knows one brand.

You tell this lie repeatedly. That doesn't make it true.

Even a reading of my earlier posts in this thread

(and certainly a reading of others of mine here in the

last year or so when Sony has finally had some real

competition in its class) should convince anyone that

"Five" is simply trying to discredit someone who

points out the flaws in his favorite camera. As I said,

the MX3000 is quite usable, but its failings relative to

others restrict the range of its uses for best results

relatively more than others do (at least 4 others, that

I can think of, with likely two more than that, from

four different manufacurers). I guess most of these

cameras are "wrong" too, since their pictures more

closely approximate that of the VX2000 than the

MX3000's does. I wonder why...? ;-) If you like

the MX3000, use it, and even recommend it (tastes

vary in what people want in their cameras), but I

think, unlike the VX2000/PD150 or DVX100, you

will not find anything like a majority of "pro" users

who will agree with you on the MX3000. Again, if

you like it, use it, but don't resort to "name calling"

if someone points out reasons why others may prefer

to look at other solutions than your favorite - doing

that doesn't contribute much to your credibility...;-)

--

David Ruether

d_ruether@hotmail.com

http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com