"George" <gpapaioa@ford.com> wrote in message news:d49be77c.0403161757.7bad50d0@posting.google.com...

> "David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote in message news:<KCI5c.14623$1g2.2768@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>...

> > "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 have used maybe 10

> > > camcorders in the last 20 years, since 1984. Only my last one, the Pana

> > > DV-PV203 was digital. It is not nearly good enough in terms of resolution

> > > (which I view on a 65 inch screen), and has failed me in dim lighting. My

> > > next purchase must yield truly impressively good video.

> > >

> > > 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.)

> > >

> > > I am now in the tedious real-time rate project of transferring 20 years of

> > > VHS to DVD. I am perhaps a slow learner, but 20 years is long enough for

> > > even a slow learner to become discriminating, and even smart about some

> > > things.

> > >

> > > It has been my experience that some kinds of equipment are improved in

> > > performance with respect to price, with improved technology development.

> > > Waiting, and not being an early adopter, can pay off.

> > >

> > > I am really hoping to hear someone tell me that there is something better

> > > than the Sony PDX-10 available at near the the same cost, or that it will be

> > > available very very soon.

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

> > Better picture, greater low-light range.

> > (I disliked the contrasty picture of the

> > PDX10-similar TRV950 - and a good

> > used TRV900 is another option [and I

> > just happen to have both available...;-]).

> > BTW, these may be interesting: if you

> > are researching Mini-DV picture-quality:

> > www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/vid_pict_characts.htm

> > 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

> > http://www4.big.or.jp/~a_haru/index.html

> > http://www4.big.or.jp/~a_haru/exknow2002au

> > www.bealecorner.com

> > www.adamwilt.com

> David, it is very obvious that most of your opinions/posts lately are

> just a vehicle for your primary concern of selling used equipment.

I find this comment offensive.

(And, note the range of sources I referenced above...)

Yes, I do offer notice of gear I have available, if

appropriate to the poster's needs. But I also offer

real info, some of which may be counter to any

sales hopes I may have. I owned a TRV950 VERY

briefly, and did not like it for the reasons stated.

And, BTW, when you inquired about cameras in

the past, you "ran interference" against the resulting

recommendations and I eventually gave up with

you (you tend to believe what you want, regardless

of the facts, and argue with those trying to tell you

something other than what you already believe).

While reasonable people can disagree on camera

performance, and, as I pointed out, some lighting

conditions may favor "error" (and some people

may actually prefer picture characteristics that are

non-ideal for general use), calling what I have

offered in these NGs for several years "just a

vehicle for your primary concern of selling used

equipment" is asinine. A passion for trying gear,

and a recent medical condition that has led me

to restrict my work considerably, have led to

my offering several excellent camcorders for sale

(to the advantage of those looking for good,

well-tested gear, some of which is commonly held

to be superior to the gear that replaced it ["newer"

is not necessarily "better", as we all should know]).

> No matter what Dave says, the TRV950 is a superior camera to the

> TRV900 in every "important" feature, and better in some ways than the

> VX2000 as well.

In what ways? I try to be specific when offering

opinions like this... And for me, no matter how

good a camera is in every other aspect, if it has

a serious picture problem (one that limits its use

for a large percentage of applications), I cannot

recommend it. Much to my surprise for a Sony

3-CCD model (image-quality has always been

good with these), the TRV950 had contrast

issues that I found unacceptable for general use

for a camera of this type (the low-light restrictions

are also limiting, but not necessarily fatal). In

the past, I took "flak" from Canon owners for

pointing out the serious flaws in the XL1 and

GL1, too...;-), so I'm kinda used to it...;-)

> Buying used video equipment (especially previous models) for slightly

> less than new is too risky for me too comprehend. You never know what

> kind of quirky or intermittent problems could exist and then be

> expensive to repair out of warranty.

As I've pointed out also, ALL Sony repairs for

ANYTHING or ANY COMBINATION are

flat-rated at a reasonable price, and this sum

may well be worth spending on a camera that is

better than current offerings, *if needed*. With

gear I offer for sale, though, I can give detailed

performance information about the *particular*

sample involved and about the general model

characteristics. Not even new sellers can do

that (and "new" does not guarantee "not-defective"!).

People often buy extended warranties, too (not

a bad idea with camcorders, unlike other things),

but Sony's flat-rate pricing gives you the option of

paying less now, or paying nothing-or-possibly-more

later. Used removes the first option, but the second

is not a bad one. Buying used gear often provides

better value (lower initial price, and later sales-price

closer to purchase-price) - and this permits access

to sometimes-better models that are unavailable

new. I purchase used gear when I can in

preference to new, unless I have specific reasons

for not doing this in particular cases. I got over

my prejudice years ago about buying "new" (and

finding a high defect rate), and I prefer to buy used

if a satisfaction guarantee is permitted, and I laugh

at people who pay a premium for new, accept

inherent faults, and then proceed to beat the gear

and make it look worse in a short time than good

used gear might have looked when purchased...;-)

> I shot a (2) cam event using the VX2000 and my buddy's TRV950 and was

> amazed at what I saw in post edit - especially after I heard horror

> stories (all false!!!) of the 950 being far worse than the 900 in

> low-light. It was just fine, albeit gained slightly to match the

> VX2000.

This is a particular-situation observation. Compare

them in daylight under varying conditions, in dim

receptions, etc., and then tell us... Or, maybe you

just prefer blown-out highlights and empty shadows

(but a good 1-CCD camera can give you this, for

less money and bulk...;-).

> The PDX10 should be just the same as the 950 (same electronics/optics,

> etc.) It sounds like you might not need all the additional features

> of it, but I think you too will be amazed.

> Good luck,

> George

I' glad you're happy with it - I was not, and I've

compared a bunch of these camcorders side-by-side

under a lot of different conditions...

(And, BTW, I have several good camcorders

to sell that I no longer need - see:

www.nikonlinks.com/ruether/fs-misc-video-audio.htm...

;-], ;-], ;-])

--

David Ruether

d_ruether@hotmail.com

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