On Sun, 08 Jul 2001 10:57:24 -0400, rich haynes wrote:

>I have been having problems finding reviews for digital camcorders. I am
>an artist who would like to get into the world of digital video but it
>appears to be more confusing the more I read.

Have you found the (critical...) reviews at:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm

>I have been looking at the Sony TRV 900 if only because its been around
>a while, got great reviews and its borderline high-end of what I can
>afford. I will be using this camera probably 50% professionally (for
>source material to paint) and 50% for family and fun. From what I have
>read this 3CCD camera has been around a few years. I note some of the
>smaller, newer DV video cameras have outrageous zooms on them (TRV900 is
>48x?) and seem to be quite light and portable.

Digital zooms are useless, if you care about image
quality...

>I guess the child/artist
>in me get attracted to alot of bells and whistles but that little part
>of me that is logical says to go with something (the Sony TRV900) that
>has been around a few years.....but that may be a drawback as this
>technology sure seems to move FAST with advances and 3 years is a long
>time.........

Do not assume that "newer is better" - it often
really is "newer is more cheaply made, with more
'bells-and-whistles' to help sell it". The TRV-900
still holds up well compared with newer offerings.
Only the VX-2000 of "handy-cam" camcorder-types
easily beats it for image quality...
With one-chippers, though, I would say that
"newer is often better" - the biggest improvements
with time have been made there - with the best of
them, anyway... (I just bought a bunch of
one-chippers, and may get around to writing
reviews one of these days...;-) The TRV-900
picture is still better than that of any
one-chipper I've seen, though...