"Charles
C. Shyu" <shyu@spine.npa.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:xV8hb.6468$Eo2.5683@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
Sony Press Release:
>
http://news.sel.sony.com/pressrelease/4079
>
>
Camcorderinfo.com commentary:
>
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/sony-dcr-vx2100-editorial-10_07_03.htm
>
> I,
for one, am disappointed...
> --
>
Charles C. Shyu
>
http://home.earthlink.net/~shyuc/shyu.html
For
once, I agree with Ribin Liss...;-)
The
2100 appears to be a very moderate update (and
some of
the minor improvements may prove useful...;-).
A mfgr.
can load a camera with flashy features that are
rarely
used once their low utility is realized, or try to
introduce
a format change too early, in a too-inexpensive
camera
for good results, but many of us prefer just solid
NTSC or
PAL SD interlaced performance - what we
mostly
shoot, watch, and sell, anyway...
The
Sony release was just ad-copy, with little "real"
mentioned
that was new, but I am a tad scared to see
what
increased CCD sensitivity does to the picture
without
other changes, though the audio S/N improvement
(not an
issue for me with the 2000) is interesting. I trust
the VF
has variable brightness (like the VX1000 and
TRV900),
so that it is useful for more than framing (the
2000
and all other new Sony cameras have a switch
for the
aptly-named "normal-bright" and "bright" (as in
"too
bright" and "even brighter" - which are useless
settings
for easy visual exposure evaluation...), but with
no
selection for "normal". It is not (and should not be)
a
PD150/170 (some of us prefer the VX2000, and
its
considerably lower price with essentially equal
output
quality is also attractive). Once we know more,
we will
know if the VX2100 turns out to be the
moderately
better mid-run model replacement its
name
implies, keeping the model at or near the top
of its
specialized field of moderately compact and
inexpensive,
but very capable and versatile Mini-DV
camcorders.
Expecting more is, well, uh......;-)
(Or, why
CAN'T I have a double-70mm film camera
with
excellent lenses that weighs less than a small
ham,
and costs under $1500?!?! ;-)
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com