Follow RGB's advice - the differences between Mini-DV and
DVCam are minor for virtually all uses, and generally
less important than the differences in available record time
per tape and in the quality of the camera output...

On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 11:45:31 GMT, "L" wrote:
>
>Reading more on the DSR-PD 100 confuses me more...Here is what a description
>of the 100 states:
>The DSR-PD100 has a rugged DVCAM tape transport instead of DV and records
>with locked audio. It also features time code with DF (Drop Frame)/NDF.
>What is the difference between DVCAM and Mini-DV?? Is this just a ploy to
>sell the PD-100 too. "A little bit here and a little bit there"

>"RGBaker" wrote in message
>news:f_w38.10925$KC1.2254448@news20.bellglobal.com...
>>
>> > I am just about to order the VX-2000 and a friend said there is a
>> DSRPD100A
>> > that goes for a tad less than the VX. The DSRPD comes with a smaller
>> chip,
>> > but comes with a XLR connection. Any thoughts or experiences with the
>> DSRPD
>> > and the difference
>>
>> The VX-2000 compares to the DSR-PD150 ... the 150 adds 2x XLR inputs, the
>> option of DVCam recording, a B&W viewfinder & full control over exposure
>> gain -- but keeps the1/3" chips, the fold out screen, et cetera. The
>> smaller DSR-PD100 is based on the TRV900 ... it uses the smaller chips,
>> records in DVCam only, but comes with an XLR adapter (one input only,
>> maybe?) and a wide angle conversion lens.
>>
>> Go with the 150, in my opinion, unless you _must_ have the smaller size of
>> the 100. Stay with the VX2000 if price is an issue for either of the two.