"JohnD" <jdownie@surfree.com> wrote in message

news:3f5c4f37.0403122001.7c5ae245@posting.google.com...

> David,

>

> My apologies if I have insulted you - that was not my intention. (I

> thanked you for the time lapse advice you gave me.)

>

> I was hoping to elicit more specific advice on whether the

> VX1000/TRV900 are good enough for TV, if there is another new camera

> option in that $1K price range or (unspoken) do I have to go to the

> VX2000 level?

>

> I do appreciate your postings and your website...

>

> John

Thanks for the comments (the earlier ones did offend...;-).

It is unfortunate that there are no good low-light camcorders

in your price range (other than used - and the TRV900 and

VX1000 are "good enough for TV", but as with all, do

have limitations that may interfer with what you want to do).

The Sony TRV19/22 (and older TRV11/17/18 + PC9,

which all have the same imaging) may be acceptable for

bright room interiors - but the VX2000 level is nearly unique

for "compact" digital camcorders in its low-light picture quality

(and I prefer it to others in good light too), but there are

a few alternatives that may be close enough made by others

(the Panasonic 100a is the best of these). For time-lapse

(particularly in a rough environment), I'd consider a cheap

digital still camera (probably relatively low-resolution),

though many of these still cameras also have poor low-light

performance...

--

David Ruether

d_ruether@hotmail.com

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