"George" <gpapaioa@ford.com> wrote in message news:d49be77c.0403200318.2043a352@posting.google.com...

> "David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote in message news:<OtK6c.608$vC.189@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>...

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

> > [...]

> > > ...(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

> David, the basics are certainly there for a VERY decent picture coming

> out of the TRV950 or PDX10. You said yourself that you hardly spent

> any time with either camera - what now makes you the expert??? I have

> compared the VX2000 and the TRV950 under many conditions and I can

> tell you that the smaller camera holds it's own just fine. You are

> filling this NG with very unfair opinions based on your limited

> subjective exposure to them. The additional features offered on the

> PDX10 over the VX2000 are very useful - just maybe not to you.

I reported what I found from shooting enough tape under enough

conditions to know that the image from this camera is unacceptable

for me. If you like it, that is good for you - but the TRV950

picture is non-standard in a very important respect for anyone

concerned about good, standard image quality (for extreme example,

would you not complain if the picture had no color at all? ;-). You

may like the picture - or you may find that features you like

compensate for a bad picture (it would be hard for me to understand

that, but.....;-), but I am reporting MY findings, as you may report

YOURS. We will just agree to disagree, I guess, but I think I may

have had more experience with camcorder comparisons, though...;-)

> > 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...)

> OK, please define "serious work" for all of us.

Again, I'm reporting MY reactions to the TRV950 picture

characteristics. Geesh! This is beginning to look like the

reactions I got when I pointed out the very-obvious shortcomings

of the Canon GL1 and XL1 (funny how most later agreed

with me, though, but I was still accused of being "pro Sony"

and "anti-Canon" by those who did not want to listen...;-).

> > - and there is no point in

> > comparing.other features with those of other cameras.

[once a basic picture flaw is discovered]

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

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

Tired of blown-out highlights and dead shadows yet...? ;-)

--

David Ruether

d_ruether@hotmail.com

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