"Kaze" <darluzo@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:47c5ce66.0311070525.657147d8@posting.google.com...

> I would never say the TRV900 is better than the XL1. It has horrendous

> noise. And the picture quality in low light is like a toys compared to

> the XL1. Shure the picture does remain sharp. But the XL1 and the

> TRV900 are completly different things. They aren't really for

> comparison.

> Personaly, i couldn't shoot (in low light ofcourse) with the 900, but

> i could make perfectly good fotage with the XL.

>

> I did try out the TRV900. So, would someone compare the noise and low

> light ability of the 900 with the VX2000.

> Plese, expecialy compare the noise on the 900 with the one on the

> 2000.

Again, I refer you to www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm,

to www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/sony_dcr-vx2000.htm, to

www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm, and to

www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/vid_pict_characts.htm (use the "key" to see what

shot what) where all the questions above are answered with direct comparisons

of the camcorders' pictures shot under the same set of various lighting conditions.

It appears you are "stuck" on the XL1 regardless of what anyone says or shows

you, so you may be best off just buying the XL1...

--

David Ruether

d_ruether@hotmail.com

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