On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:58:21 -0500, "©TekVideo" <tekvideo@WHATbellsouth.net> wrote:

>"Neuman - Ruether" <d_ruether@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>news:3e6cf85e.656081@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...

>> Unlikely very soon, if at all, unless I can get together

>> all the "major players" at once (VX2000, PDX100, TRV950,

>> GL2, DV300) - but, unlike with the past generation of

>> 3-CCD "handycam" camcorders, these appear to be more

>> alike than different in terms of good-light picture

>> quality, with some trade-offs in characteristics in

>> low-light. I slightly prefer the VX2000/PD150 picture,

>> but any of these is now a good choice for many purposes

>> (and the PDX has a wider than average lens that remains

>> sharp in the corners at wide stops and it has lower than

>> average distortion compared with the others with most

>> WA lens converters attached - and the adjustable gamma

>> is interesting...).

>I have a DV500 and have used a VX2000 as a second camera for weddings. The

>VX2000 is good but I found the auto iris a bit on the hot side.

This is easily cured - set any bias you want for the auto controls in the "custom controls" (for interiors, I use

0 exposure bias [unless the walls are light], but outdoors

I prefer -1; for color saturation, I prefer -1 or -2 for

interiors, 0 for exteriors; sharpening I prefer at +1;

hue choice varies considerably for auto-white interiors,

though I prefer +1 for exteriors).

>I'm in the

>market for a second camera and am considering the PD150, the DVX100 and the

>DV300. So far the PDX100 is at the top of my list. The low light needs to be

>good but not awesome as it's a second camera. The DVX100 seems to be a great

>little cam for those creative artistic moments.

It is a good camera, as are the other choices. I like the

excellent, biasable auto controls of the VX2000/PD150

(and prefer its image by a bit) - and prefer the VX2000

over the PD150 for the simpler to operate auto exposure

controls (the lock-and-shift works without having to lock

down two of the variables as with the PD150 - but if you

use XLR-mics......;-). I didn't like the finder of the

PDX100 (but it is OK), but did like the lens wider angle

(though 72mm-threaded WA converters are MUCH harder to

find...) - but overall, the picture and sound are very

good. This time around with most of the current 3-CCD

"handycam"-style models (not the XL-1...), the choice

really now does boil down to the particulars of operation

rather than gross picture and sound quality differences

among the best models (except for the TRV950 in low

light...).