On Wed, 24 Oct 2001 01:32:33 +0100, Tony Morgan
>In article <3bd6e42d.29932872@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, Neuman -
>Ruether
>>On Tue, 23 Oct 2001 21:23:35 +0100, Tony Morgan
>>
>
>snipped....
>>>The TRV30 (which I bought after much consideration) has been *very* well
>>>reviewed in the specialist magazines here in the UK - being given the
>>>accolade "What Camcorder - Best Buy). Note that 3 years ago the same
>>>magazine only rated the TRV900 "Recommended". 14 months ago the TRV200
>>>was rated "Recommended" by the same magazine.
>>I give very little weight to magazine reviews/ratings...
>The UK "Which" organisation has much better analytical facilities than I
>have (and I suspect than you), e.g. spectrometers for colour balance
>etc. Also they do their comparative analyses on a level playing field
>(as exemplified in this thread).
But many aspects of what makes "a good picture" are quite
subjective... The image that is perfectly neutral in
color and the sharpest out there may have negative artifacts
not covered in the objective tests, but which could easily
make the picture quite unpleasant to view... You are lucky,
though, to have at least an objective basis to start
from - "tests" in our magazines are incompetent from both
objective and subjective points of view, and serve mostly
to further advertise products...
>>Obsolescent in what way?
>
>Ummm...
>
>Obsolescence = when production ceases, but a substantial amount
> of stock still remains unsold.
>
>Obsolete = when production has ceased and when no (or a *very*
> small amount of) residual stock is unsold).
>
>>It doesn't have a couple of recent
>>features,
>
>Nothing to do with features (see above). A lack (or otherwise) of
>features has absolutely nothing to do with the state of obsolescence.
This is not true (at least from our understanding of the word...).
Obsolescence here means "no longer useful".
>>but the basic camera is still one of the
>>top-performers relative to other 3-chip entries - and the
>>discontinuance of the TRV900 has been a rumor for a very
>>long time...
>
>>VX2000? If so, look at the history of the VX1000 - and
>>Sony would be foolish to discontinue this best of all
>>camcorders, which is selling well. 3-chippers tend
>>to stay in production many years, unlike the one-chippers...
>Ummm... I think that you might like to reconsider that view. Just
>consider what the life cycle is of *any* camcorder is. *Very* rarely
>more than three years - especially with Sony. In fact I can't recall
>*any* make/model that has been available for much more (I don't mean the
>occasional unit that's still in stock with a retailer/distributor).
As I pointed out, Sony 3-chip models tend to have very
long sales lives compared with one-chippers - more on the
order of 5 years or so before replacement, and even the one
replaced model, the VX1000, is still an excellent camera by
today's standards, as will be the TRV900 when it is
replaced. Your premise that one should not buy a TRV900
because it will soon be replaced by something better is also
not necessarily true because newer models are not always
better (sometimes they are just more cheaply made, and/or
have a bunch of minor features added [and may be the same
model underneath - like the TRV11 vs. the TRV17, the
PC5 vs. the PC9, etc.]).
>>>3. The TRV30 is better specified that either the TRV900 or the TRV2000,
>>> especially lower-weight, with much better low-light performance.
>>??????
>>The TRV30 is smaller and lighter, but it is neither
>>specified for, nor does it have, better low-light ability
>>than the TRV900 (or especially the VX2000, if that is
>>what you mean - there is no TRV2000 model here...).
>Ummm... I think you ought to have a look at Sony's specs.:
>
>TRV30 = 0.3 lux (0 lux with IR)
>TRV900 = 4 lux
>VX2000 = 2 lux
You are confusing "Nightshot" IR with lux rating for
full-color, "normal"-mode shooting - the TRV30
lux rating for that is 7, hardly better...! ;-)
>The only single item where the TRV30 spec is lower is in the max zoom
>(10x compared with 12x for the TRV900 and VX2000).
>>>In relation to (1) and (2) above, when a make/model is given (say) 8
>>>stars three years ago, its unlikely to attract more than 6 stars today
>>>when reviewed - since camcorders of all makes/models have improved in
>>>both features and quality of image.
>>Magazines are more into "new" than anything else...
>Not a very objective viewpoint :-)
No, but it is a valid "subjective" observation...;-)
>>>Also in relation to (1) and (2) above you might consider that once a
>>>model goes out of production, parts become increasingly expensive and
>>>repair costs escalate (especially at Sony Service Centres - since Sony
>>>want you to replace rather than repair).
>>This seems unlikely, for a few years, anyway...
>Its basic established manufacturing/marketing/support economics (and not
>only for camcorders). *All* manufactures are in the business of selling
>new (in production) models. They are sales-driven. They apply leverage
>by increasing spares/repair costs for obsolescent/obsolete models, and
>thus sell more of their new models. Ditto for cycling through their
>model range (once they've recovered their tooling costs and made a tidy
>profit on top to meet their targets).
In the US, at least for cars, it is legally required to
maintain a stock of repair parts. MFGRS do it also to
maintain "respect". I have bought parts cheaply from Nikon
(and had Nikons repaired by Nikon at normal prices) many
years after the products were discontinued. I had a
long-discontinued Sony TRV9 repaired by Sony for their
usual flat-fee (for $280, they replaced the transport and
heads). Such service practices tends to help future sales...
>I was in this situation with a Sony Mavica digital camera about a year
>ago. The UK quoted £400 for repair, when a unit two models later (of the
>Mavica) was currently available were only £500. Guess what my choice
>was?
Then Sony UK is not very "bright"...;-)
>>>FWIW I've had my TRV30 for nearly three months now, and I'm extremely
>>>pleased with it. I would recommend it to anyone.
>>Now that I may agree with, if I ever manage to get one...;-)
>>But I will also keep my TRV900 and two VX2000s...;-)
>Then you have absolutely no reason to change (or upgrade). But I thought
>we were talking about the *choice* of someone who had neither TRV900 or
>VX2000?
But each camcorder offers particular
advantages/disadvantages... THAT is good marketing, since
it causes some of us to own multiple models...! ;-)
-->IF<-- the TRV30 image is almost as sharp as the VX2000,
and -->IF<-- there are few (and tolerable) negative
picture artifacts to detract from the picture quality of the
TRV30, I will trade (***for some uses***) the smaller size
and weight of the TRV30 for the advantages of the
VX2000/TRV900. For some uses, though, the TRV30 will not
suffice when the 3-chippers will. There is no perfect
single camera, alas...