On 1 Sep 2001 06:05:28 -0700, maxx069@tbaytel.net (AJ) wrote:

>> If the captures ("MX2000") at
>> http://www4.big.or.jp/~a_haru/index.html
>> are a reasonable indicator, you will be disappointed in the
>> DV951, also... The best stills from video cameras I have
>> seen have all been from the megapixel Sony and the VX2000,
>> but ALL *only* at 640x480 resolution, too low for printing
>> but good for web work. Any good 3+ megapixel still digital
>> camera will produce FAR better 8x10s than any video camera.
>>
>> David Ruether
>> d_ruether@hotmail.com
>> http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
>> Hey, check out www.visitithaca.com too...!
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>David,
>Always find your postings to be helpful in my search for a camera.
>Checked out the MX2000 at www4.big.or and was very disappointed in the
>quality of the stills as well the low light capability of the camera.
>Was hoping that it would be closer to a TRV900. Liked the Leica wide
>angle zoom lens. About ready to give up on 'megapixel' stills from
>camcorders at this time and go for a Sony TRV17 which is a nice size.
>Had hoped that the JVC2000 would do the job but from this thread it
>doesn't look like a good choice either. I have a film scanner and a
>good 35 so will try a 35/camcorder combo for next trip.

Sounds like a good plan...;-)
BTW, the TRV11 (discontinued, available cheap?) and the
tiny PC9 have the same pleasant picture as the TRV17 - and
the $95 Raynox HD6600-58 (with 30->37mm + 37->52mm + empty
Tiffen filter rim + 52->58mm step up rings) is light, and an
excellent WA converter for this (and most other camcorders).
VG sharpness and distortion characteristics at the wide end,
and good over most of the zoom range - available from
www.edmamarketing.com on special order, and maybe from other
dealers...