On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 17:25:52 GMT, "David McCall" wrote:
>"Mike Rehmus" wrote in message news:ansbmc$dn3$1@bob.news.rcn.net...

>> Until the VX-2000/PD-150 became available, the 900 was the camera of choice
>> if one did not have a DSR-300 or equivalent available. The 900 pictures,
>> shot sid-by-side with a PD-150 just are not in the same league. Not only is
>> the image much brighter but the noise level is very low and the colors are
>> good.

>I saw a PDX-10 (similar to a TRV950) next to a PD-150 (similar to a VX-2000).
>The PD-150 was much better in low light than the PDX-10.

Yes, and this is also true when comparing the TRV950/PDX-10
with its predecessor, the TRV900/PD100a - though, as pointed
out above, the VX2000/PD150 easily beats the TRV950 and
TRV900 in low light picture quality... This is unfortunate
since we all would love to have a 3-CCD camcorder with the
small size/weight and high bright-light picture quality of
the TRV950/PDX-10 combined with good low-light reach - but
this didn't happen...