On Sat, 18 Aug 2001 00:06:12 GMT, "nospam" wrote:
>
>ok...
>so what would you choose if size was not an issue.
>when is the PC110 superior to the PC9?

When edge contrasts are not high in the subject,
and when light levels are not low (the slightly
better color and sharpness can then be enjoyed
without the negative picture aspects being too
prominent...;-) The stills are also better...

>if you had to buy just one camcorder which would you choose between the 2 or
>between any in that price category?

For little more money than the PC110, the 3-chip TRV900
would be my choice for its better shadow and highlight
detail, more saturated color, and better low-light ability.
But the PC9 is more fun to carry...;-) There is no
perfect choice - and I'm lucky to have one or two of
each type, so I can avoid having to make a choice that
is difficult...;-)

>"Neuman - Ruether" wrote in message
>news:3b7d596e.1055248@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2001 22:11:25 GMT, "nospam"
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Thanks for the replies.....
>> >so which would you choose to buy as an all purpose mini DV cam corder,
>the
>> >PC9 or PC110??

>> There is no all purpose Mini-DV camcorder, alas...;-)
>> I like the PC-9 for its tiny size and good picture; I
>> like the PC100 for its better picture (under only some
>> circumstances, alas...;-); I like the TRV900 for its
>> better picture yet and better selection of controls;
>> I like the VX2000 best of all for its picture and
>> excellent auto controls - but it is less "fun" to
>> carry and use than the TRV900, PC100, and especially
>> the PC9, so....
>> BTW, the stills from the TRV11/17-PC5/9 series aren't
>> very good; the (640x480) stills from the TRV20-PC100/110
>> and the TRV900 are quite good for web work; the 640x480
>> stills from the VX2000 are really excellent for web
>> work and also for making very small paper prints...