On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 12:37:30 -0500, "Paul Tauger"
>To all the pros, here, please forgive this inquiry, but you guys definitely
>know best.
>
>I've been shooting with a TRV-20 for the last year and a half or so and,
>though it's a vast improvement over my old TR-600 Hi 8, I'm not happy with
>the digital artifacts which are dramatically present whenever I shoot
>anything with sharp lines, e.g. window ledges on buildings, pavement lines,
>etc. I'm also considerably less than thrilled with its low-light
>performance.
>
>I've been threatening my wife with an upgrade for some time now -- I'm
>considering either the TRV-900 (assuming I can find one), or the TRV-950.
The PC100 (same imaging as the TRV20), TRV900, and VX2000
are compared in various light levels at:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm.
>I use the camera almost exclusively for shooting our travel videos and,
>though they're for personal use, do considerably more than the average "home
>movies" shooter. The end result is edited NLE, put on DVDs and distributed
>to a few interested friends and relatives.
>
>1. Size and weight _is_ a factor. A VX2000 would be wonderful from a
>quality standpoint, but is far too big and heavy for my uses. I like the
>form factor of the TRV-20 -- it's almost small enough to go in a pocket,
>weighs little, and doesn't tire me out when I carry it around all day. From
>this perspective the 950 offers advantages over the 900 (not the least of
>which is my 37mm accessories would fit).
>
>2. Image quality is key. If I'm going to spend $2K on a new camera when I
>already have a perfectly good miniDV, I need to see (and be able to show my
>wife) a noticeable increase in image quality. This means no (or
>dramatically reduced) digital artifacting for diagonal lines. When I bought
>the TRV-20, I compared it side-by-side on a monitor to a TRV900. I noticed
>that the 900 had noticeably better color saturation, particularly at low
>light levels, and dramatically less color noise. Will that also be true of
>the 950? I'm assuming it would, since this benefit would seem to be related
>to 3 ccds vs. 1.
The TRV950 likely does have better color (purity, bias,
and saturation), probably less noise, and possibly less
artifacting - though I have not tried one yet...
>3. Low light level performance. The old bugaboo. I know the 950 doesn't
>do as well as the 900, but is it better than the 20?
Unlikely, and possibly not as well in terms of ultimate
low-light reach (based on Sony specs...).
>I'm frequently
>frustrated by the 20 (I'm used to my old 600, which did pretty well in low
>light). I've found ways of getting around the 20's low light performance,
>but they involve lots of compromises. If the 950 does as well as my old
>600, I'd be satisifed.
>4. Decent image stabilization. IIRC, the 900 has optical stabilization.
>How about the 950?
Yes.
>The 20 uses electronic stabilization, which is okay, but
>not fantastic. Everything I shoot is hand held, and the bumps and bounces
>are annoying.
The different Sony stabilizers are about the same in
performance. They work well, with few artifacts, but
do not perform miracles...;-)
>5. White balance. The 20 sets white balance automatically, using what
>appears to be a small center spot. This results in dramatically unbalanced
>shots if the center of the frame happens to contain something very, very
>blue or very, very yellow. Auto white balance also seems to take too long
>to adjust. How are the 900 and 950 in this regard? Since they are prosumer
>cameras, I'm assuming they'd be better.
I prefer using the daylight white balance preset with
Sony camcorders for most daylight shooting; I prefer
auto-white for interiors. The slow response is intentional,
to prevent rapid color-balance shifts if you pan over
bright colored areas. I have not observed the "small spot"
response in the cameras - they generally "find" a good, if
not perfect, white balance, even in difficult conditions,
like with foliage, blue sky, etc.
>Things I don't care about at all:
>
>Still imaging capability.
>Blue tooth.
>Memory sticks.
>Recording short mpeg movies.
I have come to appreciate the memory-stick recording of
640x480 stills (I shoot 3-D stills for my web page, and
sometimes stills that can be dropped into videos. The
rest, I agree with...
>In short . . . all the dreck that might appeal to "family" shooter, but is
>of absolutely no use to me at all.
>
>Thanks!
I would look for a new or good used TRV900 for the best
combination in picture, size, *and* low-light range (and
it would be the cheapest); the VX2000 produces a better
picture (and better sound with the built-in mic) than the
900 (and it shoots in lower light levels), but is larger;
the 950 is small and likely has a very good bright-light
picture, but is likely limited in its low-light range.
The 950, though (as with the others, including the TRV20),
can be used at 1/15th second shutter speed for shooting
in two stops less light, with moderate picture
degradation...