On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 08:49:22 -0700, "John Peterson" wrote:
>"Neuman - Ruether" wrote in message
>news:3c039bca.3119286@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2001 19:07:08 -0700, "John Peterson"
>> wrote:

>> >I'm a little concerned with the faint light vertical lines in bright
>light
>> >and high contrast images. They're very noticeable. Of the two times
>that
>> >I've used the camera, both times have this syndrome. I'm wondering if
>maybe
>> >the TRV900 might mitigate some of these issues for just a few dollars
>more?

>> Yes - the TRV900 does not use the same chips, and does not
>> show this problem (other than diffraction from the diaphragm
>> blades at small stops - makes a "star"...).
>>
>> >I wish Sony would come out with a *new* state of the art 3-chipper...
>;-)
>> >Otherwise, I'm very impressed with the technical capabilities of the
>camera!

>> Sony has...
>> It's the VX2000/PD150...;-)
>> The TRV900/PD100a still compares well against these,
>> though, for most casual purposes...

>Heh, hee! That's fair. Though, by "new", I mean released within the past
>year. There are advances in the technology that I *assume* are integrated
>in the newer TRV30 that aren't present in the TRV900/VX2000 which I hope
>will aid with the digital editing on a PC.

Nope. That protocol was determined years ago...
Also, people want to believe in improvements
in products with time (and these do happen - the
VX2000 is one fine machine [but not everything on
it is better than it was on the VX1000]), but
the truth is new models often are more cheaply
made, with new features added for sales reasons,
but for basic sound and picture quality, not often
are they really improved. The first two Mini-DV
camcorders on the market (years ago[!!!]) are
still kinda hard to beat (the Panasonic AG-EZ1U
and Sony VX1000), with some new models actually
inferior for picture and sound quality. Best
to choose from among the best designs out there,
regardless of whether or not they are "new"...