On Sun, 02 Dec 2001 21:05:16 -0700, Mike Cromer wrote:
>On Sun, 02 Dec 2001 20:49:00 GMT, d_ruether@hotmail.com (Neuman - Ruether)
>wrote:

>
>>I agree with this. I was answering a specific question
>>about two cameras for a specific function... If you
>>read many of my posts, I have recommended the Sony
>>TRV11/17-PC5/9 to many as having the best compromise
>>among price/size/weight/sharpness/color-quality,
>>though these are generally at the bottom end of the
>>four basic Sony camcorder image-quality divisions of
>>models - and I sometimes use the PC9 and TRV30/PC100
>>for fun and even work, though their image quality
>>is inferior to that of my TRV900 and VX2000s...

>David,
>
>I have the VX2000 and was considering a 2nd camera for ENG-like
>documentary work - something unobtrusive, lightweight (carry in a
>backpack), etc. I was thinking TRV30 or TRV900. The specs on TRV30
>looked interesting but it is a single CCD. Asking you to repeat
>yourself, I know, but I take it you DO think the video quality is
>significantly superior on the 900?

Yes, "...and I sometimes use the PC9 and TRV30/PC100
for fun and even work, though their image quality
is inferior to that of my TRV900 and VX2000s...";-)
The TRV30 looks great until anything moves, then the
image is a jumble of "flappings" at scan-lines, and
crawling saw-tooth edges. SIGH!!! ;-) The image color
bias and contrast is a bit different on the TRV900
compared with the VX2000 (though its image color-bias
can be changed to better-match the 900's), and the
eyepiece finder on the 900 is the worst of any Sony
Mini-DV camera (stretching over it the big eyecup made
for the VX1000 helps...), but it is probably the best
2nd choice (and the batteries are compatible with the
VX2000).