On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 03:52:56 GMT, "Gabe K." wrote:

>Well, I could not be more pleased with my VX2000...
>
>I agree with the first post though.
>There are times when something less bulky, less heavy like the TRV900 would
>be great.
>
>In fact, I am thinking about getting a TRV900 for backup and for trips,
>especially now since the price seems to be coming down.
>
>I did read quite a few reviews on both but never found a good and thorough
>image quality comparison.
>Is the TRV900 much below the VX2000?
>10 % or more?
>In terms of video noise, artefacts, etc...

Reviews of both are on my web site
(www.David-Ruether-Photography.com - look under
the "I babble" index for the video stuff...).
In the VX-2000 review there are comparison
frame-grabs for the VX-2000 and TRV-900.
Bottom line: in good light, the TRV-900 image
looks as sharp as the VX-2000's, but with more
sharpening artifacts and less rich greens; in
medium-low light, the pictures of both are
smooth, but the VX-2000 looks sharper; in very
low light, there is no contest - the VX-2000
picture is better...