On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 14:01:49 GMT, dirt.rider@hi.hinet.hr (Dennis) wrote:

>I would greatly appreciate any help you might be able to give me in
>deciding between these two cams. Here are the facts:
>
>PC9 US$990.- vs. PC110 US$1,200.-
>
>As far as the size goes I think I prefer PC9, being an inch stumpier
>and a little bit shorter than 110 and thus more 'pocket friendly'
>(which is one of the reasons I am looking exclusively at 'match box'
>cams). And the price difference could possibly be more wisely spent on
>an extra battery and lens.
>
>However I see PC9's touchscreen as a possible problem in usage (cold
>dirty fat fingers w/out nails, etc.) vs. the jog dial on 110 which
>might be a better option. Needless to mention the superiority of 110's
>resolution in both video and still recordings which doesn't seem to be
>neglectable, right?
>In your opinion are there any features of 110 that 9 lacks but are
>well worth paying the difference for? Also, are there any features of
>PC9 that 110 doesn't have?

You have pretty well covered the differences (except that
the 110 has a built-in flash, but may not shoot mpeg
videos to Memory Stick[?]). For PC100 (similar) frame-grabs
compared with the PC9 and others, go to:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm
For serious video shooting, I rarely use my PC9 except as
an unobtrusive "pole camera", since the PC100/TRV30 picture
is sharper - but without comparison with these, the PC9 image
looks good, and in some ways it is more pleasant than
the "busy-sharp" megapixel video image... BTW, I dislike the
"touch-screen" controls A LOT - but some people seem to
like them...