On Sun, 1 Jul 2001 20:32:56 -0500 (EST), penultimate@webtv.net wrote:

>I'm an event videographer, doing mainly weddings and receptions. I
>shoot for two companies, both of which have updated their camcorders
>from single chip Hi8 (Canon L-2's) to 3-chip digitals (Sony VX-2000's).
>I currently shoot with an L-2, but am being urged to update soon. While
>I COULD get a VX-2000, I feel more inclined to get a TRV-900. My
>reasons are this: 3 1/2-in. viewscreen, 52-mm filter size, compatibility
>with batteries I already own, lighter weight, and of course, about $600
>or so cheaper. I have read the reviews over and over and know the
>VX-2000 would be superior in low-light as well as some other ways, but
>the bottom line is this: the customer will get the finished product on
>VHS, so is the TRV-900 adequate for the job, PRACTICALLY SPEAKING?

The TRV-900 will do the job, and looks good, 'til you shoot
it side-by-side with the VX-2000 - and then it still doesn't
look bad... The TRV-900 screen is particularly good for
judging image quality, and is useable in most interior
situations (these screens are kinda useless for most outdoor
work, and the VX-2000 standard finder [with the big eyecup
installed] is MUCH easier to see in bright light than the
standard finder of the TRV-900). You will see a noticeable
improvement in image quality compared with the L-2, and
battery problems are a thing of the past (get the NPF-960,
though using this is much more awkward on the TRV-900 than
on the VX-2000 [the same batteries fit both]). The slightly
crisper, lower-contrast picture (with better blacks) of the
VX-2000 does look a bit better much of the time, but the
differences may be subtle enough for your uses to ignore
(and in post, the diferences can be minimized). Overall,
the TRV-900 is an excellent event-camcorder.