"Jacques Ciana" <jciana@antispam.bluewin.ch> wrote in message news:3fdccdcc$1_1@news.bluewin.ch...

> "David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> a écrit dans le message news:

> bri6qe$cdp$1@news01.cit.cornell.edu...

> > "DV shooter" <Niko@fiveminutesofBLANK.com>

> > wrote in message news:wFPCb.543709$Fm2.515369@attbi_s04...

> > > I just found a deal on ebay for an MX3000.

> > > It was the NTSC version with japaneese characters.

> > > I only bought it because I was looking for a small camera to carry

> > > places my PD-150 was difficult to bring along.

> > >

> > > Today was the first time I used this camera as I was doing a multi

> > > camera shoot and thought it would be cool to have some overhead shots.

> > > I mounted this camera up high and when viewing the footage, it was

> > > obvious that this camera outperformed the vx2000 and the PD-150.

> > >

> > > In fact, the video going to the screen was noticably better than ANY

> > > mini DV camera I had ever seen.

> > >

> > > I am just wondering how and why they are keeping this technology under

> > > wraps?

> > >

> > > I am now considering selling the PD-150 if I can get a decent price for

> > > it. I still need the XLR's but love that MX3000 picture.

> > >

> > > p.s. is there any way to convert this camera to english words?

> > The edge resolution and illumination evenness in the image and overall

> > color fidelity (not to mention low-light range and better ability to render

> > near-vertical lines smoothly) is superior in the Sony cameras you mention.

> > The MX3000 (and the older AG-EZ1U/950) is a good little camera, but

> > I would wait until the novelty wears off before selling the better cameras...

> > --

> > David Ruether

> Didn't know that a MX 3000 ever existed, so I cannot say any thing about

> it. But if it's the Pana MX 300 David is referring to, I can assure that it

> is superior to any Sony camera of this class (including the famous TRV 900)

> under normal light conditions (and its optical stabilizator works great).

> Under low light conditions not that good: many including some one CCD

> cameras outclass it. BTW a later model: the MX 350 has the same optic as the

> MX300; the MX500, cheaper, is not as good, I tried it. The latest Pana 3

> CCD: NV GS-70 is rather disappointing: but it is the cheapest of the 3CCD

> group, I tried it too.

It was sold in the US as the MX300, I think - but I prefer the smoother image and

better color of the TRV900 in good light (and its greater low-light range) - and,

it was being compared in the original post with the VX2000 and PD150, which

are clearly superior to the MX300/3000. I'm always mystified by some people's

preference for red-biased and over-saturated video images, while image resolution

and relative freedom from artifacting are overlooked. As I pointed out in my earlier

post, a couple of older small Panasonic 3-CCD cameras were rather nice for their

size, but not better than the specific Sony cameras mentioned, as is sometimes

claimed. With the TRV950, though, you may have some agreement from me...;-)

--

David Ruether

d_ruether@hotmail.com

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