On Fri, 1 Jun 2001 16:46:39 -0400, "rvolin" wrote:

>I could use this board's input in deciding b/n these three cameras (Gl1,
>vx2000, trv900). I am a newbie, but want something I can grow in to (for
>artistic shorts, some event stuff, some vacation). I will travel, but only
>a fraction of the time. I like the feel of the gl-1, as well as the handle
>controls; i like the size of the trv900, and the increased pixels/ccd. i
>like the bigger chips in the 2000, and the low-light capabilities. I'm on
>the fence all the way around, (with nothing but green grass below,
>fortunately). Any thoughts? Thanks.

You can find reviews of all three at:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm
I MUCH prefer the VX-2000 over the GL-1.
Better picture (sharper, more free of objectionable
digital artifacts and oversharpening effects, more
neutral color, better low light quality) and better
sound (less "colored" in tonal balance, less
compressed in AGC mode, has manual-level mode).
Add in the better AF and excellent AE, and this is
a rather easy choice, unless the 20:1 zoom or
frame-mode shooting ability of the GL-1 is essential
(I see little value in the latter for motion-video
shooting, even for web and CD work [and it cuts
resolution somewhat for motion-video, especially
during times of fast movement], but the former can
be valuable for some purposes...). I like the
TRV-900, and prefer its picture and sound quality
to the GL-1, but the VX-2000 is better in both
respects. All three are good camcorders, but
there are enough differences to be able to rank
them in order of quality for most purposes...