On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 14:39:57 GMT, Chris Hurd wrote:
>Neuman - Ruether wrote...

>> Also, I think the low-light differences
>> are more than moderate...

>Incorrect. Have you directly compared the
>GL2 and VX2000? I have. The difference
>in lowlight performance is marginal, with
>the VX2000 having only a very slight
>advantage. It is not a "moderate"
>difference.

I refer you to:
www.bealecorner.com/trv900/trv950/images1.html
(where the low-light ranges of the VX2000, GL2,
TRV900, and TRV950 are compared in grame-grabs),
which appears to indicate that the GL2 low-light reach
is about equal to that of the TRV900, which I can tell
you from experience, is nowhere near that of the
VX2000. Given that the 1/3" CCDs of the
VX2000/PD150 have about twice the area of the 1/4"
CCDs of the GL2 and TRV900, for a similar pixel count,
and that the VX2000 chips are of the considerably more
sensitive "HAD" type in the VX2000, these results are
not surprising.

>The logical and objective conclusion in
>choosing between the two would be to
>consider *all* feature sets, and not simply
>low light performance... personally I would
>not want to give up the GL2's superior audio
>controls (a very clear difference) for an only
>slightly better image in low light (a very
>marginal difference). I would feel quite
>comfortable shooting in low light with
>the GL2. The system as a whole should
>be considered. Judging by superlatives
>alone is foolish mistake, in my opinion.

I agree with the first part, but I would not trade
rarely useful independent audio channel level
adjusts (also available on the PD150, BTW...) for
low light range and picture quality. And, I can tell
you that in event work, the superior low light range
of the VX2000 (generally recognized as outstanding
and unusual for a small camera) compared with
even my TRV900s is VERY useful - I can (and
often do) shoot comfortably with the VX2000
in lighting conditions that would challenge my
TRV900s (or the GL2). The VX2000 surpasses
the TRV900 and GL2 in an important picture
characteristic for many shooters, its low light range.
Trying to dismiss this as unimportant, as you have
above, does contradict the experience of many users...