[it is good to use either all top or all bottom
posting in a thread...]

Read ET's post, above, to which I would add that the
VX2000/PD150 appears to be THE good low-light smallish
camcorder, good enough to permit good full available-light
shooting in about the lowest light levels likely to be found
at weddings (and these can get pretty low...;-) without
having to resort to annoying on-camera lights.

On Thu, 15 Aug 2002 22:11:45 +1000, "Eric" wrote:

>Dear Kenn,
>Do you think low Lux value of 2 on the VX2000 and PD150 is good to have if
>I'm shooting functions and weddings in low light situations. I will also
>have a 30Watt light on top of my camera. You mentioned that TRV950 has a
>cleaner picture than TRV900. If I use a light do you think I can get away by
>using TRV950 with Lux of 7 in low light situations.
>Thanks in advance,
>Eric

>"Kjolemore" wrote in message
>news:20020815070220.29625.00000418@mb-mo.aol.com...
> DR wrote:

>> >The worse low-light range is not only due to the
>> >smaller CCD size, but to the higher pixel count
>> >(both force the pixel size smaller, resulting in
>> >lowered sensitivity...)
>> > David Ruether

>> The trade off being a much cleaner picture(compared to the 900) , less
>granular
>> with excelent color replication in the 950.After all low lux should not be
>the
>> single consideration unless your aplication makes it a requirement.Should
>that
>> be so the 2000 is the best choice on the market at this time in the price
>> range.
>> KennJ