Thanks for the comments.
You are right that "a camera in the hand is worth
two on the web"...;-) - but the Japanese web site
frame-grabs have been consistent with what I have
found with other cameras, so I took its several
MX3000 frame-grabs as reasonably indicative of
the MX3000 performance relative to others - and
it did not look particularly wonderful... I
owned a Pan EZ30U and liked it, but I had enough
reservations about its shortcomings to sell it
in favor of three other camcorders I owned that
performed better for most uses (VX-2000, TRV-900,
VX-1000 - and even a PC-1 for particular uses),
so I know Panasonic can make at least acceptable-
level camcorders... If someone local should
happen to want to lend me an MX3000/MX300 (and a
TRV30...;-), I would be happy to check them out!
Short of that, I have your reports of generally
very positive experiences with the Panasonic - and
the Japanese web site frame grabs to go on...
I don't know you well enough to know if you suffer
the "new toy exuberance" many people do when
reporting on gear, or not (though your comments are
specific enough to indicate objectivity). Again,
thanks - I will check out this camera if I get the
opportunity. But, until I see actual results (how
'bout putting some comparative frame-grabs up,
TRV-900 and MX300 shots of the same things, in the
shot in same light [preferably at the same time]?),
I may still recommend people check out the Japanese
site (to counter "new product" enthusiasm) when
this question comes up again (and I trust you will
again jump in with your comments on more direct
experience with the camera...). (I'm not sure why
people tend to believe that the newest and latest
is somehow better than anything that went before,
but it may be useful to point out shortcomings,
as you did...;-)

On Fri, 29 Jun 2001 18:26:28 +1000, "Angry Of Mayfair" wrote:
>
>David,
>Forget the pics on that Jap site - just get your hands on an MX300 - I
>can assure you that you will be astounded by the video output of this
>little cam, it is stunning, especially if you take the time to use
>manual mode - manual wb and perhaps drop the exposure a stop and you
>will not believe your eyes - the result will blow away most other cams
>around, especially the TRV900 - having owned one for close to three
>years I can tell you that I have *never* been able to get the quality
>that the MX300 gives...
>Yes, it does have some probs with auto wb - there is a slight redness
>but the TRV900 is more than slightly blue in auto wb.
>I don't know how they have done it - maybe it is the Leica lens which I
>thought was just marketing b/s - but believe me the output from this
>little MX300 is so close to pro rigs it is really unbelievable.
>Also if you are into 'film look' then the MX300 really shines - it does
>a true 25fps frame mode - couple that to it's 16:9 mode and drop the
>sharpness a notch in the menu and voila - instant film look!
>
>OK, some things about the TRV900 I miss - it's side loading (as compared
>to the Panny bottom load) is sweet, as is the long running time of the
>TRV900 info-lithium batteries. BUT - small size and image quality are my
>main needs and here the MX300 leaves the Sony and all others way behind,
>except perhaps for the VX2000 - especially in poor light conditions, but
>the VX2000 is way too large for my needs.
>Also the still frame megapixel capture to memory card is not too shabby
>either - close to photo quality at 2 to an A4 page... 1568 x 1152
>resolution.
>
>Having owned one of these brilliant little cams for two weeks now I can
>honestly say I have never seen such clear and detailed video ever from
>my TRV900, although I was happy with it, this thing leaves it for dead.
>Also the audio of the MX300 leaves the TRV900 gasping - I have only used
>auto audio mode so far but the stereo image is superb - I was always
>disappointed with the TRV900 sound - rather hissy and very little stereo
>content - the Panny has real stereo imaging and no hiss, no camera
>noise - nothing but clean stereo audio...
>
>The only two shortcomings I have found are the poor auto wb and the
>optical image stabiliser - no way does it match the Sony OIS...
>Oh and it needs an ND filter to handle bright conditions - pity they
>didn't build one in as Sony have...
>
>David, please get your hands on an MX300 ASAP then make a judgement as
>you have with all it's competition - don't just rely on web page pics...

>"Neuman - Ruether" wrote in message
>news:3b3f86f4.1177391@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>> On 28 Jun 2001 01:35:29 -0500, followup@here.for.it (Dean
>> Olynyk) wrote:
>>
>> >What's the current scoop on the MX3000? Is it coming to North
>America? Is
>> >it here under a different name?
>> >
>> >Has anyone here brought one in through SuperVideo?? Is it OK?
>> >
>> >I'm very close to getting a new 3CCD cam and would hate to miss this
>one...
>> >
>> >Any and all info will be very much appreciated.

>> I have reviews of various Mini-DV camcorders at:
>> www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm
>> A Japanese site has some comparative frame grabs
>> from various Mini-DV camcorders, also, including
>> the MX3000. From these, it appears you can do
>> better with at least a couple of other models
>> already available here in terms of picture
>> quality... That site is at:
>> http://www4.big.or.jp/~a_haru/index.html
>> David Ruether