On Sun, 8 Sep 2002 12:50:45 -0700, "Paul Tauger" wrote:

>Thanks for the info. Now I'm really torn -- the smaller form factor, as
>compared to the VX2000, makes the 950 more attractive. I'm trying to figure
>out whether the 950 will do better than my current consumer camcorder, a
>TRV-20, in low light. The 20 is _almost_ good enough, but not quite. I'm
>replacing it primarily because I don't like the artifacting which is very,
>very noticeable on strong vertical and horizontal lines, e.g. when shooting
>buildings. I'm assuming the 950 will do better in this respect, as well as
>in color saturation. Now, if it will just handle low light . . .
>
>Does anyone know any store in Southern California where I can try these
>things side by side?

There MUST be one, certainly in LA...! ;-)
As for the low-light range, I suspect the range
of the TRV950 would be a tad (but just a tad...)
short of the TRV20 in low light, though near its
limit, as others pointed out, it is likely good,
and better than the alternatives short the VX2000
(and the TRV900, if "reach at any price" is OK -
though I find the 900 image quite acceptable in
low light, especially with a little tweaking in
Premiere...). As for artifacting, I would like to
see the motion image of the 950 - but I suspect
that the annoying artifacting of the TRV20/30
series would be much reduced (but not absent).
Even between the 900 and 2000 there is a
difference in this, with the 2000 picture being
"quieter" with motion, but not completely without
artifacting. As usual, it boils down to
portability vs. versatility/quality (with the
differences not being huge) - and for travel,
mebbe the 950 is the best choice...