On Tue, 6 May 2003 18:50:10 +1000, "Pete D" <peterd56.deaddog@bigpond.com> wrote:

>"Neuman - Ruether" <d_ruether@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>news:3eb7d7c2.3266922@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...

>> On Mon, 5 May 2003 18:35:06 +1000, "Pete D"

>> <peterd56.deaddog@bigpond.com> wrote:

>> >Anyone using one yet? Any good, bad things with them? Low light should be

>> >reasonable.

>> The TRV22 image should be identical to the older Sony

>> TRV11, 17, 18, and PC9 models. While its low light range

>> and relative freedom from motion-artifacting are good,

>> the higher pixel-count models have a sharper video

>> image and considerably better stills image. A choice

>> between "more pleasant" and "more exciting, but more

>> annoying" motion-video picture-quality is in order...;-)

>> David Ruether

>I note that the next model up the TRV 33 while it has a higher pixel count

>the low light performance is only rated at 7 LUX (F1.8) compared with 5 LUX

>(F1.7) for the TRV 22, I am not fussed about the improved still shot mode.

>Extra $300AU for the TRV 33. Perhaps I will even look at the older models

>that they may have at lower prices.

Look for close-outs on the TRV25/27 - same performance as

the 33, but uses real buttons for control instead of the

yucky (a technical term...;-) touch-screen. For older

version of the 22, look for the tiny PC9 or the TRV18...

The motion-video does look different, though, from these

two sets of models.