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. [...]

For more on the picture differences (which
*are* surprisingly slight) between the VX2000,
TRV950, and GL2, see my comments in the thread
above, called "Sony VX2000 Replacement?" on the
frame grabs in the HARU comparison site at:
http://www4.big.or.jp/%7Ea_haru/temp020829/0208_3CCD.html
In short, other than for differences in sharpening
effects and low-light reach especially (favoring the
VX2000), and a bit in resolution (favoring the
TRV950 and VX2000), the pictures of all three look
very similar. I would like to see how the motion-video
shot with these three compares for relative freedom
from artifacting...