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

news:47c5ce66.0311081652.3d7e5cc4@posting.google.com...

> I'm not stuck on the XL!

>

> I don't even really like the way its picture looks like.

> I'm saying i tried both the TRV900 and the XL1.

> XL has low thiny background noise. Its picture is allmost professional

> TV broadcast quality, and remains so under low light.

> The 900 producess terrible noise, an' in dark situations the picture

> becomes unusable and beyond repair. Even on lit surfaces noise

> flickering is obvious. The noise destroyes the picture (expecialy in

> dark areas), and the noise "granules" are big as a house, making the

> picture unusable.

>

> I can't understand how someone could not see the huge difference

> between these two pictures (i mean again in really low light).

>

> I think the TRV900 is a great camera, with lots of pro attributes,

> with great low light sensitivity, an' really a lot can be done with

> it, but it just doesn't maintain a degree of quality in low light.

> As i said i don't even like the way XL1's picture looks like and i

> think i'd be better of with the VX2000, but one could shoot in low

> light with it and use it for professional (and i don't mean

> professional as in only for making money on it) porpusses. One could

> never do that with the TRV900, it's unthinkable. The picture is simply

> very very trashy.

> Objectivly (puting our impressions of the colour profile aside), the

> XL1 could be used for professional purposess in all conditions. The

> TRV900 could not. It just isn't that high grade. (i ofcourse don't

> even think about undermining anything that someone might have made

> with the TRV900!)

>

> The thing is i live in a small country and i'm very short on choices.

> I started this post because i'm on a two way, yes or no, crossroad. I

> don't have the opportunity to chose between a wast variety of cameras.

>

> Try taking your TRV900 outside an' pointing it to a lit house and to a

> badly lit tower. Just look at what an ideal night sky will turn into.

> )

Ah, maybe we are comparing different cameras than the above would suggest

(though the original title was "The XL1 and VX2000 picture quality in

low light" - with the "XL1" presumably a used sample, since the somewhat

different XL1*s* is the current version...). BTW, the TRV900 is being used

by many small production houses for a wide range of professional uses

(and I own four...;-). And, while I don't like its low-light picture (certainly

compared with the VX2000's picture, which has better brilliance, color, sharpness,

and smoothness), it does not have the characteristics in low light that you attribute

to it (see the +18db comparisons at http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/dim.htm).

For valid comparisons, you must compare cameras using the same settings, and

under the same (repeatable, if not doing side-by-side shooting) conditions.

As for the original question (assuming you meant the XL1s and not the XL1),

see the daylight and low-light samples for both the VX2000 and XL1s at

http://www4.big.or.jp/~a_haru/exknow2002au. While the bright light contrast

and color of the two cameras closely match, the VX2000's low light range and

picture quality are clearly better (the XL1s's picture is smooth, but in both

low and bright light, its picture is distinctly less sharp than that of the VX2000

[or TRV900, from other comparisons...], and the XL1s shows unacceptable

levels of internal lens reflections from the light sources). So, the answer to

your original question (assuming you actually meant the XL1s) is still: "the

VX2000 is preferable"...

--

David Ruether

d_ruether@hotmail.com

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