"Michael" <please_do_not_reply@hotmail.com>

wrote in message news:bo95fq$38p$1@news-reader1.wanadoo.fr...

> > 1-CCD digital camcorders do generally have poor low-light range,

> > and the situation is getting worse as the cameras (and CCDs) get

> > smaller and the pixel-count rises. Sony cameras use a more sensitive

> ...

> > BTW, the

> > two physical formats often offer the same "guts", so there is no

> > difference in basic picture quality with the horizontal or vertical

> > formats.

> Thanks for the information, this is very helpful. It seems I will not find

> a small camera that has good low-light performance. Therefore, from all the

> reviews I've read, the Sony DCR-PC105 seems like the best choice for me.

> It's a little over $600 mail order. The PC120 is over $900. I don't plan

> to take stills with it (everyone complains about the stills so why bother, I

> have a digital camera for that) and I don't really need bluetooth, so I

> think the PC105 will suffice for me. What do you think?

>

> Michael

>

> PS: Your idea of nightshot + B&W is a great idea!

I like B&W IR video - too bad Sony defeated the ability

of newer cameras to shoot this (see

www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/ir.htm for frame-grabs of

daylight IR video shot with a TRV9). The PC105 has

a nice good-light picture, but its low-light range is not

as great as the TRV19/22/etc. - but the image is sharper,

with better color in good light. I don't like the motion-artifacting

of the TRV30/50/PC120, though otherwise the picture is

nice. Stills from the megapixel(+) cameras can be nice for web

work if not shot above 640x480 (see many of the 3-D images

at www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/changing.html for examples).

David Ruether