On Tue, 7 Aug 2001 16:58:16 -0700, "John Peterson"
>A while back, I was on the "fence" with the TRV900 and the VX2000. Well, a
>few months have passed, and I'm back in "research mode". I found your site
>helpful and informative at the time. :-)
Uh, it should still be, yes...? ;-)
(At: www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm)
>I also find that I'm in the same dilemma as Dick Bell: how does the TRV30
>compare with the 3 chippers? From Sony's comparison chart:
>http://www.sonystyle.com/digitalimaging/minidvcomparison.htm
>You'd think that the TRV30 would compare *very* well. But, I know that
>these types of comparisons and what they compare can be a little
>confusing/misleading.
Yes - unless you have had experience with at least some
of the entries, and so have some idea what to expect, the
specs can be pretty empty, aside from the features list...
(and even these can be wrong - the VX-2000 does not have
"night-shot", and can be misleading [the pixel count on
my TRV11 VF is lower than most, yet it is easy to use for
focus...], the resolution figures tell you nothing about
what the picture looks like, etc.)
>Have you had an opportunity to check out a TRV30?
>And, if so, how does it stack up with the TRV900/VX2000?
I have not used it. At this site are comparative
frame-grabs (not shot in the same light, alas...)
from the above shot under a similar set of conditions
(the TRV30 picture looks very sharp, but shows
considerable hue error) -
http://www4.big.or.jp/~a_haru/index.html
I have used the PC100 (similar to the PC110 and
TRV20 in imaging, and similar in concept to the TRV30),
and will comment on that in comparison with the TRV900
and VX2000, which I also own:
--- VX2000 ---
Sharpest picture, most neutral and pure color, least
artifacting (stair-stepping, over-sharpened edges,
moire-paterning), best combination of not excessive
contrast combined with good brilliance (i.e., excellent
tonality and clean blacks), by far the best low-light
ability, "iffy" stabilization at the lens long end
(but excellent short of that, with few negative
side-effects - like "swimming" or "bouncing-ball"
effects), very good sound with the built-in mic
(but with a need for a pad when using some external
mics with the otherwise excellent AGC).
--- TRV900 ---
Sharp picture (though noticeably less sharp than
the VX2000 near wide open), some minor color error,
some moderate artifacting (and some samples show color
fringing), a bit more contrast (but with a bit less
"solid" dark tones), good low-light ability, excellent
stabilizer, good sound with the built-in mic (though
not as good as the VX2000, and the AGC runs things
a bit high much of the time, allowing occasional brief
clipping).
--- PC100 ---
Sharp picture (about as sharp as the TRV900), some
bias toward blue, lower color saturation (but still
good for a one-chipper) noticeably more artifacting
than the TRV900 (stairstepping on contrasty edges in
all orientations, more obvious oversharpening),
high contrast (with a tendency to blow out highlight
detail and obscure shadow detail), noticeably
worse low-light ability (those pixels are *tiny*!),
excellent (digital) stabilizer, very good sound from
the built-in mic (hard to protect the mic of this
and the TRV900 from wind, unlike the VX2000, which
is excellent in wind with an added mic cover).
Bottom line: best is the VX-2000, next is the TRV900,
last is the good one-chipper. There is a direct
relationship between image quality and price, and an
inverse relationship with convenience among these.
Ideally, own them all....;-)
For more detail and frame-grabs, visit:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm
and www.bealecorner.com (mostly TRV900).
>As always, thanks for your help! :-)
No prollem...;-)