"Hobart Graves" <tradecom@tpts6.seed.net.tw> wrote in message

news:f8f6cedb.0310090822.38d4a66e@posting.google.com...

> I have a budget of up to US$2,000 and I want the best of the small

> camcorders. I would like it to have good to excellent low light

> capabilities. I do not want one of those big prosumer cameras. The

> smaller the better, the smallest available would be great, but not

> sure about the trade off in quality. What is the best in terms of

> picture quality and low light capabilities in a small package.

>

> Any help would be much appreciated. If you don't have the time to post

> much, you could just mentions some models for me to look into.

Unfortunately, Sony does (secretly...;-) listen to customers,

which shows that most prefer small size to high image-quality

and good low-light range, hence the little MPEG2 camcorders,

the ugly-picture-with-motion megapixel Mini-DV camcorders,

and the hard-to-understand TRV950 ('course, people loved

the horrid Canon GL1, so this one will sell well, too, I'm

sure...;-). For $2000, buy a VX2000 (yuh, but the results

are WORTH it!!!), a used TRV900, or look at the JVC

DV-GY300 or Canon GL2 (neither is small). Otherwise, get

a low end compact Mini-DV camcorder (some of these have

more pleasant pictures and greater low-light ranges than the

more expensive 1-CCD models...), and take lights with you...;-)

I would look at the Sony TRV22 for one that is fairly versatile

and cheap, or trade off low light range for a sharper picture

and web-usable stills with the TRV33...

BTW, some 3-CCD models are compared in the VX2000

review at: www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/sony_dcr-vx2000.htm

--

David Ruether

d_ruether@hotmail.com

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