On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 02:30:05 -0000, Tigadee wrote:

>No doubt the TRV900 will beat just about any consumer camcorder in low-
>light situations (and yes, I don't care about digital stills either since
>I already have a digital SLR) but in good to brilliant lighting
>conditions, I am suggesting that the TRV30 will equal the TRV900 in terms
>of details, colors and clarity.

I don't like to argue with second-hand info, but my experience so far indicates that the
PC100/PC110/TRV20
cannot equal the picture smoothness, detail, color saturation, and tonal range of the TRV-900 even in
bright light. The frame grabs at: http://www4.big.or.jp/~a_haru/index.html
indicate that the TRV30 may actually be sharper than
the TRV900, but all else (picture smoothness, tonal
range, color saturation, and low-light reach) appear
still to be inferior, and similar to the PC100. When
I get my hands on a TRV30, I may know more, though...;-)

>It is up to the individual which models suits their needs and budget. I
>think the TRV30 and TRV900 may be at about the same price when the TRV30
>does come out.
>
>An alternative which is both new and a 3-chipper is the Panasonic MX3000
>which I have read very good things about: That it beats the VX2000 in
>about every way, it is the same size as the TRV900, also has German
>(Leica) lens, Memory Card for stills, so-called megapixel perfoamnce for
>stills and (debatable) video when you add the 3 CCDs' pixels together.
>Only disadvantage I see is the small (but crisp) 2" LCD screen.

Do not believe everything you read...;-)
From the frame grabs on the web page above (second-hand,
alas...), the image sharpness, color balance, and
low-light reach appear considerably inferior to the
VX-2000... Again, I will know more, if I try one...