"George" <gpapaioa@ford.com> wrote in message

news:d49be77c.0403171713.6a1bed1a@posting.google.com...

> David, I certainly did not mean to offend anyone and re-reading my

> previous post I can see where I was a little out of line. I think I

> am just a little tired of all the selling that goes on in this NG -

> although I admit to having inquired into a few myself. I have seen

> most if not all the links you include on many of your posts, and there

> is no doubt that you have a fairly comprehensive approach toward a

> fair comparison of several (mostly older) camcorders on the market.

> But I don't always agree with some of your subjective remarks, and

> while having read your comments on the TRV900 and TRV950, I was

> pleased to not see the negatives you pointed out when sampling the

> footage from what you call an inferior TRV950 to the 900. I sampled

> it in many settings in one single day, like indoors, outdoors, well

> lighted, not so well lighted - and in most cases I was completely

> satisfied and surprised. If you think of it in terms of what it is,

> it is a wonderful camera FOR THE MONEY. I love the pop-up light for

> home videos, I love the much higher res on the LCD, I love the better

> stills I can get, I love the control placement and menu system

> (similar to my VX2000). I happen to be considering the PDX10 which

> has the B/W viewfinder, dual XLR inputs, touch screen menu, DVCAM

> capability, and which quickly converts to a small home use camera if

> needed. All of which is not offered on the VX2000, only the PD150/170

> for much more.

> The PDX10 fills a perfect niche for me and many others. I still

> challenge you to suggest a NEW camera with all those capabilites in

> it's price range available today.

>

> Consider this as well, do you really think SONY would shoot themselves

> in the foot by engineering an "inferior" successor to the TRV900??? I

> don't think so. It sounds like sour grapes for many, but I know I like

> what I see.

>

> george

Thanks for the comments - and the most important "bottom line"

for anyone is whether *you* (the buyer) likes a product, regardless

of what anyone else has to say (including me...;-). I offer my

opinions from experience with this gear, and try to arrive at them

by observation that is objective as possible - but I may consider

failings in some characteristics of over-riding importance in not

recommending some gear, and others may consider these things

not important at all. I didn't spend enough time with the TRV950

to bother to review it, and thus present the comparison images

that show what I'm referring to, since it "failed" for me almost

immediately and I felt lucky to sell it. I do use some cameras

(not very often) with contrast problems (which includes most

1-CCD models), but this is due to forgiving lighting, the desire

to carry something very small (and risk quality), etc., and not

to my thinking that the results will be as good as those with

better cameras. I prefer the best available, when possible, within

size/weight/price/control-convenience limitations I decide on.

As I pointed out, there really is no really good new camera in

the price/size range of the TRV950 - but there are good used

options. Which is better, a so-so new camera, or a better

used one? I choose the latter every time - and I prefer to

judge a camera mainly on picture and sound quality, not on

peripheral "features" that don't show in the video...;-) And,

yes, the words "new and improved" send shivers into me when

these ad words are applied to the replacement for a good

product. It often means, "we figured out how to make it worse

for a higher price and we hope you won't look past the ad

hype"...;-) "New" is not necessarily "better" - and you will find

many who agree with me on the TRV900 vs. the TRV950...

--

David Ruether

d_ruether@hotmail.com

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