"Dave Haynie" <dhaynie@jersey.net> wrote in message news:405b3b37.2789804176@news.jersey.net...

> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 12:53:54 GMT, "David Ruether"

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

> >"Gene E. Bloch" <hamburger@NOT_SPAM.invalid> wrote in message

> >> I still remember buying a box of cereal or something with the phrase

> >> "improved weight" on the label. Old weight: 10 oz. New weight: 8 oz.

> >The "hot one" for me was when Breyer's Ice-cream touted its

> >new "space-saver" container - the new container *was* smaller,

> >and therefore was probably easier to fit into the freezer, but it

> >contained less ice-cream for the same price! ;-)

> It's the other businesses getting into "the candy bar game". Every

> candy bar manufacturer plays the same game. They introduce a "Now

> Bigger!" candy bar, with a price increase. They continue to the hold

> the price constant, but gradually shrink the candy bar. Once it gets

> to some pre-determined cut-off, they loop: "Now Bigger!".

I remember too many cycles of this - remember when a really

large Three Muskateers was 5 cents? ;-)

[...]

> ...(I don't personally know the 900 vs. 950

> story -- I hear loud noises from both camps, but I'd like an actual,

> technical, point by point critique, from the 900 and 950 fans,

> explaining why they feel this way, in the context of professional

> use).

> Dave Haynie

For me, as I've said, the camera image is simply too contrasty.

Shoot just clouds in the sky, and expect areas of undifferentiated

pure white (unless you underexpose); shoot foliage and expect

light areas to be undifferentiated pure white; shoot a grey-day

street scene, and expect shadow sides of things to be

undifferentiated black; etc. The VX2000 doesn't do this

(shadows are fairly "open", and even areas near the sun in the

sky have tone). The TRV900 isn't as good as this, but it is

better (with more normal tonality in good light) than the TRV950.

Excessive contrast may give the image a "snappy" and "sharper"

look, but it makes shooting good-looking footage under a

range of lighting contrasts more difficult - and less footage will

look properly exposed. Compared with good pro gear, the

VX2000 image can look too "snappy" and "hard" - but it is

"two notches" better in this than the TRV950. For me, if the

basics of decent picture or sound quality are not there,

NOTHING else on the camera can make me want to use it

(at least for "serious" work...) - and there is no point in

comparing.other features with those of other cameras.

So, if you buy the PDX10, let us know what *you* think of

the image-quality, after a bit of use...

--

David Ruether

d_ruether@hotmail.com

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