????????????????
The TRV900 has an excellent optical stabilizer (reputed to
be better than that of the MX300, also), and on one-chip
cameras, DIS *can* also be excellent... As for color in
bright light, if color errors (including spurious tints)
are your thing, than the MX300 has better color in bright
light (see 3rd link, below) - but to me, the sky blue
of both Sonys is much better-rendered with the Sonys
(without the red tint of the MX300), and the whites and
greys are more neutral. Notice also the differences in
rendering the near-vertical lines in the gold roof
(the MX300 shows noticeable "discontinuities" in the
lines, the Sonys [especially the 2000] show this much
less). The differences in the pictures are subtle,
but I think those differences favor the Sonys...
(BTW, you must take into account the obvious differences
in the exposures, which appear more correct to me with
the Sonys...)
On Sun, 3 Mar 2002 00:03:28 +0100, "Jacques Ciana"
>Good show from Big Pig. Fully agree with him: the MX300 gives much better
>color rendering than both Sonys under good lighting conditions. But under
>dime light the Sony's are better. Over all the MX300 is a better choice due
>to its optical stabilizer, still picture rendering and flexibility.
>"Big Pig"
>8b7fce41.0203020458.36bb68f6@posting.google.com...
>> "Timothy O'Connor"
>news:
>> > Does anyone have any comments on which is better in low light?
>> >
>> > One day this decade I might actually buy a video camera, but its fun
>window
>> > shopping :-)
>>
>> Of the two you've named, I'd suspect that the Sony is better in low light.
>> I own a Pana MX3000 from Japan. The images are sharp & COLORFUL in good
>> light, but it really does poorly in dim conditions.
>>
>> Check out these comparison stills from Taiwan:
>>
>> http://www.dvworld.com.tw/product/panasonic_mx3000_vs_tb03.htm
>>
>> http://www.dvworld.com.tw/product/panasonic_mx3000_vs_tb02.htm
>>
>> http://www.dvworld.com.tw/product/panasonic_mx3000_vs_tb01.htm
>