On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 05:40:46 GMT, "gharvey" wrote:

>Is the Sony 2000 better on all counts than the older Sony 1000 digital
>camera?

No, but it is a very different camera, and on the majority
of ways, at least a little better... In good light, you may
see differences in color bias (1000 is slightly yellow-green
vs. 2000 slightly blue-magenta - with a bit more red bloom
in the 2000), sharpness (the 2000 is a bit sharper), and
artifacting (more ill effects on parallel near-vertical
lines). The 2000 picture is noticeably better in low
light. The sound is comparable, but again, different
(and the gain differences make using some mics more
difficult with the 2000 than the 1000). I prefer the
2000 control set-up. The 2000 brings over some of the
still-image/special-effects nonsense from the TRV-900.
I prefer the viewfinder of the 1000 for both viewing and
focusing, and there are more control setting (including B&W
option) for the VF on the 1000. More in my reviews on my web
page, near the end of the "I babble" index...

>I do two things with my Sony 1000 and want to know if the Sony 2000 would do
>as good or worse job.
>
>1. film indoors talking head with a few 500 lights

As good, or better...

>2. I sometimes film a computer screen direct and wonder if the Sony 2000
>would do a better /same/ or worse job?

Dunno...

>Someone

Me...

>said that the Sony 2000 does a bad job with vertical lines (digital
>artifacts) or something. So I wonder if this would happen while filming a
>computer screen..which doesn't happen with the [1]000. (im not talking about
>the horizontal scan lines on a monitor.

Best to try it - I suspect the result will be no worse,
and overall I prefer the picture of the 2000 (which is
not "bad" on near-vertical parallel lines (and it is
noticeably better with this than the GL-1 and EZ30U,
for instance), but the 2000 does show more ill effects
on these than the 1000...