On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 03:22:39 GMT, xyz@hotmail.com (xyz) wrote:

>Too bad to hear that about the TRV30. What would I be sacrificing by
>going with a TRV17 vs. a TRV30 besides the obvious more pixels. Is
>the TRV17 comparable with the TRV30 in low-light? Better than the
>TRv30? I ask about low-light because most digital camcorders take
>good video in day-light.
>
>My TRV525 D8 takes very nice video in bright light but you really
>notice the difference in quality when you start to shoot in low-light
>- comapred to the TRV730 D8. The TRV730 wins hands down. No
>question. I'm just wondering if such a gulf in low-light quality
>exists between the TRV17 and TRV30?

No. The 17 low-light "reach" is a little greater, but the image
quality near the limit of the 30's reach is a bit better (trade-offs...).
BTW, the 17 also uses a "HAD" chip, and shows the same effect
with lights, though to a lesser degree. As for comparisons, here
is a copy of an earlier post:

I have the PC9 and have had the TRV11 - both have the same
image quality as the TRV17. I also have the PC100 (similar
image quality to the PC110 and TRV20). I also have a TRV30
(similar image quality to the PC120). In the case of
the first two, the images are noticeably different. The PC9
image is neutral-warm, normal-high in contrast, moderately
sharp, and reasonably free of excessive negative picture
artifacts (a good "compromise" image, very pleasant, but
not ideal for shooting fine detail and textures); the PC100
image is noticeably sharper (about as sharp as the 3-chip
TRV900), neutral-cool, a bit high in contrast (highlights
burn out easily), and high in negative picture artifacts
(some subjects look quite bad, some quite good shot
with this camera - it trades universality and pleasantness
for excellent sharpness for a one-chipper); the TRV30 images
look similar to those of the PC100, but with a warmer color
balance. The TRV900 image, BTW, has excellent color
(saturation and balance, though a tad weak in green...),
very good sharpness, normal contrast (with better handling
of shadows and highlights compared with one-chippers), and
relatively minor negative artifacting. I would also consider
this one, since it is compact for a 3-chipper, still very
good, and (in the US) not much more expensive than the
TRV30. On a budget, I would consider the TRV17 (or the
earlier TRV11) for its average-good overall performance.