"Dave Haynie" <dhaynie@jersey.net> wrote in message

news:4057848c.2546433508@news.jersey.net...

> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 19:39:56 GMT, "David Ruether"

> <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote:

> >"RSL" <rsl18@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

> >news:smx5c.10533$Mq7.1261@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...

> >> Please forgive my posting on several NGs. Lotsa $$ at stake.

[...]

> >> I am considering a Sony PDX-10. Should I wait for the competitor's

> >> responses to this fairly inexpensive camcorder? I

[...]

> >> 7-lux may not be good enough, given the Pana 203 10-lux results. ( I know

> >> that different manufacturer's lux ratings are not really comparable.)

> >How 'bout a used VX2000? ;-)

> Technically considerable. But in reality... I would be really nervous

> about buying ANY former-pro-class gear. It's not like your typical

> VX2000 has been sitting in an old lady's garage for the last N yeas.

Mine were...;-)

I have 12 camcorders (yuh, I know...;-),

and I do FAR less work than that number

justifies... Some are for sale (and accurately

described...).

> Absolutely don't buy unless you get a guarantee on the head-hours.

> It's not uncommon for heads to have a rated life of 100 hours. A busy

> pro could kill that in a year or two, no problemo.

Sony describes use-cycles out to 1000 hours,

assuming good care, I suppose. Sony also does

flat-rate repairs/replacements of any part, major

or minor, for under $300. If you like the camera,

this is fairly cheap security for used purchases.

It is well worth the price with a good, no longer

made camera, if/when major rebuilds are necessary.

> >Better picture, greater low-light range.

> >(I disliked the contrasty picture of the

> >PDX10-similar TRV950 -

> There are plenty of folks who will rate the picture on a properly

> adjusted PDX-10 or TRV950 as better than the VX2000/2100 (same

> electronics on both).

Not ones who have used both, and are aware

of what good picture-quality is in video (this

does not include those who like built-in image

color-biases, over-sharpening, and high-contrast,

all attractive characteristics to those not really

into neutral picture quality - not that the PDX10

has the first two of these). Remember the

vociferous defenders of the GL1 here in the

past? ;-) Dreadful image, yet many liked it. I

know you favor this camera "on paper" as a

choice, but, I sold mine almost as soon as it

arrived...;-) The VX2000 picture is superior in

important ways (as is the picture of a few lesser

cameras, and some others that are close

enough to the VX2000 made by other makers).

> No one would question the light sensitivity. The

> VX2000/2100 best the PDX-10/TRV950, but also the Canons and the

> Panasonics (even the new AG-DVC30) in low-light. The PDX-10 is the

> best at 16:9. There are always trade-offs.

Yes. But some characteristics are "with this,

nothing"...;-) Unless you will always be willing

to apply work-arounds to a bad image

characteristic...

> Of course, in answer to the original question: considered the TRV950?

> > and a good used TRV900 is another option

> Again, the issue of serious wear.

Yes, especially with the ones I offer (but not with

the VX2000s), but, again, a better camera, no longer

offered new, that can be rebuilt for under $300 (transport,

heads, whatever), *if needed*. Better that than choosing

new, but inherently inferior, gear...

> Dave Haynie | Chief Toady, Frog Pond Media Consulting

> dhaynie@jersey.net| Take Back Freedom! Bush no more in 2004!

> "Deathbed Vigil" now on DVD! See http://www.frogpondmedia.com

--

David Ruether

d_ruether@hotmail.com

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