But,
"there I go again", giving good advice (which most
agree
with), and supporting what I say with back-up
evidence
(how "revolutionary" on these NGs...!;-).
And,
hey, aren't you the one who is often asking for
advice
here, then ignoring/arguing-with it...? ;-)
Methinks
you are the "Jem" here, complaining about
my
(useful) post, without offering anything yourself...;-)
The
original poster asked for a c. $1000 camera that
would
do all he asked; the closest possibility for best
match
of all his requirements is the TRV900; if he is
interested
in that one as a result, I pointed out a
"known"
source for a good, thoroughly-tested one.
Gee, I
guess that kinda "bugged" yuh, huh...?;-)
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
"George"
<gpapaioa@ford.com> wrote in message
news:d49be77c.0405100117.405b1a75@posting.google.com...
>
There you go again...suggesting that the best camera for his use is
>
one that you just happen to have for sale.
You are a Jem!!!
>
"David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:<ocumc.15139$vz5.180@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>...
>
> "j" <test@test.com> wrote in message
news:c7dm7f$mns$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu...
>
> > Anyone have a good recommendation for 3ccd camcorder or
>
> > even a very good 1ccd? Will be used for:
>
> > - some still images
>
> No video camera does this well, though several are good enough
>
> for 640x480 for web images (larger images are generally noisy - and
>
> any digital still camera is better above 640x480[NTSC]).
>
> > - interview.
>
> Almost any that does not show excessive contrast, and that can
>
> manage good skin tone (the latter is rare...;-).
>
> > - some lowlight
>
> This knocks out all but the four current top-end 3-CCD
>
> camcorders from the four major makers, plus maybe the
>
> older Sony TRV900 (this is available used only).
>
> > - decent image stabilization (1/2 hand held, 1/2 tripod)
>
> Most can do this.
>
> > - compact (for travel overseas and interviews)
>
> Depending on standards, any 1-CCD model, plus the smaller
>
> 3-CCD models.
>
> > - below below or around 1000 for camera + accessories (extra
>
> > batteries, sd disks).
>
> Only the TRV900 fits all the requirements above and the price, too.
>
> (The TRV900 requires a cheap PCMCIA card adapter for still
>
> memory cards, though.)
>
> > was looking at panasonic pvgs200 or 120.
>
> > nyone have experience or any thoughts?
>
> Everyone wants top-quality image and sound, plus good-quality
>
> stills, with the ability to shoot in near-darkness, in a package that
>
> can fit easily in a pocket, and costs less than $1000.
>
> Sorry, impossible. The closest to sorta-compact, fairly-light,
>
> reasonably-good image/sound/small-stills, fair-low-light,
>
> not-too-expensive camcorder was the no longer made
>
> Sony TRV900. Nothing currently replaces it. The larger,
>
> more expensive VX2000 (and some others that are similar
>
> offered by other makers) are better cameras, but they do
>
> not fit several of your requirements.
>
>
>
> BTW, I have a TRV900 available, at:
>
> www.nikonlinks.com/ruether/fs-misc-video-audio.htm
>
> There are comparisons of it with others at:
>
> www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm
>
> www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/sony_dcr-vx2000.htm
>
> www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm