On Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:13:45 GMT, "Timothy O'Connor" wrote:
>"Paul Rubin" wrote in message
>news:7xu1taajdz.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
>> "Timothy O'Connor" writes:

>> > Supposing I could get this camera cheaply, is the VX2000
>> > small enough to be
>> > used as a general purpose camera, for holidays etc...?

>> What kind of question is that? Go to a store, try one, decide for
>> yourself.

>I did, but I was after peoples longer term views, since I was only allowed a
>brief handle.

I agree with PR's post - and for general "fun" use, I would
be inclined to go with the TRV900 also. The VX2000 is a
better performer, and not so large/heavy that you cannot
use it for almost all purposes, but it is harder to carry
(though I've always been mystified by why anyone would lug
around those monster "full sized" VHS cameras, but people
still do - and the VX2000 is more compact, with FAR
higher output quality...;-). BTW, the VX2000 is reviewed
at: www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/sony_dcr-vx2000.htm - where
its many advantages/quirks are covered (and there are
comparison frame-grabs between it and the TRV900 at:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm).