I have not tried the TRV30 yet, but I have recently compared
the TRV900 with several other Sony one-chip cameras (PC1,
TRV11, PC100 [the last is similar to the TRV20 in picture]),
and my conclusion is that as the pixel count goes up in
these (for video use...), so does the picture sharpness,
which is close to the 3-chip TRV-900 with the PC100 (though
the low-light range goes down as the pixels get smaller...), but
for color saturation, rendition of shadow and highlight
detail (without going black or white), and in smoothness of
contrasty edges with motion, the 3-chipper TRV900 has the
edge - and for low light range, there is no contest. The
TRV900 is bigger, heavier, and somewhat more expensive, but
it is still a better camera than the one-chippers, unless
the TRV30 produces some miracles...;-)

On 24 Jul 2001 11:49:57 -0700, teillon@teillon.com (Loren S. Teillon) wrote:
>
>I'm looking at these also.
>
>Pricing at Sony's site (still haven't found best pricing) shows the
>TRV900 at only $300 more than the TRV30. Is it worth spending the
>extra for 3 CCDs?

>> Definitely the TRV30. The 2000 has only 900K pixels and 690K active for
>> video.
>>
>> The TRV30 has 1.5 megapixels and 1 million active pixels for video. It is
>> a true megapixel video camera.
>>
>> Low-light performance between the two can't be too different.
>>
>> If anything, the TRV30 may still do better because it's extra pixels will
>> reduce noise, even if it doesn't do as well as the 2000. And with in-
>> doors, the TRV30 performs just fine, not to worry.