On Thu, 25 Apr 2002 04:40:58 GMT, Not A Speck Of Cereal wrote:

>As d_ruether@hotmail.com (Neuman - Ruether) so eloquently put:
>[] On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 05:05:22 GMT, none@none.net wrote:
>[]
>[] >Any comments?
>[] >Is it worth waiting for the 950?

>[] Speculating:
>[] The 950 is likely to have noticeably less
>[] low light range, and *perhaps* a "busier"
>[] looking picture with motion, but it is likely
>[] to have a sharper-looking picture in all light
>[] levels it can shoot in, with slightly better
>[] color...

>Due to the higher rez?

The higher pixel count, and "HAD"-type chips, which
appear to provide better color than the older type
used in the 900...

>[] It is smaller and lighter, and it will be
>[] more expensive (at least for a while...).

>But the difference between them isn't absolutely huge yet (~$1600-1800
>of the 900 vs. my guess projected discounted cost of the 950 at
>~$2000-2200). Now, when they start blowing out the 900s for
>$1000-1200, I might be listening.

$1600 is < $2000, which is < $2350, the price of
the better-yet VX2000... Choose your price-point
and features...;-) The TRV900 still looks like a
relative "bargain" to me...