On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 17:31:14 +1200, Brian wrote:

>I've heard mixed options on the net about this camera (Sony
>DCRTRV30E). Some say that it is poor at recording in low light
>conditions. There is poor color in low light conditions and objects
>remain in the dark in a low lit room. I'm not certain if those people
>were talking about video recordings or still pictures.
>
>I'd be interested in hearing from owners of this camera as I was
>considering buying it or the updated version of this camera.
>From what I've been told the only change to the new model is a usb
>link to allows video conferencing on the internet.
>
>I also considered the new DCRTRV9050E video camera which got some good
>comments but when the salesman said am I going to use it to videotape
>weddings I thought maybe it is too expensive for a general use camera
>which I can't get some of my money back as I don't charge for taking a
>video such as weddings.
>
>Please do send a reply as I find newsgroups very useful for helping me
>in many ways.
>
>regards Brian

[On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 07:35:27 GMT, "Timothy O'Connor"
wrote:

>Until someone like David Ruether does an indepth review of it, we wont
>know...]

Hmmmm....;-)
I did do a "light" review of the TRV30, comparing it with
other Sony imaging types in bright light, medium-low
tungsten light, and very-low available-daylight, at:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm
A few comments:
-- A local Victorian chapel I often shoot video and stills
in (1/60th at f2 1/2 with 800-speed film...) is too dark
for using the TRV30, but barely adequate for the PC9...
It is my reference "low-light" location... ;-)
-- The TRV900 is OK in this environment, but if the
TRV950 really has the same low light limit as the TRV30
(the specs say so...), it will not work for me.
-- The TRV30 picture is very sharp, with good color, but
in motion, the "cacophony" of moving "saw-tooth" edges,
"flapping" effects on scan-lines, and color noise in
smooth-tone areas even in bright light is VERY
distracting to me, and I often prefer the less sharp,
but smoother, "quieter" picture of the PC9 (or, by
FAR, the superior picture of the VX2000...;-).
-- It is hard to show in stills these annoying picture
artifacts, and judging from the few comments from others
on them (and from the growing number of commercial
programs on TV that show these effects), maybe others
are not as annoyed by them as I am...
BTW, I put up a list of 28 video picture characteristics,
with samples when I had them available, at:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/vid_pict_characts.htm, perhaps
in an effort to establish standards for good images so
that video imagery may improve...? ;-)